Seeing What’s Really There: Why Iran attacked Saudi oil fields and why we shouldn’t give a damn

One thing is very clear about liberal intellectual circles, and even conservative ones, they rely on the rules of society to disguise what they cannot see about life. They are blind as bats without the sonar to navigate a dark cave on a black, moonless night. So, it should not be surprising that they have no idea what to make out of the sudden Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian crude oil facilities launched from within Iran sending cruise missiles into their targets knocking out 5% of the oil production for the world. Obviously, Iran is struggling under the U.S. sanctions and they hope by taking their competitor down a notch or two that they might survive on the world marketplace just a bit longer. Having friends like Russia, North Korea and even China doesn’t mean much these days so all the old Marxist regimes are struggling to find their way in the world of capitalist markets. All they can do is lash out as Iran did.

For those who can’t see clearly what the situation is, the Iranian revolution during the 70s was a Marxist incursion meant to spread socialism and communism all over the Middle East to control the oil fields. Communist policy makers in the United States trained at our best colleges and sent forth to do the bidding of evil over regulated the oil industry in America so that Iran and the Middle East in general could leverage the world and its capitalism through high prices on barrels of oil which is essentially an attack on every one of us and our cars. This game went on all through the past decades as America was pulled into war after war to protect those interests and even when Iran was losing, they were winning because of their Marxist intentions, which was why the Obama administration was trying to help Iran along, to keep that machine running for the cause.

But Americans aren’t stupid, they voted for Trump, he deregulated the industry and that has made America for the first time in our history oil independent and has driven down through competition the prices on a barrel of oil. That has also given us leverage to sanction Iran for bad behavior because we don’t need their oil. In pain, economically since most of the vision of the typical Iranian is regional, they blame Saudi Arabia for that leverage, because they haven’t yet accepted that America can produce its own oil. So they attacked the crude oil facilities to get themselves at a seat at the negotiating table.

It has been a complete myth for intelligentsia to assume that America went around the world controlling territories out of imperialism, or simply so that we could have cheap oil for our cars. Every person who says such a thing is lost as to the real cause of what makes what and who the good guys are in the world. America stands for the creative potential of capitalism and freeing oppressed people who have been living under tyrannical leadership for all of their history. Socialism is all about centralized authority which limits human creativity and freedom, which is why China must steal intellectual information from their competitors just to stay relevant in the marketplace, because imagination and development do not happen when human minds are constrained to regulation.

America had an obligation to stand behind capitalism in the East and in the Middle East as well as Central America because it was an attack on the progress that could be made under that political philosophy. There are of course nuances between Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto but our human development has brought us to a place where we can’t have both. The problem is most people can’t tell the difference. They have been taught in their public educations and their government that socialism is the path of the future, but logic and business say that capitalism is the only means of real advancement. The two aren’t compatible. For many years the United States did go around the world trying to put out every little Marxist revolution to keep markets open and as free as possible, not just for ourselves, but for the benefit of the world that didn’t always appreciate it. But the real villains were within the American government where they set policies to push America beyond its borders and into that imperialist accusation that the liberal pinheads like to talk about all the time.

As a wealthy guy who knows how the game is played President Trump didn’t need a fancy room of advisors to tell him that the way to beat everyone at the oil table was to make ourselves independent. He just did it and now even if nobody sells oil to the United States, we can make our own. That has put all these tyrants at a severe disadvantage and taken away all their leverage—particularly Iran. Even by knocking out Saudi Arabian oil fields, the American economy will not be stifled and that is the big picture as to what happened as a result of this attack by Iran.

Should the United States get involved in the conflict and protect Saudi Arabia, well, no. Its true, we have been selling arms to Saudi Arabia to defend itself. They can defend themselves. The people who don’t see so well, the television pundits and cable news producers will want to tell dramatic stories about how barrels of oil will go up as a result, but the truth is, America doesn’t need their oil. We have our own. And that is a pretty good place to be. There is no reason to attack Iran. They are already on the brink of annihilation due to their commitment to Marxist ideology for which they needed to have domination over the oil market for it to work. The moment that America took that leverage away, Iran as a powerhouse of world affairs ended. It’s just taking a while for the rest of the world, the blind people, to catch up.

There is nothing for America to do about Iran, or Saudi Arabia. We can sell more weapons to the Saudi’s to help them defend themselves, but there is no reason to put boots on the ground in any fashion. The Iranians are lashing out with everything they have left trying hard to excerpt force to bring people to the negotiating table. But there is nothing for them to barter with. The problem that leftists used against America was the anti-imperialist angle that always put capitalism in a bad light, because American leaders just didn’t know how to defend it. They’d provoke America into action then blame them for overreaching in corners of the world over indigenous people who were quietly being recruited into socialism and communism. But you can’t call America an imperialist if they get their own oil out of Texas and Ohio and stay out of wars in the Middle East. We can just make our own. They can fight it out all they want. And that is why this new game is so much better than the old one. And why finally America can win, because the villains are all now exposed and standing behind barrels of oil that nobody really needs or cares about.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Americans Love Their Guns Far More Than They Love Their Government: The cost of a Beto O’Rourke gun buyback

I consider even the proposition insulting, but looking at it practically, the ridiculousness of the Beto O’Rourke gun buyback on just “assault weapons” would cost about $20 billion. The amount of money it would take coupled with the manpower of performing the task is by itself staggering. And assuming that most people would cooperate, because they always do, there is a percentage of those who wouldn’t who would make the endeavor impossible. For the greatest military in the world and with trillions of dollars spent, the culture change in Afghanistan and Iran have not changed much. The targets in those conflicts went into hiding and the military struggled to root them out. A gun buyback in the United States would be no easier. It would cause a major civil war and is as impractical as anything ever proposed by government because it attacks the central premise of our entire legal system. Guns are what make America great and there are many, such as myself, who would never support a government that confiscates guns to hold their power.

I am not a fan of the mantras “come and take it” and “over my cold dead hands” because it assumes that we are daring a powerful entity to attack, and assuming that they would win by sheer mass of effort. I never intend to die in such a conflict, or that I am not the superior force. There are over 300 million guns in America and the peer pressure right now is to force retailers like Walmart and Dicks Sporting Goods to pick the pro government confiscation side, and to tax ammunition and to shut down manufactures within America to cut off the supply. That is the Beto O’Rourke view of the world where centralized governments could even garner such power. And they might in the cities where Democrats have ruined the prospects for growth and good human conduct. But outside of the highway loops, and out into the farmland between cities, I know those people well, and let me just say something. No military on earth could take the guns away from those people. And a lot of people would die in the process.

Regarding the Beto O’Rourke t-shirt indicating that he plans to take away the property of the American public in the form of their AR-15s I had to respond by daring him or his campaign to wear that to a stop in Slade, Kentucky, and to see how that goes. Really it could be anywhere USA that is off the path a bit, but I know the area of Slade really well, and understand that even the old grandmothers there are very suspicious of even postal workers and census takers. Try driving into the neighborhoods of Slade with military vehicles and national guard troops with the intentions of confiscating their guns and a blood bath would be quick to follow. They would probably beat the shit out of pot-boy Beto just for wearing that shirt in their community. I think it would be very entertaining for Beto to stop by and see how things go with that shirt on at the local McDonald’s because it would be a good indicator for how it would go elsewhere in the country. It wouldn’t be good.

And that’s the real problem is that these politicians look at the world through their little bubbles of urban life, and they assume they have a bead on everyone, and they don’t. Like most Democrats they view the world in a compliant fashion without ever really considering what human beings really desire outside of their needs for safety. The typical Democrat is a helpless form of human being living as victims to the very nature of breath itself. So, they turn to government to tell them what to do and when to do it. Then politicians like Beto O’Rourke and media types from the big urban markets start believing that all people are that way, which is far from true. I would say it would be impossible to confiscate guns in America, or to instigate a buyback program that would only increase criminal conduct from thieves trying to make money from the government by stealing guns and selling them on the buyback. The effect would fail miserably.

The government foolishly assumes that we need Walmart and gun manufacturers to put a dent in those 300 million guns that we have and to stop the sale. However, as I’ve pointed out often, we can make our own guns and our own ammunition. We don’t need official manufacturers because the science has been invented. People in Slade, Kentucky and all over the eastern part of Ohio down into West Virginia just thinking of my region could set up shops in their garages that could make guns off mini milling machines and ammunition presses. In fact, they would enjoy it. The entire operation would simply move underground like it did in the days of prohibition which gave rise to Al Capone in Chicago where everyone knew he was selling booze, but the law lacked the ambition to enforce the law because they wanted the product. It would be much more severe with guns, the black market for guns and ammunition would be extensive and harder to control than moonshine. The government isn’t big enough and never would become that way to put a dent in the gun market if it were forced underground.

The only way that government can even begin to control guns is through a system kind of like what we have now where there is a little background check and the ATF has some visibility on who is buying and selling guns. Its such big business that is the only way the government can collect some of the tax money off the enterprise, and in reality, that’s the only control they are ever going to get. The government could never get big enough to make a compliant nation without major bloodshed and they could never enforce it. They can’t even control that effort in their big cities such as Chicago. They certainly couldn’t go door to door in Greenville, Ohio and take all the guns from the farmers there. My bet on any government agency that would even try such a thing is that they would just “disappear” without a trace in the middle of the night from wherever they were staying and nobody would ever see them again, or who took them. And even if they did make it to the doors of people who would never give up their guns, shootouts would ensue and things would really start to get out of hand.

The foolish nature of big government advocates like Beto O’Rourke is that they really don’t understand Americans or the love of guns. They simply don’t like those people and want to change America into something else so they have never really taken the time to understand what an American is. For the typical American it is different than any other place in the world and guns are more a philosophical element than a practical one. Most people never intend to shoot a person in their entire lives or want to be shot at. But having that gun in the house is a reminder to them that they are free and independent. The threat of taking that away from them would make a desperate and angry person, and that is what the government is not prepared to deal with. Beto O’Rourke thinks by poking the fence like he is that he can Trump his way into a Democrat nomination. But what they don’t understand, any of the Democrats, is that people love their guns much more than they do their government. And they won’t tolerate any form of confiscation. At all, and that’s more than tough talk. It’s a fundamental element to our country itself.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Dancing to the Songs of the Universe: The girl in the white hat and her fiddle

I am always touched, no matter where in the world it is, when I see one of these street performers giving everything they have for a chance at getting noticed. Many of them are extremely talented and if only Hollywood or the record industry would just discover them, life would be great! But that’s not often how it happens and scenes like this one with the young girl performing in an open European market street are common, especially in Europe. Yet I really love watching this girl perform. That video was actually from over a year ago, but every time I see it I am enchanted with her raw ambition and lust for life. I could listen to her play music all day long and never tire.

It’s not a secret that I love children. It’s also no secret that I am not a big fan of teenagers and young twenty somethings. Out of all the ages of human development I have always hated those stages of people’s lives, the sexual age. With children, like the girl in the video playing wonderful music for tips, ambition and dreams are still alive. With teenagers and young adults many of the dreams of childhood surrender themselves to the impulse of nature to simply find a mate and to reproduce. With children their minds are coming alive and their individual ambitions are ignited. But once puberty kicks in nature is taking over and it is the liberal reminder that individuals serve nature, not the mind over nature itself. While kids have their minds growing, they are at the best that humans can ever hope to achieve. The sad story is that once they surrender that growth to nature, then it is seldom that they ever recover and they grow into adults that are constantly yearning to return to their youth, for the rest of their miserable lives.

Then occasionally you see a girl like this street performer will show up with her little hat and a fiddle and throw her dreams to the wind and hope that the shared experience will lead to good fortune. But in the honesty of most children there is just the lust to experience life in some profound way and share that expression with great ambition and talent, which is obvious in her performance. This girl reminds me of a young lady I saw who was about ten years older perform on the streets of Canterbury several years ago. My thoughts on seeing her was that she should be on America’s Got Talent, or some other high-level broadcast. But if every such person would be so discovered we couldn’t hold them back from filling a country of their very own, which is in a lot of ways why America was born. Every village around the world from India to the Congo have similar young people bursting with talent until they start giving birth to kids of their own and their dreams of ambition are lost to the pressures of reality. Sometimes, which I am always encouraging young people to hang on to, they get into their upper years with that ambition still attached, or they resurrect them. But often the case is that such ambitions are lost once the yielding to nature occurs, then such people are forever changed, and they never return.

I love seeing that these people are out there and I do cheer on that this bright young girl might hold her talents close even if Hollywood or some other entertainment market doesn’t give her a job, that she continues to perform like this for the raw ambition of protesting against nature and instead remain as humans were designed, playing their brand of music against the backdrop of the universe and whatever songs spring forth.

I am also a person who doesn’t like dancing, I don’t do it. The reason is that the music is reminiscent to me of nature and most music worth dancing to is of the low intellect pubescent variety. The music is made by people in their young adult phase and the goal is to get people into the mating rituals, the low thinking of sexual frustrations and hunger. It has often made me weary to go to dance halls, night clubs and those types of environments and watch bright young people surrender away their guarded bodies to the mosh pit of a mob that grinds against them in sexual ways in full view of the public as primitives would in a village orgy. We are not talking about the songs of the universe in this case, but the lower standards of the human desire to breed then die like some springtime flower that has done its duty, flowered, then bake away in the summer sun until its just a wrinkled up mound of vegetation dead by the first freeze of autumn. That is where that kind of dancing takes everyone, and its very sad for me to see, if I must admit as much.

But the music this girl is playing to, and dancing is of another kind. Its not intended to be sexualized, or even provocative, but is an affirmation of a musical score that was provided to her life for which she put her own spin on with her fiddle. That to me is the essence of what human life is and why it could have so much potential if only people would behold it and interact with it honestly. While most of these street performers in the world are hoping to get noticed, or to earn enough tips for the day to pay their way through that day of life, it is the last vestiges of childhood dreams that I see. These people are resisting to get that life crushing job, that boss that just doesn’t get it, for a chance to hang on to the dreams of childhood just a little bit longer before rent payments and healthcare dominate their thoughts, while their childhood lives and the freedom of thought that came with them are still there.

Here is this girl, defiant against the changes coming to her life playing music to the songs of the universe and all the hopes and dreams that come from an independent mind squaring off against reality itself. And the crowd gathering knows what they see. They have long surrendered to those pressures but they give the girl a tip because in some small way, that is one of their last acts of rebellion against the forces that are ruining their own lives in the vast wasteland of their existence, to give that girl a small tip of support and hope for her sake that the world might notice. And for the range of that little song the girl in her bright white hat and her sandals playing in the streets of a big city her declaration that she is independent and free, and not just putting her life in conjunction with human ambition in changing nature to a musical score of thought—but she is in command of it.

We might be thinking that once the music stops the bite of nature will come after her, and rip her to shreds like what happens to most people. But as she bows at the conclusion and people clap, we suppose that the grim reaper is just around the corner. However, I think that so long as she has that fiddle in her closet, or under her bed, no matter how many kids she has, or how many loved ones she knows who lose their life to the ailments of nature, that she will be alright. She may never taste fame or fortune, but so long as she can play music like that, she will always be a free person and will be among the most wealthy among us in the history of the human race.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

The 25/25 Rule: Get better, don’t yield to weaknesses

A lot of the methods of business have been on my mind lately due to the work I’m putting into a new book I’m working on called the Gunfighter’s Guide to Business. In it there is a chapter on the International Journal of Production Research’s 25/25 rule and it is just another example of how the private sector is always trying to improve themselves so that they can make more money and stay relevant longer in a business environment. Yet government at any level never does and it shows in what their final products are. We joke about how inefficient government is, and people do desire jobs in the government sectors because performance standards are not part of the vocabulary, but it doesn’t take an accountant to realize that for every hour worked in a to heavy government environment that it is costing the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money because something like the 25/25 rule is not being utilized, and its very disingenuous to everyone forced to contribute to the madness through the tyranny of the IRS.

The 25/25 rule essentially states that you take the 25% of your business portfolio and not focus on it so that you can give attention to all your top customers. The effort was created to attempt to give more focus on organizational support for the best of your customers and requires a judgement call. The rule also assumes that there is always another 25% of your company portfolio that can be improved with cutting out non-value-added tasks. Can you imagine a school board meeting where such a conversation would take place? The teacher’s union which really runs all public schools would be up in arms and protesting in seconds, since the goal of any employee run management is to be as inefficient as possible so that the bar of expectations cannot be lowered, just ever inflated so that the “collective” is not pressured too much in any task. That is problem number one.

Yet even in relation to the private sector I think the 25/25 rule doesn’t go nearly far enough and is a very disrespectful way to treat customers if they don’t happen to be in that upper tier of a company’s portfolio. It’s not their fault that you as a business have focus problems and need to find ways to internally prioritize effort. While I do agree that there is always 25% of an organization that could almost always be eliminated in unnecessary process flow and streamlined operations, I also think that the task of every organization is that they need to get 25% better on their portfolios, not to ignore 25% of their current load so they can focus on their best and most important customers. A top-level organization is always doing that and getting better so that they can show off their capacity to handle pressure for future state growth opportunities.

What I find happening in organizations using the 25/25 rule is that its giving bad management another tier of excuses to use until they are forced to look in the mirror and admit what a bunch of losers they are. The intent of the 25% portfolio reduction is to manage overbooked businesses with a steadier workflow, with the notion that its better late than never getting it at all. To me this is reprehensible thinking and is the nature of that particular chapter in my book. The difference between the East and the West is that winning matters and some of the parameters of western thinking that determine victory is speed and accuracy—the drive thru window with everything in the bag that you ordered—the first time through. We want it fast and we want it accurate. This whole 25/25 rule had me thinking of the bullwhip competitions that I’ve been in over the years where you are supposed to be 7’ from the five targets in the Speed and Accuracy competitions. You are timed how quickly you can use a 6’ bullwhip to crack out the ten targets. For every miss, there is a 5 second penalty. Learning to do that competitive event is a good way to step beyond the 25/25 rule and instead to focus on improving yourself by 25% not passing along your inability to some down the line customer.

We see it all the time, we’re picking up some food at a drive thru, the restaurant is obviously understaffed for the level of business they have and lines are wrapped around the building with everyone waiting on their food. Additionally, the people who don’t want to wait in that long line go inside to order at the counter, hoping to step around the mess. But standard practice in every fast food restaurant is to use that 25/25 rule to deal with such carnage, and the first thing that goes is worrying about the dining room because it is the drive thru windows that have the timers on them and is how they are measured as a successful business. Such a place could be said to have a capacity problem and the managers will blame their high call-off rates and blame the weak condition of their employees as the reason for their victimized status.

I would argue that the capacity constraints are not in the machinery, since most fast food restaurants are built to do the business, its in the high turnover and generally unreliable nature of the employees they hire that causes all the problems. I find the fault in the managers who have such a bad staff that calls off too much, or the kind of people they hired to begin with, in not determining at the interview that their employees might turn in to unreliable employees, and that the management culture allowed the employees to call off often without consequences which is why restaurants sometimes are slammed and unprepared to deal with their customer bases. Hiring the right kind of people through the interview process then developing those people through proper management practices is the key to successful staffing which then solves the capacity challenges that are not related to the equipment itself.

The 25/25 rule tends to give bad management the excuse to hide behind this measurement system and give them a victimized status to explain away their failure. “My employees called off, so I couldn’t successfully handle the customer demands.” Yet it was the reason all their employees called off that the management system didn’t deal with, which is why there is a problem in the first place. The company should focus instead on having a 25% increase in hiring efficiency where their new employees have better attendance. Or the drive thru window workers get 25% faster than the less experienced newbs. Or that you can run the whole operation with 25% less people. Those should be the targets and people who do things like that bullwhip competition that I mentioned understand that process because it simply wouldn’t be permissible to complain that the competition was too hard and that they didn’t have the speed and accuracy to compete. That is the nature of my new book, is to change the thinking about these kinds of things from a victimized status to a proactive one. If you want to do something, don’t blame the conditions. Get better, and acquire the skills needed for success.

Of course, the obvious hatred for President Trump by protectors of the status quo, the government employees who have been sucking off the system hiding behind a lack of standards reviews, or the government labor unions who have their own rules, such as a 99/99 rule. Unions are only willing to give 1% toward performance review, or a process improvement. They aren’t willing to sign up for any performance expectations because they don’t want the bar set where their lazy employees have to live up to. While that makes for a nice job for them where they get paid whether or not they actually do anything, the benefit to the end use customer is us, in that they cost too much money. At least with President Trump a part of our government is starting to think more like the private sector, and that’s the way it should always have been.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

The 25/25 Rule: Using Bullwhips to understand Overcapacity problems

I have enough for my book to include this small sample from the upcoming Gunfighter’s Guide to Business.  There is still a lot of editing to conduct and it will likely be a 2020 project at this point, but thought my audience here would enjoy it, since so many people have been asking how it is coming along.  So enjoy this short sample:

The 25/25 Rule

There are many rules of practice that businesses use to manage their capacity, such as Warren Buffett’s 25/5 rule, or the International Journal of Production Research’s 25/25 rule. With Buffett, he states that out of the top 25 things that you want to do in life, you should only focus on the top five, until you’ve completed them. And with the 25/25 rule the goal is to reduce focus on the bottom 25% of your workload and to squeeze improvements in process out of another 25%. Thinking like a gunfighter however, these measurements in business are only new ways to present targets to hit and have their own sets of problems that unless looked at correctly, are useless. As I have spoke about, there are many weapons that gunfighters can use to do their business, guns are just one of them. Another is the bullwhip which I find has many direct correlations that apply to conceptual business matrixes such at the 25/25 rule.

As I have said about the bullwhip and in fast draw shooting in general, the primary objective is to do the most work with the most power in the shortest and most accurate time span possible. With bullwhips, to get the maximum impact out of the end of the weapon with the minimum effort it requires the handler to project that effort toward a target at a proper moment where the crack will occur in space and time. It is really quite an effort in physics to be able to crack out the flame on a candle with a bullwhip which among those who can call themselves experts, is a common act. When hitting targets with a bullwhip the effort looks effortless when done correctly as most of the action happens within a second’s time of measure. But there are many small steps within that second that must occur correctly to make such a thing happen, especially under the burden of timed pressure. Yet even just cracking out a flame on a candle with all the time to do it in the world takes a very timed approach to inflict the minimal effort to get the maximum results of cracking the whip so near the candle that the sonic boom created blows out the flame.

When companies utilize the 25/25 rule essentially what they are saying is that they are over capacity due to their sales departments over booking the facility and that they are picking the bottom end of their 25% of business portfolio to ignore so that they can focus on their top percent of valuable customers. The problem with this approach is that it allows bad management to hide behind a method of measurement and to use the analysis to disguise bad approaches to solving the problem. In the Cowboy Fast Draw competitions and Wild West Arts work that is like saying that the weapon handler needs more time to do a good job. But as we know in gun fights, the fastest and most accurate were the ones who won the duels. There were no rules for taking time to deal with the incompetence of the duelists. If the gunfighters were incompetent, they were killed. And the same holds true in business.

The aim of the Western Arts isn’t just to enjoy the historical nature of traditional weapons used in war within American culture but is to represent the necessities of living within a western society. The needs of American business is one of those requirements, and not connecting those proper metaphors to the function of business can lead to detriment, which for too many companies is a common occurrence. Such as the case with the 25/25 rule the way it has been proposed to help companies with their problems of overcapacity. The solution to those problems are experienced in western competition where speed and accuracy are measured. There are many very good shooters in the world and very good bullwhip artists who have trouble with the fast draw competitions of Western Arts. They look great when performing for audiences until the pressure of time is added, then things get tough and people start reacting poorly under duress, which is the point.

Most consultants in the United States and Europe are following similar methods of reducing push systems and instead incorporating pull, where one element of a supply chain does not ship until the downstream source is needed. The 25/25 rule is an element of this thinking and it essentially dances around the true villain which is incompetence. If a manager either upstream or downstream just can’t handle the pressure and has a hard time recruiting and retaining good employees, they will obviously have trouble doing the required job. The 25/25 rule gives them some cover to then focus only on their valuable customers and letting the less valuable fall off the portfolio. This might look great for the internal measures of a production environment, but it doesn’t equal the task of the sales department that is trying to book work and help a company profile with new business. The incompetent managers within an organization might be angry toward sales for bringing in more work than they feel comfortable handling. And that is the core of the problem. Many of the Lean consultants do have good ideas but they try to use peer pressure to level load a facilities production output instead of focusing on making the individual contributors better.

I have seen many really good bullwhip artists struggle with the speed and accuracy competitions that are in the Western Arts events, because the rhythm and pressure of a timed competition throws off everything and they would argue that if the rules were not so rigorous, if only they had more time, they could do better. Well, who couldn’t? The point of timed pressure is to sort out the good from the bad and in business that is certainly the case. Thinking like a gunfighter, anything less than fast and accurate would mean death, and it does to businesses also.

It is up to the weapon handler, such as in the case of the bullwhip artist to get better and to acclimate themselves to the conditions of the battlefield. If doing a speed and accuracy competition with bullwhips between 15 to 12 seconds is the parameters needed to win, then that is up to the bullwhip artists to get better to compete in those parameters. In the case of businesses where sales provide jobs and the various program managers within the organization determine that the scope of work fits within the company portfolio it is not up to the weaknesses of production to decide that they can’t live up to the expectations. They must get better to meet the needs, not hide behind some bounty hunter rules created to make their business thrive while the businesses that hire them suffer under their own incompetence. Rather than try to force the industry to deal with the artificial constraints created by bad management, companies should strive to get 25% better to meet those market needs and to create value for their customers. What if a town sheriff stated to the population looking to them for protection that to be a good representative of the law that the criminals needed to be 25% slower in their threats and actions of aggression so that the sheriff could handle the danger? Instead, it is up to the sheriff to get faster, and to be better. And if more bandits come to town, and are smarter and faster yet, it is up to the law to get better to keep the peace. So, it is with any business. The customer needs what they need, it is up to the company to give it to them, or to figure out how to without going out of business in the practice. And that only happens when you force everyone to get better, not playing to the weaknesses of the workforce managed poorly by the incompetent.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Don’t Shop At Walmart: Anyone against guns is against the idea of America and is an advocate of domestic terrorism

Do you know what the difference is between “us” and “them” the political right and the political left, both of which cannot have a stake in the future of America because the philosophies of living are just too dramatically far apart? “We” talk about doing things and “they” do them. Such is the case with “us” talking about making Antifa a terrorist organization, which it clearly is, then the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passing a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization.” While the resolution is purely a political stunt, what is at stake is the branding of guns in general and any group or individuals who defend the right to have them—as terrorists. This as Antifa members beat people senseless, harass elderly flag waving veterans, and espouse brown shirt socialism from their corner Starbucks with outward threats of violence and mayhem. Even the now wimpy Walmart is in on the game of banning ammunition and pistols from their inventory refusing to sell them to their customers under pressure from these same forces.

The same mode of attack is at play as Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok suing the FBI for wrongful termination even though they are the ones who committed the crimes, or the school levy supporter who advocates to boycott any business that does not support their mandatory tax increases, or the drug advocate who wants to ignore that all these mass shooters were depressed fatherless young people who by their indicated states had altered their mental acuity into dangerous assassins. The political left doesn’t care if 5 people are killed in a mass shooting or 50. Much higher numbers are shot and killed every weekend in Chicago. The goal for the left isn’t to eliminate shootings and mass killing. If they were for life, they wouldn’t be supporters of abortion which kills many more people every year. So do car accidents, and stabbings. For them mass killings, which they have their hand in the philosophies that cause them completely, are opportunities to exploit their real aim, the abandonment of the Constitution the re-invention of America, and the acquiring of power for a large central government over an independent republic.

My advice to you dear reader is not to shop at Walmart due to their activism against guns, which is the backbone of American life in so many ways. I am writing a book on that subject as a matter of fact and I could easily fill it with content as large as War and Peace. Of course, that would be too long, so editorial considerations must be made in the process, and I’m certainly not going to try to define it here, in these little 1200-word articles. Its beyond the scope of this subject. However, Walmart has built an empire off the American lifestyle and once they turn against guns and their users, they are headed in the wrong direction and are victims of the radicals rather than helpers of a better world.

My wife has to drag me to a Walmart every time we go. She likes it, has a loyalty to them for offering goods at the lowest price possible. But what I see is an ocean of mediocrity and I like to avoid the place and the smell. My thoughts on the matter are that low prices tend to bring out low expectations in life, so in a lot of ways, Walmart has hurt people, not helped them. Lowering the bar for living a good life may not be the best thing. After all, what good is an expensive item gained cheaply if you cheat the real value. The only way to pull off that hat trick is to actually lower the value of the product itself which is the case with Walmart. The value of Walmart to a person like me is that I can buy guns and ammunition while my wife shops for groceries. If I can’t do that, then I have no value for Walmart.

And that’s the way it always is, it’s always conservatives who move toward a position that the left claims—its never the other way around and that is because conservatives are such nice people. They are just and they do have empathy while the left is like that spoiled teenager that can never be made happy. What we never talk about is why they are never happy. Its not because they don’t want to be happy, but because they use their unhappiness to change policy for themselves, so they can get one more hour on their curfew, or the keys to the family car for a night out on the town. The left throws fits of rage for the hell of it, so they can bring hell to the rest of us. They expect us to compromise while they do nothing to meet us halfway. So why in the world would we do it knowing that?

The reason is that conservatives are smarter than liberals and are naturally averse to conflict. They would rather use other aspects of their intellect to solve a problem than fight and that is what the left exploits, because like a spoiled teenager of loving parents, or guilty parents, they know they can get away with it. That is precisely how Antifa expects to inflict terrorism on us, and why the FBI drifted away from justice and became radicalized. They knew they could get away with the effort, so they went for the aggression, because nobody was standing in their way.

I am a proud member of the NRA. I just renewed my membership which I do every year at this time just so I can have the privilege of renewing it. I like knowing that I am a member, so the renewal is my way of keeping it fresh in my mind. And within that membership I see and hear from the true backbone of America, and I like those people. I take offense to it when they are called names and when my organization is attacked and called a terrorist organization. To whom? The actual domestic terrorists within our borders—the political left?

For me I do have other tools to fight with than violence and I spend most of my life using those tools. But unlike other conservatives I am not against meeting violence with violence. If that’s the only language that the left can speak, well I can assure them that I can shout louder than they can. I am not OK with Walmart turning anti-American, I am not OK with my group being called a terrorist organization. And I am not a supporter of Antifa terrorism, radical levy moms and their boycotts of businesses, teacher union losers striking for more money when kids need someone to watch them while their parents are working, and I’m not OK with an FBI that tampered with the last American election and expects to get away with it. Guns mean that my life will not be controlled by those kinds of people. Removing guns from society means those types of people will decide how I live and that isn’t acceptable. The debate isn’t one of gun control, its about what kind of America we want. Mass shootings are caused and exploited by left leaning political activists for their own brand of terrorism, and it is not the task of the political right to appease them unopposed. Since we can’t trust politicians, we have the NRA, which people like me make up. And when it is attacked, I consider it an attack on me. And that is not a good strategy on behalf of the real domestic terrorists, the political left.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Failure is Never an Option: Trump is right, bad companies blame the tariffs, not themselves

I’m glad President Trump said it, its true, badly run companies are using the tariff war with China as an excuse for their poor performance. I agree with him. That is usually the case any time an organization is caught performing bad, they will use any excuse to hide their own behavior. In public school systems they always blame the unfunded mandates of the state, or the allocation of the state money, but what is usually the case, its their lazy union employees who are the cause of poor performance and the unwillingness of the school boards to fight them. In the private sector the same kind of blame game goes on, only in business there are constant exercises in management review that exploits the real problems. Not all companies, in fact most companies, are not well run so price increases due to the China trade war or long lead times from suppliers is an easy target for losers to blame for their own problems. So, it was good to see that we finally have a president who has run businesses, and understands how things really work, instead of some out of touch politician who believes everything advisors tell him.

Good management is to close gaps when it is obvious that they need to be closed, such as in the trade deficit with China. For all the bellyaching that is made about how bad the trade war is hurting farmers in America, Trump has moved $16 billion collected from the realignment of the new tariffs on Chinese goods and sent them straight to the farmers since they have been targeted by China. And as Trump pointed out, there are many more billions of dollars that we are collecting now that we weren’t before, so the farmer issue in losing to China isn’t even a consideration. And neither are the complaints where price increases are being blamed by the tariffs. As far as revenue collection, the United States is making money. As far as supply chain management, companies always knew the risks of doing business with a communist country, and they should have had contingency plans. That they didn’t says a lot about the kind of companies that they are, lazy and unprepared, so the tariffs are an easy target for the incompetent.

Almost before the trade war started between Trump and China I heard business insiders starting to blame the poor condition of their supply chains as an excuse to either push out lead times or jack up their prices. But if they were actually a well-run company, they would have already thought about those things, even a year out and they would not be affected by a trade war with China. Blaming the tariffs for anything is the first sign of people who don’t know better, and are bad managers of the elements of their life which interact with business. Before Trump came along nobody said such obvious things so we should all be grateful that Trump is willing to take on big communist currency manipulators like China but also the big companies in America who love to hide their out of control management on politics. Most of the time, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.

Every organization that runs a budget, whether it is the large government schools of nearly every community in North America or a large corporation like Apple, they are expected by reality to produce and to do so well. The challenges that come along whether its unfunded mandates or the supply of metals are tasks that all management is supposed to deal with. Nobody wants to hear excuses; they just want results and that is ultimately the value that companies bring to their markets. An excuse is not a value, it is simply a means to explain away failure. But from my perspective, and this has always been the case, failure is never an option.

I was very encouraged the other day; I was at a stop light and a large tractor trailer pulled up alongside me. On the trailer was a company motto stating, “failure is not an option.” I thought to myself, there is a great company. Any company or organization that puts that as part of their branding is at least trying to avoid the blame game of failure that is part of their business. Someone is always failing them, the question is, will they accept that failure or overcome the imposition? A company that does not accept failure but simply moves on from it is one that is trying to be successful. But a company that says, our business is hurt by the tariffs with China, or the interest rates that are at play, or we are having a hard time hiring people because everyone is on oxycontin these days, those are all loser statements. They may have roots in reality but accepting them for poor performance is detrimental to any organizational behavior.

A great football team doesn’t stop trying to win if their star player goes down, or if the referees call a bad game against them. Those things might actually cause a team to lose, but blaming those elements are loser statements. Accepting that failure is the first step in losing and any company that blames things for their poor performance is acting as a loser, and not taking the steps that success requires. To win at anything overcoming barriers to success are expected. If a company doesn’t have the talent to do so, or the will to do it, then failure may happen. To explain their inadequacy to their share holders and other carriers of the public trust, they might blame tariffs or supply problems. But in all honesty, it was their job all along to overcome whatever opposition to success that there was, and to win the game, whatever it may have been. When people say that “it’s not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game,” they are partially right. How you play the game is all important in whether or not you will experience success. But even in that popular statement are the seeds for failure planted. It implies that even if you lose, if you played a good game, then you are off the hook. Bad companies have become very good at looking like they are playing the game well with lots of nice charts and excuses, but ultimately it is how you play the game, and whether you win or not. Nobody likes second place. Everyone loves a winner. The goal is always to win and to overcome impediments.

Excuses are for those who are lazy or stupid, incompetent or up to no good. I often decry labor unions because they are often to blame for a company’s lack of management, or the organization as a whole of something like a public school where the inmates run the asylum. Management at these places often throw their hands up and say things like, we failed because none of the union workers wanted to work the weekend, or we had a strike and couldn’t bring in raw materials. But what they are really saying is that they have no control of their business and weren’t thinking far enough ahead to have contingency plans. Such companies are blaming the tariffs for their poor performance and they make Trump a target for their failure, but in all reality, they own that failure. And nobody else.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.