Tuesday, March 31, 2009


The following was published in the Newsleader on March 27, 2009

Some years back Naomi Judd, of the famous mother daughter country music duo “The Judds”, wrote a book in which she spoke of, among other things, spousal abuse. Naomi’s opinion was stated as this. If you are abused by your domestic partner, the first time you are a victim, the second time you are a volunteer.

That seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? The question I ask, and I think a lot of people like me would ask, is why would a victim of abuse go back for a second helping or more? What is so lacking in their self esteem that they would believe such activity is either normal of justified?

A lot has been written and said just recently concerning domestic abuse because of the young singer Rihanna and her so called boy friend Chris Brown. I won’t rehash the complaint against this young man because I think most know the story. This writing seeks to examine the why.

First the young lady. Is she so bereft of self esteem that she feels this could be in any way justified? Is her background so filled with this type of behavior that she might consider it normal? We are told that most victims come from a background of abuse. Does she think such beatings are an expression of love? One could only believe that she believes it will come to an end eventually. The facts seem to bear this out, but not like victims believe. The abuse comes to an end when somebody dies, is permanently disabled, or the abuser goes to jail. That’s not a very satisfying ending, is it?

Now consider the abuser. I am going to figure the abuser in most cases is a man and the victim is most likely a female. I know there are other cases where the roles are reversed, but they are probably rare. What kind of arrogance could the young man in this case have? What on earth could cause him to believe that he was within his rights to punish his domestic partner with violent abuse? Did that make him feel more like a man? Did his expression of power over this defenseless little girl make his self esteem grow? If he gets pleasure from beating on people, I have a suggestion for him. Try somebody your own size. See what it feels like for someone to smash your face in and beat you to a bloody pulp. Of course that is not likely to happen.

The problem is that this type of so called man isn’t a man at all. They are terrorists. They are cowards. They hide behind some kind of outward respectability. They are probably your neighbors or maybe even fellow church members or business associates. The only time you hear about the abuse is when something tragic happens. Often it is then too late.

The next problem then is that soon the conversation about abuse will die down and again be shoveled under the carpet. I am convinced however that we will revisit the Rihanna situation again in the future. Unfortunately it will probably be tragic when we do. The reason is simple, domestic abusers don’t stop until they are forced to stop. Child beaters don’t suddenly grow up and become adults. They continue their abuse until tragedy strikes. Wife beaters will continue to be wife beaters as long as they have wives to beat on.

I have a simple question for you. If you are the victim of abuse, what is it going to take for you to get out of that situation? Your abuser is not going to suddenly become a man. He is going to continue to be a coward because that is just who he is. It is your choice. Are you a victim or are you a volunteer? Get the help that is available to you and I wish you well.

Ron Scarbro March 15, 2009


Last October I posted on this blog an open letter to the auto manufacturers. I hope you will go back and re-read that posting because we now need to visit that problem once again. This time the letter must be addressed to both the manufacturers and to Members of Congress.

Today as I write this piece, the stock market is tanking once again. This time the reported reason is the auto business. It would seem that the government has now concluded that the American auto maker is no longer viable and must knuckle under to government regulation or face extinction. In their wisdom government officials have determined that all the American automobile manufacturers have to do is build a more fuel efficient car to have a future. Never mind that the technology doesn’t exist to accomplish what the government wants, just do it. In their view car buyers are just waiting with baited breath for the opportunity to buy an American car if only it got better fuel economy. It is my opinion that this once again proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that government officials don’t have a clue. The vast majority of people in government either elected or just employed have never had to meet a payroll or make a profit. Their continued interference will serve only to hasten the demise of any possibility auto manufacturers have of surviving or succeeding.

The reality of the auto business is really much simpler. As I described in my October 2008 blog, people have financed their cars for longer and longer periods. What we have now is a huge number of people driving worn out cars with very high mileage on them, but who still owe large balances on those cars and are upside down in their value. In other words, they owe more on the cars than they are worth. Many would love to buy a new car but they can’t. This situation has been building for a long time.

What I have just described was created by the auto makers with the co-operation of the banks and the dealers. Unfortunately the chickens have now come home to roost. Unions have continued to make demands on the manufacturers to share their huge profits without considering this reality. Contrary to what the government would have you believe, it is just that simple.

Now the question is what to do. I fully recognize that there are no initials after my name but I did spend my entire working life in the auto and auto financing business. I have seen this coming for some time. We have basically borrowed future buyers for today’s business. The reason banks have financed cars for extended periods is the price has increased at such a rate that average buyers shied away from them without the extended financing. Used car markets have continued to punish car values with high mileage. When you think about it, would you want to buy a car with 200,000 miles on the odometer?

We have to return to a saner way of selling and financing cars. Lenders must not over finance. People must realize that they cannot buy a $30,000.00 car for $250.00 per month. Manufacturers must advertise the price of their product, not some phony lease payment. Unions must realize that the profits they shared in are no longer there and they must pull back.

In other words, we need a correction. Well guess what? We are in one now and we will soon get to the other side of it. Soon many buyers will find themselves in a position to once again enter the car market. They will have paid off their old junker and will buy another car. No government action will have anything to do with this correction. It will happen anyway. Any effort on the part of the government will only serve to delay what has to happen.

Yes, times will be difficult for a while, but we will get to the other side.

Car buyers, face it. You must change your expectations if you wish to buy a new car. Unless you put half down, the payment is not going to be $250.00 per month. Consider a nice used car. They are better than ever today.

Government officials, get out of the retail business. Concern yourself with matters of State instead. Quit spending taxpayer dollars trying to create your image of how a business is supposed to be. Businesses succeed and fail all the time. Let the correction happen. It will anyway with or without your interference. We will all soon see this problem as a thing of the past.

Ron Scarbro March 30, 2009

Sunday, March 22, 2009


9.3 trillion dollar deficits expected! This was the banner headline that greeted me this morning in my local newspaper. Deficits are expected to be four times greater than the previous administration’s highest. We should expect decades of these types of deficits. Well duh! The Democrats won. They won the White House, the Senate, and the House. They did this with a considerable assist from the media so I thought this is what you wanted. After all, this is what Democrats do. They spend money. You knew that didn’t you?

They have created these deficits in just two months in office. One can only imagine how the rest of this term will pan out. The standard response from the Democrats is that they inherited the mess we are in and they had to do something. To them the something appears to be to spend billions of dollars that we don’t have to fix problems that don’t exist and send the bill to generations of people who are not yet born. Pretty slick, huh?

Unfortunately The Office of Management and Budget has said that such deficits are just not sustainable. Taxes will have to increase dramatically to cover the cost. The current deficits do not even include the proposed Universal Health Care initiative which is yet to be described. (Note to grandchildren and great grandchildren, hang on to your wallets for dear life, the bill is in the mail.)

Some of you may have seen the map that went around after the election showing all the votes cast by counties. Briefly both coasts and three large cities in the middle of the country went for the Democrats while the rest of the country, the huge center, went to the Republicans. The “fly over middle” as the Liberals are fond of calling it. I have a few thoughts about this breakdown of votes to share with you.

Sometimes this seems like two separate countries. The Democrats control the coast lines and the big cities, where they can successfully govern with their liberal slant such as a distain for the military, hatred and fear of guns, politically correct treatment of criminals and misfits, and a never ending welfare state for those who refuse to take care of themselves. None of these groups generate any wealth mind you.

The other country is the middle. This is where most of the citizens are armed. They also produce most of the food not only for America but for the rest of the world as well. Most of our energy is produced in the middle not to mention what has been discovered but has yet to be developed. The middle also loves and cherishes the military and I believe the feeling is mutual. A vast amount of the money used to support the coast lines is generated from the center.

So here is my proposal. Let us organize and make a deal with the other side. Because we control the food, we will feed them. Also, with our control of fuel and energy, we will warm them. Because we control the guns, we will protect them. Since we would control the military, we would protect their borders from foreign invasion. Of course our products and services would come with a price. They could then tax their citizens to come up with the necessary payments. Because the vast majority of the liberals don’t actually generate any wealth, they would have to figure out a way of paying us for our goods and services. You see without food or protection, welfare benefits wouldn’t be worth much. Makes you wonder who really has the power, doesn’t it?

It is pretty easy to see that this is just silliness, but what I hope it points out is that the liberal left cannot forget the rest of this country. As they govern, they absolutely must consider what their policies cause for the citizens who actually pay the bills, not just for the ones who draw from their largess. If the farmer doesn’t produce food, they don’t eat. If the military isn’t properly funded and supported, they have no protection. If our energy sources aren’t properly exploited, they have no fuel.

I am still reserving my judgment. I will wait a bit longer before I indict this administration. I do believe however that the current direction is neither sustainable nor possible. Hopefully they will get the picture soon.

Ron Scarbro March 22, 2009

Tuesday, March 10, 2009


A few years back we participated in a silly game at Chinese restaurants. When reading the fortune cookie, we would always add the phrase “in bed” to the fortune. That phrase changed to entire fortune and made the whole thing much funnier. Remembering that little game has caused me to consider adding the phrase “or not” to much of what is reported as news today. Let me show you how this would work.

Just this morning I heard the latest dire warning about the melting of the Arctic ice. We are being told that this could cause all sorts of destruction and world calamity. I decided to add the phrase, “or not”. See how this changes the entire news report? How about this one? The world’s economy is near collapse, “or not”. Bird flu could kill millions across the world, “or not”. One of my favorites comes from a few years ago. The population of the world is outgrowing our ability to produce food, “or not”.

What is the message of this essay? I think news reporting has changed dramatically over the years from what is fact, to what is a possibility. The design of the new reporting appears to be scare tactics. This would seem to be the way the media intends to remain viable and stay in business.

When you add to this speculative reporting the all new “commentary”, news takes on a whole new meaning. Rather than just reporting the facts of what has happened, media now seems to want us to know what could happen and further to let us know how we are supposed to feel about the as yet non-event. I don’t know about you but I personally don’t know anyone who is competent to tell me correctly how I should feel about anything. In addition I much prefer that the media just report what has happened and let the future take care of itself.

How are we served by knowing what some expert thinks about what could happen? In addition, how are we served by some talking head’s opinion of how we should react to the possibility of some future event which could or could not even occur?

I suspect that much of this is happening because the media has gotten the idea that they and only they are the best judge of what you need to know. They and only they are the best judge of how you should feel. You’ve heard the phrase, “We report, you decide”? The problem with that of course is they decide what they report. Often the truth is a casualty of such thought.

It should come as no shock to you that television news programs and newspapers in general are in big trouble, Readership is down as well as advertising revenue. Will they survive into the future? Sorry, I can’t give you an answer because I am not an expert. What I do know is this. They have lost me and a number of my associates. We choose other sources for our news and often cross reference to make sure we are getting all the facts. If there was truth in all the speculation of what has been reported in the past, none of us would be here now.

The truth is that no one can predict the future. Nobody knows what is coming next. Media scare tactics will serve no one including them. The future will take care of itself and intelligent people will also. Until then I will try to continue to point out the absurdity of what is going on, “or not”.

Ron Scarbro March 10, 2009

Friday, March 6, 2009


Here it is only March 5th and already I have chosen a moron of the month. Normally I would wait for the month to come closer to the end but this particular gentleman screams for recognition without wait.

He is Rep. Jeff Eldridge, Democrat, West Virginia.

I have always thought West Virginia was a strange place. After all how else would you explain Robert Byrd. But with all due respect to Senator Byrd, Rep Eldridge has surpassed moronic behavior. What did he do you ask? Well this bastion of good sense and high moral purpose has introduced legislation to outlaw the Barbie doll. That’s right poor little innocent Barbie. It seems Eldridge believes that young girls who play with Barbie dolls are led to pay too much attention to looks and body image at the expense of intelligence and emotional development.

The Barbie doll just celebrated her 50th birthday. That is unheard of for a single toy. Dolls come and go. Hardly ever does a single toy, let alone a doll, transcend many generations. The Barbie that is sold today is virtually the same doll that was available to the mothers of the current owners as well as their grandmothers in some cases.

Through the years Barbie has suffered criticism from many quarters. Her body was too perfect. It caused young girls to have low self esteem because their bodies didn’t measure up. There were other criticisms also but it doesn’t matter because she survived and prospered in spite of the bad reviews. Both my daughter and now her daughter are big fans as well as owners. I am pleased to say that both have managed to succeed in spite of a close association with all things Barbie.

No matter your opinion of Barbie, the real issue here is a furthering of the nanny state. People like Rep. Eldridge seem to think that their opinion is the only one that should be considered. Like February’s moron there seems to be this belief that legislators are elected not as our representatives, but rather as our mommies and daddies.

To Rep. Eldridge and those who think like him, I have some advice. Butt out. Concern yourself with matters such as taxes and growth. Deal with the great issues of the day and leave parenting to parents. If you are a father and don’t want your daughter or son for that matter to have a Barbie, for goodness sake don’t buy one.

I understand you could not get any other legislator to sign on the legislation with you. Do you not get the message? What country do you think this is? Once again, what part of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” do you not understand? You and your fellow morons will continue to be the butt of jokes until you get the big picture. This is America. Mattel is entitled to produce and sell their dolls in any state without your interference. They have done so for fifty years and your legislative attempt will just become another footnote in the sad history of “Nanny State” nonsense.

I can only hope the people of West Virginia come to their senses soon and rid themselves of politicians like you. But when you consider that Robert Byrd has spent two or three lifetimes in Washington, it seems unlikely.

Ron Scarbro March 5, 2009