The Jholdas Group

Recent data from the BLS reveals that the 22 Right to Work states outperformed the 28 Forced Union states in job creation, productivity, individual income and overall economic results by margins ranging from 25 to 40%. So you have to wonder why the administration continues to force unionization wherever it can. Case in point: the federal challenge to Boeing’s attempt to set up operations in Right to Work South Carolina instead of pro-union Washington.

Business as Mission is not as complex as everyone seems to want to make it. Business is God’s mechanism for wealth creation (funding life) and Missions is the expression of God’s passion to save the lost (imparting eternal life). The intentional connection of our calling to business (it is a calling) and God’s heart to disciple the nations is a form of Business as Mission. Business + Mission = Business as Mission

Whether you are conservative or liberal, rich or poor doesn’t matter much for this conversation. I just want to ask you to think about America. Our home. Most of us from any philosophical or political stripe would agree on this—America is in trouble and appears to be in a stall if not a descent. My question is why? Here are some of my random thoughts. Maybe some will resonate with you.

1. First, it’s not the politicians it’s the people. We love to berate them and criticize them and threaten to throw them out of office (and Lord knows they deserve it) but let’s not forget who put them there and who keeps putting them there. Us. You. Me.
2. Deficit spending—whether for war or welfare, guns or butter. You can’t spend what you don’t have. It’s economic suicide. And while most everyone wants “cuts” no one wants their pet priority cut; cut somewhere else.
3. The public is generally ignorant—of science, math, and most regrettably, history. Americans don’t know their own history and certainly don’t know the full story. A people with no sense of history have no hope of making good decisions about the future. Indeed, they may have no future.
4. The public is constitutionally ignorant. Few have read it. Few believe in it. Few know what its purpose was and is. As a country we have cut the lines to our stable moorings and are adrift on a sea of international relativism—sailing with no compass other than our own opinions. This cannot end well.
5. The public is ignorant of the thoughts of the Founders. We don’t know what they meant because we don’t know what they thought. We don’t know what they thought because Jon Stewart and Sean Hannity don’t quote Locke or Gladstone or Cicero. Who? Exactly.
6. Tribalism is the organization of societies into gangs, bands, parties, groups, and clans who think and talk alike. America has become a very tribal country (much like Iraq, sub-Saharan Africa, Indonesia, and other 3rd world nations) accelerated by 4G technology.
7. Inclusion and tolerance (once virtues) have become tsunamis of moral indifference and ethical confusion. Yes, Virginia, there are some things that are wrong.
8. The ugly twin of extreme inclusion is political correctness. When we hesitate to wish someone a Merry Christmas or get blasted for rooting for the Braves (whose mascot insults “native Americans” something is stupidly wrong. People with thin skins need to grow up. I’m a bald, middle aged, Welsh-Scottish-German-Swiss-Jewish-Southern male. If I was as sensitive as some people you couldn’t say “good morning” to me without a perceived slur.
9. Niche focused media (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) preach their brand of data and news to their own choir. I never have to listen to anything I don’t already agree with because I’ve got a remote—the ultimate arbiter of truth—and a “news channel” that feeds my opinions.
10. Americans have short memories. 9/11 wasn’t even a decade ago. My dad fought in WWII. Some of us can remember segregated schools and bathrooms. It’s a good thing to remember and not live so much in the sound byte of the moment or the latest tweet.
11. The rejection of American exceptionalism is anti-historical. Other than Israel, no country has a history or sense of destiny like America once had. Conservatives abuse this and make it into American superiority; liberals dismiss it as pipedreams and insulting to the world community.
12. www.who-can-I-sue.com pretty much says it all.
13. Washington has become the center of our universe. More change and goodness is possible locally than we could ever dream of in DC.
14. Good hearted people have been duped into thinking that government can do a better job of helping those in need than their neighbors—you and me. As a result, no one gets help.
15. Where did we get the idea that rights were dispensed by the government? Where did we come up with the idea of “group” rights—white rights, black rights, women’s rights, Latino rights, students’ rights, left’s rights, gay rights; isn’t it about individual rights as human beings? Respect for individual rights and dignity is the only antidote to the rise of tribalism.
16. And finally, and I believe this to be the root of everything I’ve outlined, we refuse to honor God as God. America has gradually turned her back on true religion—the fear and worship of God and the humble serving of others—in favor of church attendance, mystic experiences in the forest, and fuzzy use of the word “spiritual.” No nation can long survive the abandonment of its God.

My purpose in writing this is not to add to the cacophony of political arguments in the US. In fact, I’m done with that. Instead, I’m going to concentrate my blogs, tweets, and other publications on three things: the presentation of true religion, the communication of positive, historical truth about America and the Constitution, and the sharing of stories of people around the country who are doing good. There are plenty of folks who can point out what’s wrong. By God’s grace, I’m resolving to focus on what’s right wherever I find it. I’m sure that many of my conservative friends will find things to disagree with; no doubt my liberal friends will also. I really don’t care. But if you want to dialogue on what’s true, and pure, and helpful, and praiseworthy, and good…then join in.

John Wooden’s father, Joshua Wooden, gave each son these 7 words of wisdom when they graduates from grade school: 1. Be true to yourself. 2. Make each day your masterpiece. 3. Help others. 4. Drink deeply from good books. 5. Make friendship a fine art. 6. Build a shelter against a rainy day. 7. Pray for guidance and give thanks for your blessings every day. “A Game Plan for Life” by John Wooden

Simple question–what are you thankful for in 2010? Health? A job? Your family? Salvation? Make your list–it’s longer than you think!

When I started working in the former Soviet Union during the early 1990’s I was not surprised to find a negative view of business—it was, according to the newly freed people, corrupt, based on greed, degrading to mankind, cruel, etc. In fact, there wasn’t even a Russian word for businessman so they just used the English with a Russian accent. Profiteering (selling things at a profit) was illegal. Innovation was nonexistent. Entrepreneurs operated in the black market.

What is surprising and deeply concerning is that many Americans and media outlets seem to have similar opinions. Granted there are examples of all of these negative stereotypes (BP, Enron, WorldCom, to name a few). This bias is not limited to liberals and socialists. Many conservatives in the evangelical church also have suspicion of business and business practices.

So, let’s start by thinking about one core question: is business, in and of itself, legitimate and good or is it inherently evil? The answer is that business is a good thing from God and a part of his creation. Work and business existed before the fall when there was no corruption, no greed, and no selfishness. When man fell, his heart and nature became corrupt and he has acted corruptly ever since. As a result we now have broken families, broken communities, broken individuals and broken businesses. But business (like family, community, and individuals) is NOT the problem; man is.

View business as a legitimate and beneficial part of how God equipped the world and part of how he wants things to be and you’ll begin to think (and feel) very differently about your own business and career. See it able to function to the glory of God and your entire worldview will change.

My SEC team (Tenn) just got robbed of a clear victory. Robbed by the rules. Yep. They stopped LSU at the 1 yard line to win the game. As they ran off the field in exultation the referee signaled a penalty–too many UT players on the field. Granted one more play, LSU scored and won. All fair and all heartbreaking. Some times good guys finish last. Sometimes you play by the rules and the rules cost you a win–a sale, a job, a contract, a profit. Nevertheless playing by the rules is the essence of ethics.

Workplace Flexibility Bill Reintroduced in Senate Posted on September 30, 2010 by Ilyse Schuman Email This Print Trackbacks Share Link Last week, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) reintroduced the Working Families Flexibility Act (S. 3840) in the Senate. This measure, which was introduced in the House of Representatives in March 2009 as H.R. 1274, would provide employees with a statutory right to request flexible work terms and conditions. In a statement, Sen. Casey claimed: “70 percent of households are led by either two employed parents, or a single parent,” adding, “This also means there are increased demands that can put strains on families and also hurt workforce productivity. The legislation I have introduced today can help create flexible work options that can benefit workers and employers.” Specifically, the bill would authorize an employee to request from an employer a change in the terms or conditions of the employee’s employment if the request relates to: (1) the number of hours the employee is required to work; (2) the times when the employee is required to work; or (3) where the employee is required to work. Additionally, the measure sets forth certain duties for the employer with respect to such requests. Upon receiving a request, an employer would be required to hold a meeting with the employee within two weeks to discuss his or her application and provide a written decision regarding the application. If the application is rejected, the employer would be required to provide a reason for the denial. If dissatisfied with the employer’s explanation, the employee would have the right to request reconsideration of the employer’s decision, and the parties would be required to once again meet to discuss the reconsideration. The employer’s final decision would need to be in writing, and, if reconsideration is denied, the employer would be required to state grounds for such denial in writing. The measure provides for civil penalties against employers that discriminate or otherwise retaliate against employees who avail themselves of this process. Under the terms of the bill, employees would be entitled to file a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) for any violation of the rights granted under the Act. The agency would have the power to investigate such claims, impose civil penalties or other equitable relief such as reinstatement, promotion, back pay, and a change in the terms or conditions of employment. To be eligible to take advantage of the terms of this bill, an employee would be required to work an average of at least 20 hours per week, or at least 1,000 hours per year. Employers with fewer than 15 employees would be exempt. This is the latest in a number of bills that have been introduced this legislative session that focus on establishing work/family balance. None of these measures have significantly advanced, and their prospects of doing so seems increasingly unlikely given the current makeup of the Senate and political climate. Photo credit: lovleah TAGS: S. 3840, Work-Family Balance, Working Families Flexibility Act

Found this online three.sentenc.es The Problem E-mail takes too long to respond to, resulting in continuous inbox overflow for those who receive a lot of it. The Solution Treat all email responses like SMS text messages, using a set number of letters per response. Since it’s too hard to count letters, we count sentences instead. three.sentenc.es is a personal policy that all email responses regardless of recipient or subject will be three sentences or less. It’s that simple. * See also: two.sentenc.es, four.sentenc.es, and five.sentenc.es. ** To begin using this system, optionally copy this text and paste it into your e-mail signature:

A libertarian is a person – any person – who consistently advocates individual freedom and consistently opposes the initiation of the use of coercion by anyone upon the person or property of anyone else for any reason. (Coercion is here defined as any action taken by a human being against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to his or her body or property. This includes murder, rape, kidnaping, assault, trespassing, burglary, robbery, arson and fraud.) Some libertarians (such as the late Robert LeFevre) not only oppose all forms of initiatory coercion, but also the use of retaliatory coercion (revenge or criminal justice). The vast majority of libertarians, however, maintain that physical force used in self-defense or defense of one’s family or property is fully justifiable. But, all libertarians, by definition, at least oppose the initiatory use of coercion. They support the rational principle of the individual human rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This means that each individual has the right to keep what he earns for himself and his family, and this includes the right to use, trade, sell, give away, or dispose of his property as he sees fit. A person who violates the rights of others by initiating coercion, violence, or fraud against them forfeits his right to be left alone by government and may be arrested, charged, tried, and imprisoned, deported or executed if convicted (depending on the nature of his or her crimes). The basic, proper function of lawful government is therefore limited to protecting these rights of the peaceful individual from criminals and foreign aggression, and in not violating these rights itself, for if government is allowed to go beyond this legitimate function and itself initiates force in violation of the rights of peaceful citizens, it necessarily contradicts the only rational justification for its own existence by acting criminally itself. Real libertarians take individual rights seriously – seriously enough to consistently uphold them against the initiation of the use of force by anyone (including government) for any reason. This means that government must be bound by the policy of “laissez faire” – which means that government has no business coercively interfering with the lives of peaceful (non-coercive) citizens in their private affairs and voluntary (market) relationships. Libertarians may or may not approve of some of the things that some people may do in private or in voluntary relations, but whatever their own code of personal moral conduct is, they do not seek to ban any private or voluntary activities by the use of force, including the force of government action. To do so would be to violate the very principle of individual rights of person and property, and thereby undercut any rational argument in favor of freedom or defense of the free-market system. Those exception makers and outright coercive busy-bodies in our midst (referred to as “interventionists” or “statists” by libertarians) who do want to abandon government by principle and instead put Whim in charge of the use of legal coercion are the people who help set the stage for arbitrary and capricious governmental tyranny – leading in the direction of totalitarian dictatorship. Libertarians Are Not Conservatives Libertarians are not “conservatives”; libertarians are radicals (principled advocates) for individual freedom and responsibility – and the pure free-market private-enterprise economic system which would result from a consistent application of that principle. A “conservative” on the other hand is one who wishes to preserve the status quo. The status quo in America today is the semi-socialist, semi-fascist mixed-economy welfare-state – a system inimical to personal freedom and responsibility. Libertarians do not support such a system, and oppose any and all measures to expand it while favoring the total repeal of interventionist laws and regulatory agencies. Conservatives of the William F. Buckley or William Bennett variety are generally more concerned with imposing “order” than with allowing freedom. Although they often (and rightly) complain that government has got “too big” and too meddlesome in our lives, on some specific issues they themselves favor using the political power of government to legislate and enforce their view of morality upon the populace in “the national interest” or for the “social good.” William Bennett, for example, opposes the legalization and/or decriminalization of the sale and use of heroin and cocaine, and he continues to support the no-win “War on Drugs” which is causing violence to escalate in our society. Libertarians, on the other hand, realize that “enforced morality” (in such personal matters) is a contradiction in terms; without freedom of choice there can be no moral responsibility and personal growth. Libertarians also perceive that freedom brings about a more complex, dynamic and harmonious order in society (co-ordinated by the market price mechanism) than any static view of order imposed by central political planning and regulations of our non-coercive behaviors. Libertarians are for individual freedom – and this includes the freedom of people to do some things that we and other people may disapprove of. A person should be free (from coercive interference) to do what he pleases with his own life and property, as long as he does not violate (through coercive interference) the same right of other peaceful persons to do what they want with their lives and properties. (The second clause is logically implied in the first.) Libertarians do not oppose non-coercive persuasion, educational efforts, private advertising campaigns, organized boycotts, or even social ostracism as means of trying to effect changes in the private behavior of others. (Many people have stopped smoking tobacco in recent years partly as a result of education and persuasion by friends and family members.) What libertarians do oppose is the attempt by anyone (individuals or government officials) to impose their own views of “fairness” or personal morality on others through the initiation of the use of coercion, by either personal violence or political legislation and governmental action. This principled position sets libertarians apart from conservatives as well as other non-libertarians. Libertarians Are Not Welfare-State “Liberals” Libertarians are not to be confused with the so-called “civil libertarians” which typify the membership and leadership of the American Civil Liberties Union. It is true that the ACLU has come to the defense of freedom of speech for certain minorities (e.g., nazis, communists, and anarchists) and this is commendable – but the podium has often been at taxpayers’ expense, which is a “no-no” from the real libertarian perspective. Many “civil libertarians” believe that some people have a “right” to violate the rights of others; they claim there is a “right to a job” or a “right” to welfare payments or a “right” to “free education” or a “right” to free child care – all at the expense of the people (usually the taxpayers) who are forced to pay for these so-called “rights.” Real libertarians are for true freedom, not “freedom” at the forced expense of others. The only obligation that true rights impose on persons is of a negative kind: not to interfere with the rights of other people – i.e., to refrain from the initiation of the use of coercion. This is the core principle of libertarianism and is sometimes called the ‘Non-Aggression Axiom’. Welfare-state “liberals” and “civil libertarians” speak of “rights” of people as members of specially privileged groups, such as “women’s rights” or “gay rights” or “rights of the handicapped” or even so-called “animal rights”! Real libertarians know that there are only individual rights, not group rights. There is no such thing as “gay rights” or “black rights” or “white rights” or left-handed Martian rights. Government must not be used to dish out special privileges to any group for any reason, since government cannot give anyone anything unless it takes it away from others by force, thereby violating their rights. There can be no such thing as a “right” to violate the rights of others. No doubt there are some well-intentioned ACLU members who do promote true civil liberties and uphold human rights; however, the ACLU has not come to the defense of the rights of school children whose freedom is being violated daily by compulsory attendance laws and the tyranny of Federally-ordered forced busing. Nor do I know of any case in which the ACLU has defended the constitutional rights of businessmen who are being harassed by OSHA agents and other bureaucrats, or hounded by such arbitrary and subjective laws as the antitrust acts. Indeed, many “civil libertarians” seem callously insensitive to the victims of crime and legal plunder – while they defend known criminals from justice. Because of their consistent adherence to the principle of individual rights, libertarians are the only true defenders of liberty — civil or otherwise. Real libertarians understand that freedom of speech and other civil liberties depend on the sanctity of private property – not its violation by anti-discrimination laws and other forms of government intervention. Libertarians Are Not for Unlimited Majority Rule Libertarians are not democrats. While majority rule may or may not be as good as any other mechanism for selecting the men and women who administer the offices of government, libertarians deny that anyone or any group has a right to rule over other peaceful (non-coercive) citizens – whether they are in the majority or minority at any given time. If stealing is wrong for an individual to do, it is still wrong when conducted by a large group or by a majority vote. The number of people involved in an act does not change the rightness or wrongness of the act. There is no magic number that turns an individual wrong into a collective right. In a libertarian republic, the basic policy of government (i.e., laissez faire) is set by reference to fundamental principle — the principle of individual rights — and not determined by a show of hands. Libertarians uphold the right of the peaceful individual to self-ownership and private property against any who would violate this right – even a majority. Libertarians Are Not Anarchists Libertarians are not anarchists. While it is true that some individuals favor a political system of competing vigilante committees, and refer to this position as “anarcho-capitalism” (a view formerly held by libertarian economist Murray Rothbard), this is a confusing misnomer based on an apparent failure to clearly distinguish between the nature of market institutions (which do not involve the use of coercion at all, either initiatory or retaliatory) and the nature of coercive entities (criminal or legal). Actually, libertarianism rests on the concepts of individualism, self-ownership, private property, & voluntary (market) exchange. Classical anarchism not only opposed the political state, but also some voluntary organizations of which it disapproved. Most importantly, true anarchists opposed private property – without which no voluntary relationships are possible. Today’s libertarians are in the classical liberal tradition of Algernon Sidney, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Edmund Burke, Herbert Spencer, and Frederic Bastiat – not the anarchist tradition of Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin. Libertarians Are Not Pragmatists Libertarians do not advocate freedom or the free-market economy merely because “it works” (which it does better than any other system); they support it as the only non-coercive and just system – the system in which people are free to deal with one another on a voluntary basis as traders (exchangers of goods and services) instead of as masters and slaves – or as privileged class and exploited host. Others advocate government by whim. Libertarians adhere to certain principles, and without the guidance of principles and standards, all that is left is pragmatic expediency and the tyranny of government by whim. One might say that libertarians are “idealists” in the popular sense of that word; after all, libertarians stand for certain ideals – goals to strive for (e.g., less government intervention, more individual freedom and moral responsibility, free markets, etc.). Because libertarianism is based on man’s nature and the nature of reality, it is the most practicable social system. Libertarians are practical idealists.