Bud Light Pain Continues

Attention spans are rather short, so it becomes a real question regarding Bud Light whether it can actually ever fix the problem it created when it teamed up with transgender Dylan Mulvaney and return itself to the #1 spot in its category.

I think the beer can recover. But I am not sure if it will ever do so fully.

Part of the problem has been the lack of any real apology nor acknowledgement that they "screwed up," and that has been weighing heavily on boycotters when they decide whether or not forgiving and forgetting is an option.

Of course, only time will tell. Surely 10 years from now will anyone even really remember who Dylan Mulvaney even was, let alone the controversy? Older generations will. But newer generations won't, and that's going to be who Anheuser-Busch, the parent company who owns the Bud Light brand of beer, is going to target through its marketing campaigns.

That being said, the controversy and the boycott live on, with AB still down more than 30% since the boycott started, and it has been holding steady. Sales have not otherwise picked up despite multiple marketing efforts to pull the brand away from the image of Dylan Mulvaney and instead focus on the workers—and now they've brought in Manning and other prominent athletes to try to bring the beer back around to more popularity.

Which, by the way, could be a good thing or a bad thing. For Manning, that is. It wasn't that long ago that veteran star Garth Brooks came under fire for supporting Bud Light quite vocally. I don't have stats on record sales or streams, but I do recall reading somewhere that he's been abandoned by at least a portion of his audience.

The thing for Bud Light was that its campaign (which they denied was even a campaign) simply came at the wrong time. Too many companies had tried to go woke and quite simply put, people simply had enough.

"You're shoving this identity thing down our throats, and we're sick of it. Just sell beer," they so much as said to AB. And it was a message to other companies as well that we're tired of being marketed feelings and ideology, and we're tired of being forced to make-believe that these ideas resonate with more people than they actually do.

It does seem to me that AB has pretty much gotten the message. The odd thing is that they are rather quietly acknowledging it. Rather than just come out and say it, they are simply looking for distance to right the situation for them. 

But again, only time will tell if Bud Light ever sees itself back in the #1 spot ever again. In the grander scheme of things, even if Bud Light can ever get to #2, sometimes that's not a terrible spot to be in either.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Looking for something different? Give my single, Where Do I Go a spin on Spotify.

Donald Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth

I recall being captivated and mesmerized by the ever evolving and twisting plot lines of that TV show, House of Cards. Even if the show was pure fiction, one wonders how much of it was actually true? Not the story itself. But how politics really operates. Behind closed doors. What really goes on?

Especially in our current times.

A show like that gives us a deeper look into what power actually looks like, and what people may be willing to do to get it and hold onto it. It's a dangerous place, Washington D.C. And perhaps if House of Cards had any basis at all in fact, I'll be damned if wasn't a fictionalized documentary somewhat loosely based on the life and careers of the Clintons.

What we have unfolding before us now is a new show. Except that this one isn't fiction. It's a reality show unlike any other one we have seen before. And people are glued to their screens. There are twists and turns at every corner. And the plots seem to get crazier than ever.

It started at the first scene when Trump came down his escalator at Trump Towers to announce he was running for president. The fire of politics was set ablaze and the powers on both sides' insides churned. Perhaps the threat wasn't truly appreciated at first. Until one-by-one Trump toppled what would have been top contending opponents on the debate stage and all along the campaign trail.

He had to be stopped.

And they tried everything to do it. The GOP scrambled to find a reason to bar him being nominated. Even when it was clear he would be the nominee, they tried to find ways to deny it. The Democrats were already in talks long before Trump even won the election about impeachment in case he actually did win.

Ultimately Trump did get the nomination of course. In the end to deny it would have been a form of political suicide for the Republican party. "But he won't win," they thought and talked about in closed circles. "We'll just have to deal with the reality that Hillary will be the president and we'll work on the next election."

But he did win. Not by the popular vote. But he won the electoral college, and in the end that's all that matters. And he won despite what all the polls suggested that it was a practical shoo-in for Hillary Clinton.

The party had no choice but to rally around him. The people decided he was not only the president, but the presiding face of the Republican party.

But of course, his presidency was fraught with one challenge after another. He was caught in the crosshairs of investigations, impeachment hearings, a media onslaught and a long list of what became known as Never-Trumpers within his own party.

Not a single accomplishment would go without scrutiny and even denial it ever occurred. The Democrat party all but censured Trump, not by vote, but by their actions, dismissing nearly everything he tried to do, claiming his presidency was not only illegitimate. But that he stole it with the help of the Russians.

Without question, I don't think anyone can deny that Trump's presidency was perhaps the most sensationalized of any presidency ever. The entire term ran like a TV show right down to a Speaker of the House ripping up a State of the Union speech—something you would have thought you would never see in real life except on TV.

And then there was the election fallout. People went to bed with Trump clearly in the lead only to wake up the next morning and discover that Biden had won. And there were all sorts of controversy surrounding that. And then there was the "insurrection." 

This was a made for TV series of events unlike any other even the best writers could ever have dreamed up. And now we have all the king's horses and all the king's men once again trying to deny Trump's ability to even run with states sending cases to their state supreme courts to deny primary ballot access.

And of course, there are all the wild accusations of criminal intent and indictments stacked up against him—whether or not there is any merit to any of it isn't what matters. It's made the entire process a show that is impossible not to watch.

Because it's that power we're seeing coming front and center for us all to witness first-hand. This is the true nature of politics, or at least what it has become. 

It has been the greatest show on Earth, and we don't know how it ends yet. We're just in season 7. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Is 2024 Being Set Up to be Rigged?

What is attempting to overthrow the government? Or, not just overthrowing the government, per se. But overthrowing the process of elections? I mean, anything I say here may well be a bit of a stretch, and I will give you that right off the bat if you want to make that claim.

These are just thoughts and opinions, right? 

I happen to think that those two things are simply things that are done to otherwise rig the process or stack the odds in one's favor over another.

When Donald Trump was first elected, of course, we had the whole Russia Collusion accusation to deal with. Hillary Clinton was out there and quite vocal about her thoughts that Donald Trump, with the assistance of the Russian government, had stolen the election.

They wanted to make it grounds for an impeachment while they (the Democrats) were hard at work trying to concoct other stories and accusations to set grounds for impeachment hearings to commence just in case that one didn't stick.

And of course, it didn't stick because it was a smelly, heaping pile of donkey dung.

The Democrats literally denied the election, and denied that Trump was duly elected, and therefore, for all intents and purposes, if you wanted to go there, the Democrats effectively censured the President of the United States.

They needed no official vote to censure. They did it merely by their actions. Meanwhile, the entire job of the Democrat Congress was to ignore and defile and dismiss the president and any actions he wanted to take as president, effectively denying at the same time the American people of having their work done.

It was an abomination at the least. And it seemed that no one, or hardly anyone, batted an eye. Not the media, not any of the voters who put them in office—they were mute on the issue of what was going on. 

How is that not overthrowing the government when you completely deny who is leading it? When you completely ignore the process? 

And then, of course, you have all the impeachments that happened. The primary aim of those to simply remove a duly elected president only on the basis of the fact that his presidency's legitimacy was being denied.

There was no removal because there was no conviction and there was no conviction because there were no high crimes or misdemeanors.

Now we have the removal of Trump from ballots, and in the case of two states so far, Maine and Colorado, they have voted to do just that. Granted, there will be an appeal on the Colorado case to send it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Maine has stayed its ruling until the Supreme Court rules on Colorado. Nonetheless, they are trying really hard to remove critical electoral votes, making it much more difficult for Trump's chances to win in the general against Biden.

How is it not overthrowing the government to remove your strongest opponent? How is it not rigging an election? How is it not overthrowing the process of elections or silencing the voices of the voters? How is it that the government we know to be of the people, by the people, and for the people is now being decided by the government itself?

How is that not an insurrection?

Why should state supreme courts have a weigh-in on who becomes president? Shouldn't that be the choice of the people? Of the voters? And on top of that, does it not become obvious what the aim is if the people who are making these choices are politically motivated—and clearly so?

Whether or not you are in the camp of believers that the 2020 election was stolen, you have to give thought to the idea that if the states succeed in removing Trump from the ballot and Biden wins reelection by default, that is exactly what they have done—stolen an election.

Who else on the GOP side has the support to win, right? Because Trump's in the lead by nearly 60 points. And if Trump is not on the ballot, how many Trump supporters will switch their vote to one of the other candidates on the GOP side?

They (the Democrats) are citing the "insurrection" as their grounds for removing him from ballots. At the same time, have we really investigated what happened on January 6th? And by really investigated, I mean, have we REALLY INVESTIGATED what happened on January 6th?

The answer is no.

Where's the media except to accept the narrative as it has been told to us? Where's the special counsel to examine what really happened, to see if it was funded and by whom, and to dig deeper into who the people were who stormed the Capitol that day?

And frankly, I think more evidence points to Trump not inciting anyone than they will have us believe. But that's their story and they are sticking to it and they are now using it as a means to expel an opponent.

To steal an election.

I think what's important is that the American people decide. If Biden wins, fine. He wins. But it's not up to the government, nor is it up to the courts, to decide who gets to run.

My thought is that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike these rulings down. I believe the rulings are unconstitutional and made on the basis of unproven "facts." But who knows anymore? Can we trust that anyone in government, in any branch, can be honest and open and make the right decisions without political influences or bias?

If the decision by these states stands, that's it. We are in a land of kangaroo courts and officially a banana republic, and I fear once we become that, we can't go back from it. It's done. Elections won't matter. Campaigns won't matter. Because the government will choose its leader and no matter what the public wants, the government will have the final say.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with all the latest writings wherever I may write them. Looking for something a little different? Check out my quirky album, Pink Flamingoes, on Spotify.

Wasting Money: Just Stop Doing It

Money is not the most important thing in life to be sure. But when you don't have enough of it, it really can make life difficult to navigate. And, despite what anyone says, it can also make life less enjoyable. When you are strapped for cash and living paycheck to paycheck, it's like having an albatross constantly flying over your head.

When it comes to saving, though, there's a common utterance by most people. "I can't afford to save." That's because when people think of money or savings or even wealth, and especially building it, they think of income.

I continue to argue that money is rarely an income issue and almost always a spending issue. Having money comes from having a good mindset about money. It comes from constantly thinking of money in terms of its real value.

The pennies are what matter more than anything, and it's the pennies we tend to rarely think about when we consider saving. That hurts us really bad in the end because pennies tend to add up faster than dollars, and because we think of them as less important, they leave our hands far faster than the dollars do.

How many times have you said, "What's five cents?" Say that 20 times and you've wasted a dollar.

The key to saving is simply understanding where you are wasting your money. It's not the only thing you need to think about. But especially if you happen to be one of those people who say, "I can't afford to save," this is the first step to realizing you can actually afford to save if only you think about your spending differently.

It may sound absolutely ridiculous to consider, for example, cutting open an "empty" tube of toothpaste. But it may surprise you to know that when you can squeeze the tube no longer, there's still about 3-5 brushings worth left inside.

It may not make you rich to get every last drop out of the tube. But if you throw the tube away when there's still more toothpaste inside, you are literally throwing money away. You'd never consider tossing a nickel into the trash, would you? But even if it's not a literal nickel, many people do this all the time.

Avoid buying coffee at the coffee shops. Heck, avoid K-Cups for that matter. It is costing people a fortune. And many people who say they can't afford to save are at least using K-Cups which cost about twice as much as regular coffee does.

Avoid eating out for lunch, especially during the workweek. Pack lunches and save. Beyond that, avoid the after-shopping lunch out. Does it make sense to anyone that you are hauling $100 worth of groceries home in your trunk and then stop at Burger King for a hamburger before you get home to unpack them?

Sure, many people may say, "But I consider my coffee and my lunches out to be a treat." Okay. Fine. Fair enough. But if you also say you can't afford to save, how do these treats fit into the why? The reality is that most of the time anyone can afford to save. They just don't realize where they are wasting their money.

There is some truth to the saying that a cheapskate can squeeze a penny out of a wooden nickel. It simply means finding value where there is none otherwise perceived.

I could write a hundred different ways to save money. In fact, this blog is loaded with tidbits and details if you dig around a bit. But the basic idea for this post is to simply help to instill a sense of thought about money and saving not in terms of how much you make—or even how much you don't make. But to think of it in terms of what you waste.

I don't care if you make minimum wage and have four kids to feed. You can save if you know where to look. But of course, you have to look.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with all my latest writings wherever I may write them.

Making Your Side Hustles Count

When it comes to ways to make extra money these days, it can be quite a long list. From blogging to doing online surveys and myriad side hustles, the possibilities are really rather endless. And of course, people are simply willing to pay people to do many things if it saves them time or if it happens to be something they just don't want to do.

But what should the aim be? And what do you do with the money?

People take on activities such as these for a list of reasons as long as the list of what you can do. From saving for a vacation or simply paying day to day expenses, everyone wants a little something more if they can get it.

When it comes to money for me, though, I always look at it more in terms of what it will be worth rather than what it is worth now.

In other words, as I have said many times, if all you do with money is spend it all, it is essentially worthless. That goes for a paycheck as well as any money you may earn doing things online or doing side hustles.

Online earnings and side hustles are mostly short-term endeavors—and when it comes to online earning opportunities, the shelf life is typically even shorter. If I want more money, really what I want to do is make any extra money last longer and do more for me.

Back in the day, for example, there were a couple of very lucrative writing or sharing platforms that were in operation. One was WebAnswers and the other was Bubblews. Both offered great opportunities to earn several thousands of dollars per year doing nothing more than simply a little writing and sharing of ideas and thoughts of the day.

A similar site exists today at myLot. Although the days of getting paid "big bucks" to participate are no longer here. Still, the site does pay something.

The one thing I did was to pretend the money wasn't there at all. In other words, I wasn't really earning anything to use to pay for things. Again, I asked the question, "What is the value of this money tomorrow?" And more importantly, what is the value of the money when the opportunity to earn it no longer exists?

WebAnswers and Bubblews may have ceased to exist as well as the opportunity to earn from them did. But at the same time, the opportunity to make the earnings I did receive from them continue to offer me something of value did not.

Instead of doing these things just to make an extra buck for something I wanted today, I kept it so that it could continue to earn long after the paydays ended.

The money I made then continues to make money now.

I think doing things to make extra money, no matter what it is, is important. If there's money on the table, you grab it. But if all you do is spend it as fast as you make it, you're simply forever seeking more and more, and you're never really getting ahead.

I think investing the money you earn from any online source or side hustle is the best thing you can do to ensure the money actually does something for you that is productive and useful.

As I like to say of any money, I'd rather spend the money my money makes than spend the money my ass makes. To me that just makes more sense. If I am going to take the time to make any extra money, and put in the effort to do that, I want it to be something that actually provides me with more opportunity to actually have more money.

It's just something to think about. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with all the latest writings wherever I may write them.

George Santos Ousting Right for the Republican Party

So, embattled freshman Republican House representative George Santos is out, narrowing further the already very narrow 9 seat majority. He is only the 6th member in U.S. history to be expelled from the House.

But it was the right decision.

I think sometimes elected officials get too wrapped up in their politics, especially their political ambitions or needs. Like keeping your majority. Or not wanting to "look bad," without regard to why they are there in the first place.

To do the work of the American people at the people's will and in the people's interests.

Granted, there were opposers on the Republican side, but mostly, considering a two-thirds vote is required to remove a member of Congress, the Republican party was on board with the decision to expel Santos.

The scandals were just too many, and there were real crimes too. Some still under investigation of course and therefore so far alleged. Yet at the same time, there was enough that surfaced that would have made it impossible to keep Santos around.

For example, inappropriately using campaign funds for things like Only Fans and Botox treatments.

The only thing that might have protected the man would have been had he been a Democrat instead of a Republican. Which brings me to a bit of a point that I try to make often, that sometimes things on the Republican side, and certainly this has been true lately, tend to seem a little bit like chaos.

The thing is that Republicans are guided by doing what's right. And sometimes that means that things are harder for Republicans.

It is a double-edged sword, of course.

Unlike the Democrats who simply toe the party line and only have interest in maintaining their power, Republicans are more concerned about getting the work done and making sure the right people are in a position to do it.

Like the whole recent debacles over deciding our Speaker. Fighting over McCarthy, then ousting him, and then returning to fight over who was next was a nightmare. Even I can admit that. I wanted my party to simply rally behind someone and get on with it.

But in hindsight, I do think it's important to get it right. It shouldn't always be just a one and done thing. Decisions matter. They should matter.

It looks like chaos, but it is actually order that sets these things into motion. The problem is not necessarily how Republicans do things. They don't have an honest media on their side to report what's really going on and why they are so divided on certain issues and choices.

The media only reports the perceived chaos, and the American people don't give it much thought as to what's behind it.

It appears all the time like the Democrats just have their house in order. "Wow, they can really decide things clearly." But the reality is that they can't. And they don't. Again, it's about power and control for them. It doesn't matter if it's the right person—it just needs to be Democrat and that's enough for them.

Look at John Fetterman. Look at the disastrous leadership of Nancy Pelosi we had to endure.

And that's not to say there aren't kooks and bad people on both sides. There are plenty on the Republican side to be sure. It is simply that when it comes to Republicans it is harder to be a loser and get to stick around, because either the voters are going to act or the party itself will.

You will be held to a higher standard and more to account if you are a Republican. 

Who will take Santos' place? Who knows? There will be a special election and I assume there will be a run between a Republican candidate and a Democrat one. Santos has left a bad taste in voter's mouths, and I think it's highly likely a Democrat wins his seat. 

But we'll see. As much as I'd prefer a Republican to win, seeing Santos go was still the better alternative no matter what happens. We can't keep people like George Santos around just to save a majority or keep a seat filled. To do so defeats the purpose and even if we win by helping to hold down a majority, we lose by what the person does while he's there.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with all my latest posts from wherever I may write them.

SHOULD Business Leaders Be More Careful About Their Opinions?

Our freedom of speech is a very important thing, and something that I have never taken lightly. Part of what I do is to communicate my thoughts, and having the freedom to share them is paramount. Which brings me to revisiting some comments I made a couple of posts ago, wherein I suggested that "Business Leaders May Be Wise to Just Clam Up."

One of the guys I mentioned was one very vocal business leader, Elon Musk. I think it would be fair to say that a lot of the time he's in the news more for what he says than what his businesses do. And it's caused some problems for him as well as some of his shareholders.

Whether it's right or wrong, businesses take hits for things the CEO's and owners say. Either the customers respond, or shareholders do.

Take Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light, and the Dylan Mulvaney can, or the My Pillow guy.

As I alluded to in my other post, it's not always necessarily about which side your position happens to be on. Chick-Fil-A, for example, has strong opinions against abortion and gay marriage, as does Hobby Lobby. Their businesses have soared with support from a like-minded clientele who agree with their stance.

The point is that, even though these are businesses separate of people, they are still run by people. And the people who run them have just as much of a right to express themselves as the rest of us do.

Should exercising our rights cost us?

In my post I said that it often does, but also suggested maybe it shouldn't. That at the end of the day perhaps it would be better to simply say of any CEO, "Hey, I disagree with what he's saying, but I like the product and can respect his right to say what he wants."

What has led me to revisit this train of thought has been things Elon Musk has recently said. Things that resonate with me and cause me to rethink my own stance a little bit. 

I still think it is probably best, in this ever-heated world we live in when it comes to politics, to pipe it down as much as you can and keep the best interests of the business in mind. Because if the business is impacted, it hurts more people than just the one who holds a particular belief.

There are workers and shareholders at stake. They all have just as much invested in the business as the CEO's and owners do. At least in terms of the workers, it's their livelihoods on the line.

Take, for example, the other day as I was in the liquor aisle at my local grocery store. I drink Miller Lite because that's my beer of choice. But I have been hard on Anheuser-Busch for their Dylan Mulvaney can and have written several times saying that "we should bring the pain and let woke know what happens when you go there."

The Bud Light pain lives on, and rather than restocking the cold case, all that AB merchandiser could do was make note of what remained on the shelf that just won't sell. You have to think he wonders, if the boycott continues, what impact that could have on his job. And he may have the same opinion as the customers do. 

There is another thing to appreciate here, and I think it's a bit of a message—albeit coming from Elon Musk. Right now, although it fluctuates a bit, the richest man in the world. What does the left always say? What's their sell?

That the rich care only about one thing. The money.

Elon Musk is quite literally spitting in the face of that idea. And he's come right out and said it. He doesn't care. "I'll say what I want to say. If the consequence of that is losing money, so be it." 

What he is acknowledging is that there can be consequences from voicing certain opinions. People may foist their discontent and scorn on the businesses they are in charge of. That's the risk you take when you say something, especially things that may be controversial, or where there may be a deep division of opinion.

At the same time, he is also acknowledging that what he holds dearer than the money or the consequence of losing it, is his right to speak freely and openly. In other words, he is essentially saying he is not willing to give up himself and who he is just for the sake of making a buck.

That's profound when you think about it. Here is the richest man in the world saying that there are some things that are far more valuable, and far more important to hold onto, than money.

As much as I want to follow my own thoughts, that for the good of the business, business leaders simply clam up—his words lead me down a different path and a different train of thought. Should the objective of disagreeing with someone be to destroy them?

Moreover, isn't doing that a very dangerous path to go down? And is Elon Musk sort of alluding to that? Is his message partly to help people to understand it?

When you squash the freedoms of people to express themselves, you lose the value of who you are as a person. The world becomes shaped by a consensus rather than a discussion.

What does it say about the advertisers who decided to pull ads on Musk's X over some things he tweeted they felt uncomfortable with, or disagreed with? What are their thoughts on the Constitution, for example?

The whole idea of free speech is based on the premise of being able to freely express your opinions without fear of persecution. Yes, there are always going to be consequences depending on what you say. That has always been the case. And perhaps when it comes to business, that's as true there as it is anywhere else.

You can say what you want, but you have to accept some bad may come from it if a lot of people find it cringeworthy, frightening, or disgusting or ugly.

It's a double-edged sword is what I am saying. So, essentially, I am a bit on the fence. If I am a shareholder of a company, I don't want my investment to be negatively impacted by something my CEO says. At the same time can I still respect his right to do it? Can I be angry and tell him to shut up just because I shared in the consequences of what he said even if I may not agree with his position?

After all, I invested in the company. Not necessarily in the man who runs it. I value my investment. But I also value my rights more. And I have the same rights as the CEO does. In other words, I am understanding that I really can't have it both ways. And Musk is sort of saying that too.

It causes me to rethink, as well, my own reaction to certain things. Like the Bud Light controversy. Who exactly am I delivering pain to if I show my dislike of an opinion by not buying their products? The man who had the opinion I disagreed with? Or the potentially tens of thousands of people who will suffer the consequences along with him who may not also share his opinion? Who may also side with me.

If nothing else, I think what Elon Musk provides us with is a valuable insight into our own psyche and our own condition. Why are we so apt as a people to destroy someone who thinks differently than we do, and yet at the same time, consider our own opinions having a higher weight than other opinions?

When you attempt to silence one opinion through delivered pain, eventually the same will happen with one of your opinions, and if expression is silenced through fear, does it not eat away at the idea of freedom as a whole?

In other words, where's the line drawn?

I rather admire the idea that one is unwilling to change their mind or keep quiet simply because someone else thinks they should—or because, like the fate of Mike Lindell, you may well lose everything you've built by doing it.

What is ultimately being fired upon is not the business. It's the opinion. The business pain is simply the mechanism by which that pain is delivered. As a message. As a warning to others. Toe the line or else. Conform or else. 

Isn't that what communist countries do?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with my latest posts from all the places I may write them.

Berkshire Hathaway: A Great Company I Can't Buy

What's not to love and admire about Warren Buffet, affectionately known as The Oracle of Omaha? A man who has been well known in the investment community as the guru of gurus—few people in the investment world fail to perk their ears up when the man speaks.

I listen too, and quite intently.

Several times I have considered buying shares of the company he runs, Berkshire Hathaway, which owns many well-known and profitable businesses like Geico Insurance, See's Candies, Dairy Queen, Pilot Flying J and many others. The company also has major controlling interests in several other businesses like Coca-Cola and others.

It's a pretty long list with lots of familiar names.

And when it comes to diversification, a key element to consider in any successful portfolio, Berkshire Hathaway is as diversified as a company can be, investing in businesses from retail to insurance to logistics, pipelines, rail roads, real estate, and banking. 

Add to that, thanks to the investing genius of Warren Buffet and his sidekick who is just as brilliant as Buffet is, Charlie Munger, it is easy to say it's not only a great company to own. It's extremely well run and profitable as well, having offered investors impressive returns over the years.

So, what's my issue?

For me it's simply that the company is too closely connected to Warren Buffet himself. He's a man who is one unto himself. There have been few like him before, and once he's gone, I am not sure there will be another quite like him.

When it comes to the company he runs, he's the main attraction. His words matter. Investors trust in his judgement. His annual meetings draw in huge crowds of people who want to enjoy the experience and hear what The Oracle of Omaha has to say. 

His annual meetings aren't just about what's happening in the markets, or with the business, or even what his outlook of the economy happens to be. It's an event, done convention style with lots of fun and entertainment thrown in the mix—it's a shareholder's meeting unlike any other.

It's an experience and moment not unlike going to see The Rolling Stones or Metallica. You're going to want to tell your friends. You're going to want to share what happened there.

While Warren Buffet seems healthy and going strong, he's 93. Charlie Munger is 99 and will turn 100 in January. And again, Warren Buffet essentially is Berkshire Hathaway. The man and the company are nearly inseparable when you think of them.

The reality is that no one lives forever. Not even The Oracle. He will pass, as will Munger, and while there is a well-planned successor in place in Gregory Abel, one wonders, despite his being a protégé of sorts, who has been vigorously vetted and groomed for the position to take over the reins when Buffet's gone, whether he has the same intellect and character that Buffet has gifted us with over many decades.

There is no doubt that Berkshire Hathaway will exist long after Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger are no longer with us. But can one expect some changes under Abel? I think that's obvious. And what about Abel's successor? Who takes over if Abel dies or simply decides he doesn't want to do it? What does his succession plan look like? And how careful will his selection be compared to Buffet's?

Think The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. There was something about that show that just made it Johnny's, even though to be fair, he wasn't the original host of the show. But also, to be fair, Jack Paar was no Johnny Carson. Carson made that show. And no one after him, even Jay Leno, could quite capture the same love and admiration nor audience that Carson could. 

Berkshire Hathaway wasn't always Warren Buffet either. Warren Buffet made the company.

When Johnny Carson bid his farewell and drew himself behind the curtains for the final time, the show may have gone on. But it was not at all the same show, and never has been since.

I think of Berkshire Hathaway this way post Buffet. The company will remain and will probably still be a great company. It may bear the same name. But it will never be the Berkshire Hathaway that makes it so appealing as an investment today.

In other words, will it be the Berkshire Hathaway we know today with Abel in charge where investors will be as excited about it? Will Abel's words have the same interest and appeal as when Buffet speaks?

I don't think so.

And for that reason, while I love and admire Warren Buffet and love and admire the company he built, it's a tough sell for me to buy shares because what you are buying is essentially Warren Buffet when you buy the stock.

And he's on short time.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with all my latest posts from all the places where I may write them.

©2023 by Jim Bauer. All rights reserved.

Cartoon generated by AI. Caption by Jim Bauer. ©2023 by Jim Bauer. All rights reserved.

Business Leaders May Be Wise to Just Clam Up

If you're in the business of being in business, maybe it's best just to keep your mouth shut. And that happens to be a statement coming from a rather staunch supporter of the 1st Amendment. Granted, everyone is entitled to have an opinion. Everyone is also entitled to share their opinion.

Businesses are not necessarily simply standalone entities. By themselves they are, of course. But at the same time, they're run by people. Regardless of what a business' aim is in terms of the business itself, the people who run them become an extension of their business.

What they say matters.

It's not a new thing, by the way. Business owners and leaders being vocal about their political views or other ideas. Henry Ford, for example, was quite vocal about his antisemitism. Did his opinions have an impact on his car making business?

No.

But we're living in highly charged political times. The country is more divided now than it has ever been. And opinions matter. On top of that, business leaders are also viewed a bit differently. They have always been the evil, greedy rich guy, mind you. 

At the same time, the way information is disseminated is also very different. Not only do you have the 24-hour news cycle, but the media is also considerably more biased in their approach to the news and about what they report on—and are much less objective than ever. And unabashedly so, by the way.

Many of the familiar faces we see on nightly "news" broadcasts aren't even reporters. Instead, they are commentators. And what they say is not driven necessarily by what's actually happening. But by what their political leanings happen to be.

The agenda, if you will, is not to report the news as it happens. It is to shape it into whatever you want it to be.

And to deliver a message, and often, to change minds—or, to form opinions in the minds of their viewers that become truth even if there is no basis in fact necessarily.

In the recent past we've seen a number of businesses falling victim to their opinions. And it happens along both sides, by the way. It does seem that lately conservatives are being hit a bit harder. But that's not necessarily the case altogether.

Mike Lindell, for example, the owner of the once very successful My Pillow business, has been reduced to rubble. He's as close to being bankrupt and broke as it gets. And it has nothing to do with his business or the products he sells.

It was his opinion that did it.

Anheuser-Busch got hit too. And their pain was for having a liberal viewpoint. The Bud Light controversy lives on to this day, and the company is still feeling ongoing pain for its Dylan Mulvaney can.

Another rather vocal guy, Elon Musk, has been suffering all sorts of pains for various opinions he's had, that he is quite vocal about, and unashamed of obviously. X, formerly known as Twitter, which he now owns, is reportedly going to lose $75 million as a result of advertiser exodus, a direct response to opinions he's spread.

And it has impacted his other business, Tesla, as well. Maybe not necessarily in terms of sales. But certainly, in terms of share value.

It's not to say that once you enter the CEO's office you should have to give up your inalienable rights offered to any other American citizen. At the same time, all decisions have consequences. Good or bad. And I think taking into account the potential impact of the things you say, is an important and worthwhile consideration.

A business should ultimately succeed or fail based on what it does. Not necessarily on how it thinks. And again, because the people who lead these businesses represent them, their minds become the mind of the business. Their opinions become intermingled.

It's not unlike so many other things we consume. Be it sports or music or theatrical entertainment. We want the product. We don't necessarily want to know what those people think about this thing, that thing, or the other.

We want athletes to win. We want actors to act. We want musicians to play music. And we want businesses to simply offer products we want and need.

When an actor spouts off and says something we find cringeworthy, it tarnishes the brand. It makes us feel uncomfortable about our support. Our support becomes attached to supporting an idea rather than the product.

If you pick up a Bud Light, you're not saying, "It's a good brand that I like to drink." It's now an extension of your own politics and what you support. Holding onto a Bud Light now says, "I support LGBTQ+ rights."

The products you use and the people you support behind them now become extensions of who you are. That's dangerous for any business. When you comingle a brand with a set of ideals, you compromise the brand's viability.

And this is what we happen to be seeing happening. 

Anne Lappe once famously was quoted as saying, "Every dollar you spend casts a vote for the kind of world you want to live in." It's better, when it comes to the brands we want to buy, to associate them with what the brand is selling on its own merits. Not on how we think the brand thinks or feels about something.

If you are in business and vocal about your opinions, it gives consumers a reason other than the product to make a decision about whether to buy it or not. 

The 1st Amendment is a very important right that we have as Americans. And the Constitution, nor the exercise of any of our rights should never be taken lightly or necessarily abandoned. No matter who you are. 

But at the same time, if you want to build a business and have it be successful, you also have to be aware of what you do and what impact it may have on the brand or business itself.

There is a flip side to this. Should we, as Americans, punish the businesses? Or should we be more attuned to understanding that sometimes someone will have an opinion that does not mesh with our own, and perhaps rather than telling business owners to shut their mouths, perhaps we should be more respectful of one's right to have an opinion that may not match the one we hold ourselves.

There was a time, I think, when one simply disagreed. Now, if you disagree, that person and everything he's worked for must be destroyed. Until some level of civility returns in society, it might be best to simply pipe up and leave your opinions to yourself.

Like the things I write about the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with my latest posts from wherever I may write them.

Happy Thanksgiving from the Springboard and a Little Bit of Prippa Rep Prepishny

Well, here we are, having arrived at yet another day of thanks and, well...food of course. Tonight, we will indulge in both turkey and ham, as is at least our family tradition along with all the usual fare found on most Thanksgiving dinner tables.

We'll see if the rolls, this year, make it out of the oven before someone finally realizes they aren't out on the serving table or a reminiscent odor of something burning permeates the air.

"The rolls!"

Last year may have been the first year in many years the rolls actually weren't burnt. So, just to keep the tradition alive and well, we burnt one anyway.

What am I thankful for? I suppose a lot of things. I always say any day spent above ground is a good day, and I suppose so long as I am above it now, writing this day's blog, that's a good day and I should be thankful.

I am thankful for my family, especially my wife who, for whatever reason I've never been able to quite put my finger on, still puts up with me after 16 years of marriage and 18 years of togetherness.

She's either insane. Or she loves me.

I am also, of course, thankful to you, dear reader, who comes by here from time to time and now and then to hopefully be entertained by my thoughts and opinions—and hopefully as well by my witty nature in delivery.

Is it witty?

I am thankful that, for whatever they are worth—and we all know that often they aren't worth much—that at least the polls seem to be indicating Trump's beating Biden and we may be able to end this nightmare we've been enduring for the past 3 or so years.

Speaking of Biden, might I also applaud him on yet another brilliantly delivered "address" to the nation when he pardoned this year's turkeys, Liberty and Belle, and in the time-honored tradition of Biden speeches, he was able to carefully stumble around his words like a drunk trying to pronounce supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

"They had to work hard and show patience, and be willing to travel over a thousand miles," Biden began. "You could say even this harder than getting a ticket to the renaissance tour, or, or, or prippa rep prepishny's tour..."

I think he meant Taylor Swift and Prepishny is probably Britney Spears of course. Either way.

May your day be filled with food, fun, great conversation, and newly created memories to be cherished for years to come. May your turkey be moist and delicious, and may your evening be pleasured by full tummies and perhaps a cocktail or two.

Or 6 or 10.

And may you be able to make your way to the comforts of your warm home safely, and better able to recite your speeches post cocktails than Biden could recite his sans any.

Happy Thanksgiving and I will catch you on the other side. Onward and upward and God speed or whatever else can be said about going forward with dignity, pride, and success. And thanks again for being here. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to find all of the latest writings from wherever I may write. And hey, Christmas is right around the corner, my wife has the credit card, and any money is helpful. Why not spin my album, Pink Flamingoes, a few times to help a guy out from things beyond his control? You can also check out my other blog where I talk about anything and nothing, The Springboard Journal.

The Reality of Blogging

First and foremost, don't quit your day job. I smile every single time I read an article giving you 10 Easy Ways to Make Some Cash on the Side. Besides all the usual suspects on what are essentially, ridiculous posts simply written for the clicks they will no doubt generate, like walking people's dogs or renting out a spare room in your house, one that seems to always make the list is to start a blog.

Consider that as of May of 2023 there are an estimated 600 million blogs currently on the Internet. Yes. You read that correctly. 600 million blogs.

Granted, that's worldwide. Out of those 600 million blogs on the Internet, less than 1% are even remotely successful and generate enough income to do it full time. And most of those are literally businesses. So, the thought that making any significant side cash from writing a blog is quite a stretch to say the least.

That's not to say that writing a blog bears absolutely no fruit. With time, and a ton of content, you can slowly build an audience that is sizeable enough to at least make writing a blog worth your time. But it's far from easy to do this. And it's far from full time wages.

This blog, for example, has a rather large audience and does generate income. But it's not job replacing income. Not by a long shot.

It is also not meant to discourage anyone from writing a blog. If you love to write, like I do, it's okay if it is more of a labor of love than something that puts food on the table. And if you can write well, you will capture an audience. 

But it still takes many years, and like I said, a ton of content to do this. And in order to achieve any level of success, you have to be willing to put in the time and effort to keep producing content even if no one sees it at first, or even if only a few people see it years later after starting.

The bottom line is that it is as tough to break in with blogging as it is tough to break in with most things. Just because you don't have to wait for an editor to give the go-ahead to publish something like the days of old doesn't mean it will be any easier to get your word out.

Many people who self-publish books, for example, quickly learn it's extremely tough to actually sell books. That is, until you can land your work before just the right set of eyes that helps things along. In the case of blogging, that's a set of eyes that likes what you do enough that maybe they share it with a few other people who also like it and share it with a few more people.

Even then, if it only happens a few times, it's not going to have that great of an impact on your overall success blogging.

Again, it is not to tell anyone, "Hey, don't waste your time." I have been doing this for decades and it can have its rewards. I am simply saying to not have great expectations when you hit that publish button for the first time that it will be a life-changing event.

It won't be. I assure you.

By all means, if you like to write and have something to share that people will enjoy reading, you will build an audience and you will enjoy some success. You may even join the precious ranks of the very few who break through the barriers enough to go at it full time and actually make a living doing it.

But if you are coming into blogging thinking it's an easy way to make money? Think again. It's not that at all. There are 599,999,999 other blogs out there competing for the same sets of eyes that yours is. And that's the reality of blogging.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on Twitter (X) @jimbauer601 to keep up with all the latest posts from wherever I may post my every word.

Are We in Danger of Losing Our Grip on Reality?

It would seem to most people, that's a rather odd question to ask. But are we? Are we in danger of losing our grip on reality? Could we lose it?

I mean, where's the line? Is there one? Well, maybe there's a line now. But for how long? When does reality and fantasy intersect in a way where there is no room for fact anymore? Can we arrive at a place where even the words real or true are dependent upon what you believe in, regardless of the facts?

I bring this up as the debate about gender ramps up and is becoming more of an issue that seems to be reaching a point where it is becoming a framework of commonality that I think is dangerous.

How many genders are there? There are two. Since the beginning of time, there have been two genders. It's not just based on reality. It's based on science which we know to be true because we know that chromosomes exist, and ultimately, chromosomes determine what gender we are.

It's true because not only can we see the differences with our own eyes. We are different inside too, and we can see that through further examination of the sexes.

It is inarguable that a person born with XX chromosomes will have a vagina and a uterus and a person born with XY chromosomes will be born with a penis and be able to produce semen. These are not interchangeable. Neither circumstance can be altered to the extent that one or the other produces an ultimate shift in what the reality is.

Outward appearances can be changed. But what's inside cannot. But what is absolute is of course, the reality. The problem is that what is being defined as reality is not, in fact, true.

Now, we can argue all day about the psychology of things, or the perception of things based on who is thinking one way or the other. That is not the purpose of this post for at least this part of the question. We are talking about the line between real and not real.

Because when we debate this issue that is what we are essentially being told this new idea is. Reality. The word is being redefined to include a, "well it depends," or a "it's this or that except when." 

In other words, what I am arguing here is that you can't choose your own reality. It's either real or it's not. There is no exception to the rule. It's fine if we want to use the term transgender. I am perfectly okay with that. I am fine with the terms trans male and trans female. 

But redefining the genders themselves? It crosses the line. It creates confusion. It denies reality. It rejects known science and biology. It blurs the lines of reality.

A woman is defined as someone born with XX chromosomes. Period. And a man is defined as     someone who is born with XY chromosomes. Now someone might ask the question, what do you care what someone calls themself? 

Just words, right? 

But in order for me to accept what someone wants to call themselves, I also have to adjust my reality to fit theirs. I have to alter my observation of what's real in order to conform with what someone else observes to be real.

And if I get it wrong, I might be in trouble even if I am right. And it may not be my intent to be wrong. But it still makes me wrong in a way that is now considered disrespectful or hateful or insensitive. But it also makes me insecure about my own known understanding of what's real. 

I can no longer rely on reality to be my guide. I'm stuck now with a decision where there should otherwise not be one to be made.

Do I base my judgement on what I can see? Or do I base it on what someone else wants me to see?

I mean, this is a downright silly analogy. But if I bring out my calculator and punch in 2+2 and hit the equals button and the calculator tells me the answer is 5, I know the calculator is telling me a lie. Because I know the answer is 4.

Clearly my reality is not wrong. My calculator is simply not working properly.

It would make no sense to simply continue using the calculator and change my answer to make it fit what the calculator says. Nor would it make any sense to now suggest to anyone else with a working calculator that mine is right, and all the others are wrong, and the new answer is simply that 2+2 equals 5.

The problem is that when these lines are drawn, when reality is questioned and made to be whatever someone else's perception of what's true is, it creates nearly automatic division. No longer is fact a fact. Fact is now an opinion. Reality is no longer real. It's real depending on what real has been redefined as, something that is based on whatever criteria other than facts, that someone has assigned to it.

Who is to say it stops at gender? What other realities might we have to reexamine? When does everything else that's real become a question? And what does that do to a people? A society? A culture?

When fantasy becomes reality just because someone says it's now real, and you are forced to change your own reality to conform to what has become the new reality—how do you function? What does that do the mind when you can see something but no longer have the ability to trust what you can see?

2+2 must be 5. We were simply wrong all along. Or, as in the case with multiple genders, the answer no longer has a correct answer. Maybe it's 6. Or maybe it's 3. Or maybe it's 10. Maybe the answer is whatever you want the answer to be.

You can just make it up and now it's the reality. It's real because you said so. Facts have no basis in the new reality. The reality can be whatever you can imagine. And whatever you want it to be. And regardless of what the real truth is, it simply has to be accepted. It cannot be questioned or denied or proven wrong.

Can we reach a point when reality no longer exists? Based on the direction we are headed, with gender as just one example, I think we can.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on Twitter (X) @jimbauer601. In for something entirely different? Check out my quirky Pink Flamingoes album on Spotify.

The Democrats Are Poised to Lose More Than Just an Election

I swear they (the democrats and the media) have become more unhinged than ever before. And it makes it all too clear they know they are losing. It's not even really a question anymore. They simply know it and it is driving them literally insane.

Because they've tried everything, and nothing has worked. It's all falling apart, and they can't stop it. Not this time.

Yeah, I know. I'm one of those who seriously calls the legitimacy of the 2020 election into question. Either way, does it really matter now if they did or didn't? I mean, it's a dangerous thing if they did and could succeed in doing it again. But that's the thing. They can't do it again with the numbers so stacked against them.

So, it doesn't really matter anymore. The American people have the power to right the ship, and they are steering it correctly right now as we speak. The democrats don't have enough manpower to grab the wheel strongly enough to make it go the way they want it to.

They simply failed. The democrats. They failed. They failed to win over the hearts and minds of the America people to buy into their narratives. They failed to prove the criminality of Trump and they failed to prove that his ideas weren't actually better than theirs.

It's over. The fat lady has begun her song.

I mean, take the latest accusation as a measure of the insanity. Now they want to say he will be a dictator. They are comparing Trump to Hitler and the Nazi Party. 

Think about that for a minute. A former president who so strongly supported Israel and planted the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, and all but declared it the Capitol of Israel. He's going to be compared to Hitler and the Nazi Party who sought to destroy Jews and wipe them off the face of the Earth in the worst genocide perhaps the world has ever seen.

And since when did communism, Marxism and fascism become good things? When did those espousings become akin to democracy and American freedom? Because that's what they are saying leads them to the comparison. Because Trump says he wants to root those things out.

The dictator argument is just the final straw to clutch for them. "Ooh, we'll really get people running scared now and thinking twice about putting this evil man back into the White House."

The problem is that the American people are not so stupid to actually believe this. Nor are they stupid enough to think that any of the things Trump is talking about rooting out is bad for America. These are exactly the problems we have, that have permeated certain aspects of current culture and dug in like a cancer.

These are things destroying America right now. 

The democrats are learning one thing. They can't unseat Trump. The more they try to knock him down the more firmly he stays upright. And people are listening to his message. They are examining their own lives and seeing the reality which is in stark contrast to what the Biden administration has struggled to sell them on.

I think even J6 failed miserably, the false narrative of what the democrats have tried so hard to convince the American people of. Even if you admitted that these were in fact Trump supporters, perhaps the realization by many is that what they actually were, were Americans who simply stood up for their values and principles and a country they love.

Who do you blame for it happening? Donald Trump? Or the government itself which caused the faith of the American people to be shattered in such a way that they felt there was a need to try to take back their country?

In other words, people simply had a reason to question 2020. Because after four years of relentless attacks on Trump by the left and the media, fostering manufactured hate that many, who voted for Trump, questioned the source and the strength of, were given enough reason to doubt the results that they went seeking answers.

Whether or not that's what was really behind J6, other than the other idea that it was manufactured by the democrats to hide the real results doesn't matter. You can see it both ways, and both ways still point to questions Americans have had about what really happened.

The bottom line here is that I think the democrats know the writing is on the wall. And the fact that they have lost their power to control the hearts and minds of the American people has them fit to be tied.

They can't throw Trump in jail. They can't kill him. They can't steal another election from him. They can't keep him off ballots. They can't bar him from running. And more importantly, they can't convince the American people of any of the wild things Trump has been accused of being.

And what's worse for them? They can't stronghold the advancement of their agenda which is to fundamentally change America into a country far removed from the aspirations of the founding fathers. And that bothers them too. That the vast majority of the American people can't be swayed. They can't be forced to adhere to a new way of thinking. They can't be convinced that the America we knew was the bad place, and wrong idea they've wanted so badly to portray it as.

If Trump wins in 2024, and I think he will, it sends a clear message to the democrat party that America is not dead and is stronger than ever. That the resolve of the American people has not been chipped away at. That there is still hope America stands just as strong and as proud as it did for so many generations before.

In an odd way I think one might be able to astutely compare the democrats to the old Empire of Japan, who falsely saw America as a nation severed from its values and strength to preserve Her. As Isoroku Yamamoto once rightly observed, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant." I think that is exactly what the democrats have done here, and the majority is now poised and ready to bring down the evil regime that sought to bring the country to its knees and turn Her into an unrecognizable place far removed from who we once were.

If Trump wins, it may just be the end of the progressive agenda ever having the chance to succeed again.

And perhaps that's what the left fears more than anything. Not just losing an election. But losing their power forever and losing their ability to create the New America they wanted so badly to give birth to.

I guess I can relate to their pain and insanity. When you have lost everything, that hurts. And it makes you lose your mind. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on Twitter (X) @jimbauer601 to keep up with my latest posts from all the places where I share my thoughts and opinions.

Axelrod Says Biden May Have Worse than 50/50 Chance of Winning in 2024

I am no fan of David Axelrod, Obama's former campaign guru, but I agree with him when he recently publicly said that he feels Biden's chances of winning in 2024 are not only basically 50/50, but more likely much worse.

Granted, neither Biden nor Axelrod are fans of each other. Biden publicly called Axelrod a prick once. Either way, you have to at least give Axelrod credit for knowing a thing or two about elections and campaigns. 

Besides, I think one would actually have to be a fool to even consider Biden has any chance at all—despite who he is obviously running against and all the baggage that has been placed on Trump—if you use past history as any indication of what should happen here.

I mean, the guy's had a worse presidency than the worst president of all time, Jimmy Carter for Heaven's sake. It's been a literal disaster for the last four years. I think even many democrats, although they'd not be willing to state it out loud, would even admit things were much better when Trump was around than with Biden mucking the place up.

Nothing's working. That's the bottom line. And Biden's just not liked. Many don't even believe he's pulling the freaking reins here. So, who is? Who knows?

Either way, the country is going to hell in a handbasket and the people who vote simply can't ignore it. Beyond that, even while polls are often terribly unreliable, the polls are showing very strong leads by Trump in key swing states—states that are critical to win in any general.

Why do I find the polls a little bit more reliable in this case?

Two things to observe here. Polls are traditionally heavily weighted to side with democrats and many Trump supporters won't necessarily be openly vocal about their support for him.

So, if the polls are showing Trump leading, you have to run away with the thought that the numbers may be even bigger in support of Trump than the polls could even possibly demonstrate. I mean, I'm not going to call it now and say Trump might win by a landslide in 2024.

But I think Trump is going to win by a landslide in 2024.

Okay, okay. You caught me. I said that about Trump against Hillary in 2016 and that wasn't exactly a landslide. But it was an undeniable strong lead against her even if she ultimately beat him by 2 million votes in the popular vote.

You have a couple of things happening here. One is that Trump's popularity has only gained the more the democrats and the media have gone after him, and really, when you get down to the brass tacks here, there's simply nothing positive for Biden to even run on.

Sure, he can go out there and tout all those jobs he "created." But most people understand those were simply returning workers from the shutdowns. Not new jobs. He can go out there and talk the economy up. But Americans on both sides of the aisle can see their utility bills. They can see the final price at the gas pump higher than it was when Trump was president. They feel the reality of the economy any time they walk into a grocery store and fill their carts.

No matter which side you happen to be on, you have eyes, and you have a brain, and people can see and understand right in front of them that things aren't nearly as peachy as is being painted.

Not only that, but one has to wonder. Is Biden outright lying to us? Or is he just stupid? Maybe it's a little bit of both, actually. Again, who knows? Biden's a liar anyway, and he never did seem too bright. So, it could be anything.

The bottom line here is that it's not just David Axelrod ringing the alarm bells. Even when you look at approval ratings, it's just clear that practically no one thinks Biden is doing a good job. A recent poll also showed that more than 70% of those polled believes Trump is better equipped to handle the economy than Biden is.

And let's face it. The economy is sort of what Biden seems to want to be running on.

He simply has no solid ground to stand on. He can try to sell unicorns and rainbows, but nobody's actually buying it.

Speaking of polls, what's telling as well of Axelrod's rather grim prediction, is that not only is Trump beating Biden in nearly all of them. So are Trump's top 2 rivals. And they aren't small numbers there either. 

Both Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley beat Biden by several percentage points according to most polls.

Now, there is yet another dynamic to consider as well. That's the never Trumper or anyone who will simply not vote for Trump under any circumstance. This actually puts votes right in Trump's pockets. I mean, look at where RFK Jr. is. He doesn't beat Biden. Not by a longshot. But if he gets 2% or 3% of the vote?

It's curtains for Biden even if Biden has any chance at all without someone contesting him. And yet another poll, among democrats only, says 54% would prefer a different candidate than Biden.

For whatever it's worth, I think it is very clear (even if it still too early to tell) who will be president in 2024. And while I won't say it will be Trump, I can say it won't be Biden. But of course, I have a brain too, and so I think we can all agree it will actually be Trump who takes the win.

David Axelrod may be a prick in the eyes of Joe Biden. But in the eyes of the American people, Biden's a loser.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on Twitter (X) @jimbauer601. 

myLot Is Run By Weird People

I want to be clear here, a site called myLot, which is a social media site where people talk about their everyday lives, what they ate for dinner, or just pretty much anything at all, is a pretty fun site. I am not going to dismiss that aspect of it. And it is certainly worth a look if you want to talk about anything and nothing and also make a few bucks while you do it.

But what makes the site fun and interesting are the people who are part of the community. Not the owners of the site. And not the admin.

Honestly, they are quite weird. And I have talked about this aspect of the site many times. And like this time, from time to time I feel the need to remind people of the abnormality that exists as part of myLot's existence.

You know, anywhere on the Internet, anywhere in social media, on the very platforms I am using, I can say whatever I want about those platforms. I can air my opinions freely. Those platforms may not like what I have to say. But they at least acknowledge it is not my job to say good things about them.

It is their job to encourage me to say nice things about them through what they do to make me happy about using their site.

I could, for example, write a blog, right here on Blogspot, saying things about Blogspot that won't put Blogspot into a good light. So be it. And that would be perfectly acceptable.

But myLot? They're different. You can't say a single negative thing about the site. It's against their rules. And well, it's a public site just like any other site on the Internet and anyone can find the posts that are written there. 

It's all front and center, searchable, and the posts will and do come up in searches. 

As such, they are scared of any bad publicity, even if it isn't direct, but simply implied. It is them saying, under no uncertain terms, "You will not say bad things about us that others might see outside of the site."

I mean, it's a thing with them. They are scared of it, and I just find it to be rather peculiar. I said it's weird. And that's exactly what I meant. It's weird. They are weird for it.

Take a post I wrote there earlier today. It really was a benign post. It was not making fun of myLot. It was not being disparaging of myLot. It was not scolding myLot, or even complaining about myLot. It was simply a tongue in cheek post about activity being a bit slow in myLot for the day.

That's a no-no, you see. Because God forbid someone out there, the five or so people who might see it, see that post and think there might be something wrong with myLot.

That's why they took it down. Because in their eyes it potentially communicates something about their site they may have reason to be embarrassed about. Why? Who the hell knows? But it's why they took down my post.

The problem there is this; some of us are writers outside of myLot with bigger platforms and louder voices than others. People like me who happen to have a very large audience and the potential for many more eyes to see what I will say here than they might ever have found on their actual site.

And worse, the words I post here are far less tongue in cheek, far less careful, far less friendly, far more scathing, much more critical, and perhaps in some ways, more dangerous to their reputation than anything I might post within the confines of their iron fists.

Like I said, myLot is still a site that can be fun and earn some money. But just know that when you step within their doors, you're locked inside, and they will command you to behave their way or else. Make sure you praise them to the High Heavens. They like praise. They can't handle scorn. They can't handle ridicule. And frankly they fear the truth. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page. If you want to check out myLot as a place to write about anything and get paid without having to be a writer? You can find them at mylot.com. You can find me there as well. My name is Porwest. If you sign up and write an introductory post, let them know Porwest sent you there from The Springboard. 

Barack Obama Could Have Had THE Greatest Legacy of All Time

Looking back to a post I wrote way back in 2008, "Righting the Woes of Black America Starts at Home," it makes me think about how much of a missed opportunity was presented during the presidency of Barack Obama.

At the time, race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were not at all too pleased with certain comments that Obama made on the campaign trail which put some of the onus of many black problems in America back unto themselves.

He did not pass all of the blame on black America mind you, and rightly so. But he did acknowledge that not all problems in black America are the fault of society or the government. 

"We've got to demand more responsibility from Washington. We've got to push aside those special interests and let the voices of the American people ring out," said Obama. He even said that we needed to demand more responsibility from Wall Street. 

"But you know what," he added. "We also have to demand more responsibility from ourselves." 

I thought Barack Obama was right about the comments he made. These were powerful words. These were words I actually wanted to hear. And when he uttered them, I thought, even though I did not support his presidency, that if he could accomplish nothing else, if he could be the force which can turn around all of the past issues facing black America—it would be the greatest accomplishment of all time.

He would have left a legacy as powerful as Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. Of the historic marches for freedom of Martin Luther King, Jr.

If nothing else, the strong words of Barack Obama at that time gave me hope, despite his running as a democrat, despite his clearly being a liberal, that perhaps we might finally see a voice (potentially coming from the podium of the highest office in the land) that would speak for black America in a way that would encourage a newfound path forward instead of against them as so many in the leagues of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did for so long. 

And frankly, that so many in the democrat party did and continue to do to this day.

I am not saying that Barack Obama would have had the power to change everything. But he certainly had the power to foster change quite powerfully among society as a whole. Especially in the black community. It was a message that could have been powerful in that it would have said, "We have the opportunity and the ability and the strength to become what we have always known we can become—that we know we are and rather than be victims, to be leaders of our own destinies."

Words not unlike many spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. frankly. Powerful words that lift a people up. Not hold them down. Words that strengthen the heart and solidify the resolve rather than soften the heart and weaken the resiliency of purpose.

Because that's been my biggest complaint of so-called leaders like Jackson and Sharpton and even of the democrat party. Their message is always one of despair and failure and blame. 

Not for one second will I deny that there aren't a multitude of issues that help to support at least some of the arguments people like Jackson or Sharpton have made over the years, as well as others in their camps. But to deny the internal portion of culpability is to deny, ultimately, the real change that can be made to actually foster progress.

It's sort of like the historical words of John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Those were powerful words as well. It put the onus of America's problems in the hands of everyday citizens and said basically, "We cannot expect the world's problems to be solved by someone else. We must strive to see within ourselves what we can do to help solve those problems together."

Isn't that sort of what Barack Obama said? And how could those words have been interpreted as talking down to black people, as Jesse Jackson suggested, or even anger a people as a whole? Shouldn't words like that provide for an aha moment? A revelation of possibility? A moment of realization of a key ingredient that had been missing all along to finally make the real change achievable?

The key takeaway here for me is that Barack Obama left this massive idea on the table when he made history and became the first black president and took his oath of office. He unfortunately, and frankly sadly, missed the greatest opportunity the world has ever known to rise up black America in a way that would have presented a very different landscape today for all of America and society even today.

The question becomes, when does that opportunity ever come again? And how did he so poorly miss it?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook or on YouTube to keep up with the latest installments wherever The Springboard writes. You can also follow me on X @jimbauer601.

The Point of No "Return" in Pricing

Beer sales might be a strange way to talk about the point of no "return" when it comes to inflationary pressures. But here I am talking about it.

The thing is, during times like these when prices are rising faster than paychecks and there seems to be no end in sight at the register for paying more for just about everything, many businesses get accused of price gouging.

In the eyes of some consumers, there must be something shady going on here.

And I will admit, sometimes it certainly feels that way. Like how convenient it always seems to be that right before a weekend or especially a holiday weekend, gas prices suddenly shoot up. And I feel that way even though I understand certain macroeconomic things that factor into why that happens—and it has nothing to do with price gouging.

Inflation is also not a product of or a result of price gouging.

The simple fact of the matter is that when inflation hits, it hits everyone. And businesses are not immune to it any more than anyone else is. The cost of raw materials goes up. The cost of utilities to run the machines go up. The cost of wages possibly goes up. The cost to transport finished product goes up. Every aspect of the cost of running the business goes up.

And in order to maintain their margins and remain profitable, so does the cost they sell their products for go up.

But like most things, there is a limit here. There is only so much a customer will pay for something before they finally decide it costs too much and leave it on the shelf. This is the point of no "return" on the prospect of raising prices to protect margins.

In other words, at some point the customer will simply refuse to pay the higher price such as what happened with beer maker Heineken. They raised prices enough that consumers finally said no, and their sales dropped over 4% in the last quarter as a result.

Granted, there are certain things that consumers have a need for regardless of how much it costs. Certain foods, for example. Gas for the car. But even on those two things there are certain things that consumers we can do to curb costs. 

They really don't have us by the balls at the end of the day as much as we may want to believe that.

Consumers still have the power to send a message, and many do. When egg prices hit $4 and $5 per dozen, I simply stopped eating eggs. And did so for 3-months. And I don't think I was the only one, because one thing I observed when I went into the grocery stores was that eggs were always fully stocked.

People were not buying them. Demand for eggs plummeted. Egg prices came back down. 

Granted, the costs driving the prices up didn't change. In fact, because inflation is far from done, costs actually continued to rise. So, now the businesses have to make a decision. Either allow product to rot on the shelves and not get paid anything for it or sell it cheaper and suffer through a period of lower margins.

And that's exactly what you are seeing. More and more businesses are reporting lower sales numbers due to higher prices but are also reporting lower margins. Many are saying, "We have simply reached a point where we can no longer afford to raise prices and stay afloat even if we lose money or experience lower margins on every sale."

Heineken, as an example, knows that the more it continues to raise prices in order to compensate for higher production costs, the more customers they will likely lose as a result. It's a no-win situation. 

So, as much as we like to think that the companies are simply trying to take advantage of us, the reality is that they're not. In fact, they cannot. Especially in areas where there are alternative options for consumers to choose.

There is a flip side here, as there always tends to be, and that's that consumers pulling back and saying no actually helps to curb inflation. It weakens demand and with less money pouring into the economy, suddenly things slow down economically, which is a primary ingredient to combatting inflation.

There may be a short period in between all of this before inflation really comes down when businesses may hold certain prices to try to recoup what they lost when margins were lower. But even that will be short-lived. Because consumers do see the news. If they see that inflation as a whole is waning but prices aren't coming down, there will be backlash for that.

As it has always been said in business, the markets will charge what the markets are willing to bear. And when it comes to that, there is a point of no return. There is a point at which consumers will ultimately decide what prices should be. And businesses will either have to pay attention or risk losing their business.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook or on YouTube to keep up with all the latest anywhere The Springboard writes or shares his thoughts on the world, money, politics, and other topics of interest of the day.