Reader MV passed along this story of how non-discrimination laws might prevent an employer from choosing to hire only gay people:

A gay man in Manhattan contends he was fired because he objected to his boss’s biased hiring: The boss, he alleges, had a bias against hiring straight people.

Jamie Ardigo, 32, of Hoboken, is suing investor and entrepreneur J. Christopher Burch of New York for sex-discrimination and wrongful termination. Ardigo, who had been hired as HR director for J. Christopher Capital, Burch’s company, contends he was fired when he sought to change what he claims was Burch’s and the company’s discriminatory practices.

. . . .

[Fewer than four weeks after Ardgo "went to work for the company in early November 2011"] he says, he was seated in a meeting where Burch announced the fact that he hired only gay men because they were productive, and because he trusted them. Burch said the same thing, Ardigo asserts, on other occasions: “I witnessed it in meetings with the executive management team, where he’d blatantly state the fact that he only likes to hire gay men and beautiful women.”

And the problem is?

It is Mr. Burch’s company; he should be free to determines which individuals make the most productive and trustworthy employees.  And if he believes gay men to be more productive (and given some gay men I know it the field of finance, I have seen some grounds for that belief), the he should be free to hire them.

If he, however, chooses to hire only gay people, he gives his competitors an advantage — as they will be selecting from a much wider pool of potential employees.   That’s said, it’s his money he’s risking (not the government’s).

Now, Burch’s lawyer denies the allegations; this issue may never come before a judge.  That said, were Mr. Burch to prefer gay men in his office, well, bully for him.  The state should not be in the business of deciding how an entrepreneur selects his workforce.

Yesterday, I blogged that “many (if not most) private companies have sought to redress” past “unfairness by adopting non-discrimination clauses in their employment policies or developing ‘diversity’ policies to recruit gay and lesbian employees.”  Just today, I read about what one company (which, I believe, was founded and still run by a Mormon family) is doing to reach out to gays:

The Marriott hotel chain is known for its comfortable rooms and amenities. But in addition to a plethora of appeasing services, the popular company also offers value packages to individuals who are gay. Curiously, numerous hotels within the Marriott chain offer what they call “OUT” packages.

At the Renaissance Washington Marriott in Washington, D.C., for instance, the deal includes chocolate covered strawberries, sparking wine upon arrival and a copy of NaviGaytour Magazine, among other benefits. . . .

The main thrust of the deals seem to be predicated upon an urge to attract a gay customer base, while distinguishing the company as particularly diverse and accepting. The Marriott web site even has a section called “Gay Weddings & Events,” which is devoted to helping individuals plan their noteworthy occasions.

Kudos to Marriott.  A private company doesn’t need a government initiative to reach out to gay clientele.  Seems some businessmen recognize the benefits developing new policies to respond a changing marketplace.

Gotta love the entrepreneurial spirt of certain conservatives. Look at the clever product some are now hawking on the web:

Seems the creator of this product took the idea from an sticky note he had seen “at a Kroger grocery store in Douglasville, GA, about 30 miles west of Atlanta this past Sunday night.”

3.65 for a gallon of regular seems mighty cheap for those of us California’s Southland.

In congratulating Newt Gingrich on his victory last night, our friend Chris Barron, Co-Founder and Chief Strategist of GOProud, noted something significant about the former Speaker’s South Carolina success:

Tonight, we congratulate Speaker Gingrich on his victory in South Carolina. We are hopeful that in the contests ahead that Speaker Gingrich will run the type of positive campaign he promised earlier in the primary process.

It is clear that Speaker Gingrich’s poll numbers improved dramatically once he ended his unnecessary and unproductive attacks on Governor Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital. As conservatives we should make it clear that we are the champions of free enterprise.

Emphasis added.  He’s right.  Newt surged not because of his attacks on Mitt Romney’s work in the private sector but instead because of his attacks on the media’s flacking for those who favor a larger public sector.

Earlier today, I finished Walter Isaacson’s most excellent biography of Steve Jobs.  And highly recommend it, despite some glaring flaws.  At time, the book seems slapdash (which makes sense given how quickly the book was published after the death of the entrepreneur).  And he seems to treat Jobs’s wife with kid gloves — as if she were some kind of saint (which makes sense given how cooperative she was in Isaacson’s research–and that she’s still alive and grieving).

There is much to say about jobs, his prickly personality, his luck in finding peers and mentors who could help him find his way professionally and personally.  His ability to achieve his great success without federal funding or government encouragement.  His appreciation of design and attention to detail.  His charisma. His supportive stepfather.

When I was still reading the book a friend asked me what one thing stood out about the book (and by extension the man), I replied his persistence, his determination, his belief that he could achieve a certain project even when others told him it was impossible.  How he grappled with what one of his colleagues called the “reality distortion field.”

Toward the end of the book, Isaacson compares Jobs to such pioneers as Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. I see his point, but don’t buy his argument.  As I was reading the biography, I kept thinking of another pioneer of the last century, Walt Disney.  Soon after finishing Isaacson’s book, I picked up — and started reading — Neal Gabler’s biography of the cartoon tycoon.

As I sip my morning coffee, caught this on Instapundit:

SO A 16 GB FLASH CARD FOR $15.99 is a pretty good deal. But I remember how much a 16GB hard drive used to cost, and then it seems like a ridiculously unbelievable deal. If only everything got better and cheaper they way electronics do. . . . .

UPDATE: A reader emails: “The things that don’t are usually heavily regulated by the government. Coincidence?” Probably not. . . .

Emphasis added.  It would be interesting to compare (maybe someone has done this) those industries (e.g., health care, energy, food) which have experienced accelerating costs not to mention increased bankruptcies and those flourishing.  Then, compare the regulatory burden on the floundering and the flourishing industries.

In my closet, I keep every computer (save one*) I have ever owned.  They are all Macs.  From when, in 1990, I bought my first Apple product, a Mac Classic until earlier this year when I upgraded to a desktop iMac, I have loved the products of the company Steve Jobs invented.

He created things we didn’t know we needed and made them indispensable to our lives.

Michelle Malkin called him, “A creative genius. American original. Entrepreneur extraordinaire. His vision transcended politics. His success showcased the power of the free market and individual initiative.”

He didn’t need a federal stimulus money or even a government loan guarantee.  He built his business the hard way, the American way, imagining a product, then, set about making his imagination a reality.  That process took a lot of determination and effort.  As John Hinderaker put it

It is difficult for those of us who don’t achieve greatness–pretty much everyone–to understand how hard those who do become great have to work. Jobs worked harder than most of us could ever imagine, and in the end, he did it for us. I, for one, am grateful.

As am I.  My Macs have held up well over the past decades, with glitches to be sure, but they crashed far less often than did my friends’ PCs.

Steve Jobs was a great man, a great American, a great innovator, a great entrepreneur.  In providing new products, Kevin D. Williamson contends, he improved our lives and, in many ways, embodied the spirit of capitalism.  He gave us

. . . better computers, better telephones, better music players, etc. In a lot of cases, he gave them better jobs, too. Did he do it because he was a nice guy, or because he was greedy, or because he was a maniacally single-minded competitor who got up every morning possessed by an unspeakable rage to strangle his rivals? The beauty of capitalism — the beauty of the iPhone world as opposed to the world of politics — is that that question does not matter one little bit. Whatever drove Jobs, it drove him to create superior products, better stuff at better prices.

I am grateful for whatever it was that drove Steve Jobs.  On his products, I have written a novel, numerous screenplays, outlined all my law school courses, crafted my papers for graduate school and composed my dissertation.  And more, so much more.

A giant has fallen, a man who has really changed our lives — and our culture.

* (more…)

As some of you know, I’ve been doing a mini-cross country drive these past few weeks, having to coordinate planned trips to Colorado (to celebrate my Dad’s birthday) and a meetings in Massachusetts.

Last night, while checking into a hotel in the Texas panhandle, ended up chatting with a man in his seventies (he gave me his age) about his travels.  He was pulling up stakes in his native Illinois and together with his business partners, and and preparing to set up shop in Texas and New Mexico.

They had decided to face the frustrations of moving because their governor (of Illinois) had just raised taxes by a considerable amount.

I would daresay they’re not the only ones.

Instead of resorting to the same old/same old Democratic formula of government solutions to the problem of persistent unemployment, men who are actually in the business of creating jobs (well, as a byproduct of providing goods and services) have some advice for the president, advice which can be summarized by something a successful president once said:  ”In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

The editors at CNBC . . .

. . . asked several CEOs leading up to the speech what bold steps Obama could take to reduce the 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

John Schiller, chairman and CEO of Energy XXI, said “if the government would get out of the way, from a regulation standpoint, and let us [XXI] do what we do good you’ll see us continue to hire and grow this economy.”

“I think that’s a message from across the board,” said Schiller.

Let’s hope that before his speech Thursday night, the incumbent president has a change of heart and pivots from the tried and failed policies of the past to those that have worked.  The fewer burdens the federal government (indeed governments at all levels) places on private enterprise, the more jobs they can create.

(H/t: Reader Peter Hughes)

Yesterday, Eric blogged about the “coincidence” of the president attempting to schedule his jobs speech at the same time the Republicans vying for his job would be debating at the Reagan Library. OnFacebook, our reader Leah linked this letter from House Speaker John Boehner to President Obama regarding that latter’s request to speak next Wednesday.

Love the way the Ohio Republican begins his response:

Thank you for your letter requesting time to address a Joint Session of Congress next week. I agree that creating a better environment for job creation must be our most urgent priority. For months, the House has been implementing an agenda designed to reduce economic uncertainty, remove unnecessary government barriers to private-sector job creation, and help small businesses, and we welcome the opportunity to hear your latest proposals.

Emphasis added.  This is exactly how Republicans should respond to Democrats’ attempts to demagogue the jobs issue — reminding them of Republican efforts to reduce the regulatory burden on job creators.

Now, House Republicans just have to pass more legislation cutting federal red-tape and increasing opportunity for individuals and entrepreneurs — and then challenge Senate Democrats to consider these bills.

RELATED:  House GOP announces jobs plan focused on cutting regs and taxes. (Via Instapundit.)

If I were not traveling, I would likely write a lengthier piece on this topic, but did a kind of double-take when I read the first paragraph in this Wall Street Journal editorial:

Among the core assumptions of modern liberalism is that future regulations have no more effect on the economy than future taxes, as if expectations don’t matter and businesses don’t prepare now for their costs tomorrow. President Obama’s letter to John Boehner yesterday is a classic of the genre.

Emphasis added.  When talking about the economy with liberal friends and acquaintances, I have often noticed how oblivious these interlocutors are to the cost regulations impose on businesses, particularly small ones.

Since the regulations serve a genuine societal interest (as defined by them), entrepreneurs would be eager to comply.  And any burdens created by government rules would be all but inconsequential.  Some liberals seem incapable of comprehending the costs of compliance.

UPDATE:  Sonicfrog looks into one recent example of federal regulation run amok:

. . . lets look at something very close to my heart….. Guitars! The recent raid by the Feds on Gibson Guitars is kind of mind boggling! It’s not due to smuggling cocaine in guitar bodies or anything like that… It’s about WOOD!!!!

Read the whole thing.  According to WSJ.com’s Political Diary (available by subscription), Gibson Guitars tend to conservative causes while rival Martin “leans Democratic.”  Latter uses “same sources of wood”, but wasn’t raided.  Wonder if we’ll see any coverage of these facts in the MSM.

Sunday night at a mixer, I engaged in a somewhat disturbing conversation with a gay former Republican.  As we talked about the debt crisis and he heard my recommendations for drastic cuts, he feared what those cuts would mean for the economy and job creation.  I explained that reduction in regulations and federal fees would stimulate growth.

I pointed to the shuttered storefronts in and around West Hollywood, saying that regulation and taxation (at the federal, state and municipal level) had made it more difficult for those entrepreneurs to stay in business during the economic downturn, even suggesting that those very regulations has caused the downturn.

In order to stimulate growth, I said, we needed to cut back on regulations, making it easier for new entrepreneurs to set up shop and for existing ones to expand.  He countered that small businesses wouldn’t make a dent in the overall employment numbers.  I reminded him what the president said, that ”Small businesses produce most of the new jobs in this country.”

He groused that my plan was “negative” as I thought the government should do less.  What I found troubling was how this man had evolved from a Republican to a statist, believing that in times of economic distress, the government must do something to fix the crisis.  And that he dismissed anything short of increased state intervention as “negative” response to the problem.

But, as Timothy P. Carney pointed out earlier this week, the best thing government do to create jobs is to get out of the way and remove the burdens to bringing on new employees.  ”According to the Small Business Administration,” Iain Murray writes

. . . federal rules and regulations — from the Fair Labor Standards Act to the Polygraph Protection Act — cost small businesses $10,000 annually per employee in compliance costs. (more…)

Both an Angeleno gay libertarian (with whom I have become recently acquainted via Facebook) and one of my favorite bloggers Jim Geraghty have taken note of Wynn Resorts CEO Steve Wynn’s “passionate criticism” of the president’s economic policies:

And I’m saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. . . .

Pretty much sums up, though in a far more colorful fashion the standard critique fiscal conservatives have been leveling at the incumbent administration, that it has created a climate of regulatory uncertainty, if not outright anxiety; the job creators don’t know what the government is going to do next.  And they fear its next move may make it more difficult for them to innovate, expand and hire new employees.

RELATED: Carter: Economic Stagnation Explained, at 30,000 Feet

“Small businesses,” the president said last September, “produce most of the new jobs in this country. They are the anchors of our Main Streets. They are part of the promise of America, the idea that if you’ve got a dream and you’re willing to work hard, you can succeed.”

Unfortunately, as Jim Hoft reported earlier today, approximately 80% of those Main Street job creators aren’t hiring:

Almost two-thirds—64%—of small-business executives surveyed said they weren’t expecting to add to their payrolls in the next year and another 12% planned to cut jobs, according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report to be released Monday. Just 19% said they would expand their work forces.

. . . .

The Small Business Administration says small businesses, defined as companies with fewer than 500 workers, employ about half of the workers in the private sector. In the Chamber’s survey of 1,409 executives, conducted by Harris Interactive, small businesses were defined as firms with revenue of $25 million or less.

More than half of the small-business executives in the June 27-30 survey cited economic uncertainty as the main reason for holding back on hiring. About a third blamed lack of sales, while just 7% pointed to problems getting credit.

Emphasis added.  Economic uncertainty?  Sounds like something law professor Stephen L. Carter learned when chatting with  a businessman on a recent flight.  Instead of faulting Republicans for refusing to agree to a new stimulus, the president would do well to ask his agency heads to develop a friendlier attitude toward those he has identified as job creators and a less capricious attitude toward regulations on their activity.

While, as you can guess, I quibble with the title of Cynthia Yockey’s post that Glenn linked earlier today, she offers something which bears consideration and conversation:

. . . in the name of family values, we are forced out of our own families. However, gays have responded to discrimination by becoming entrepreneurs and professionals, which makes gays a natural constituency of fiscal conservativism and explains why 31 percent of gay voters voted for Republicans in 2010 (including me). Gays are the most getable demographic in 2012 for Republicans because there’s no voting bloc Obama and the Democrats have screwed over more than gays and they are furious and looking for a new home.

(Read the whole thing.  While I don’t agree with everything she has to say, she does raise some important issues and make some thoughtful observations.)

Now, while I do believe gay people are a natural constituency for a fiscally conservative GOP, I wonder how many have become so politicized by our overly political (gay) culture that they can’t see how free market policies benefit creative types, particularly the creative entrepreneurial types.  And gay people do seem to succeed in such professions, in numbers disproportionate to our representation in society at large.

As I learned in my conversation with Palin-effigy hanger Mito Aviles, state and local regulations on small business place unusual burdens on creative small business folk.  Their desire to scale back intrusive regulations correspond with the very principles of the Tea Party movement.

The question is:  how do we break them from their prejudiced view of the GOP, particularly given how the media dwell on social conservatives’ (alleged) dominance of the movement — and the ignorance of many gay leaders of the underlying philosophy of the Republican Party as it has evolved since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the election of Ronald Reagan sixteen years later.

Seems administration officials are bound and determined to shrink the size of the private sector by penalizing those whom even the president identified as job creators:

ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES EXPLAINED: Geithner: Taxes on ‘Small Business’ Must Rise So Government Doesn’t ‘Shrink.’ “When Ellmers finally told Geithner that ‘the point is we need jobs,’ he responded that the administration felt it had ‘no alternative’ but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise ‘you have to shrink the overall size of government programs’—including federal education spending.”

Does that mean the Treasury Secretary doesn’t believe in cutting the size of government, something his boss hinted at when he promised us a “net spending cut.”  ”Government,” the president said last September

. . . can’t create jobs to replace the millions that we lost in the recession, but it can create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people through steps like tax breaks. . . . Small businesses produce most of the new jobs in this country. They are the anchors of our Main Streets.

Do hope Mr. Obama takes Mr. Geithner to the woodshed to give him a refresher course on his policies.

“Politics,” they say, “makes strange bedfellows.”  After surveying the candidates for City Council in West Hollywood, I have found only one who views even come close resemble my own, but a number of others who have similar concerns about the problems facing our “urban village.”  In choosing candidates to vote for (we can vote for up to three), I find mostly men (none of the challengers are female) with political views, at least on national issues, that are (often) polar opposites to my own.

Yet, when it comes to the burdens the City of West Hollywood places on entrepreneurs, I find common ground with at least two of the challengers, one of whom has an unfortunate record when it comes to Sarah Palin.  Indeed, it is that stunt which almost prevented me from withholding my support, much less my vote, from Mito Aviles, but after meeting with him last Friday and considering our conversation about small business, I decided not just to give him my vote, but to endorse him as well.

I am not backing him for federal —  or even state — office, but to serve as one of five councilors here in West Hollywood.  He has experienced both on a personal level — and in conversations with friends and associates — just how the incumbents have failed local small business owners.  Mito Aviles has seen the increasing numbers of shuttered storefronts along our main commercial thoroughfare, Santa Monica Boulevard, and recounts local entrepreneurs’ tales of woe as busybody city officials seek to enforce gratuitous ordinances and collect exorbitant fees.  One entrepreneur was fined for trying to put his name on a storefront.  Others were cited for covering more than 25% of his display window.  (Just how do they measure that, I wonder?  Does it count as covering if they use translucent lettering?)

In West Hollywood, Mito laments, you “can’t have creative signage.”   Or sandwich boards.  He points out that process of getting permits approved takes far too long, saying that it shouldn’t take three or six months for such approval and asking why the city puts up so many “roadblocks for small business.”  He wants to streamline the permit process to “make it more efficient so people aren’t turned off.”

His campaign, he told me, is “about fostering and promoting small business here in West Hollywood.” (more…)

I have long somewhat jokingly dubbed the California jurisdiction where I currently reside as the People’s Socialist Politically Correct Police State of West Hollywood.  And in his LA Weekly article on the inaccessibility of the city’s three incumbent city council members up for election this year, Patrick Range McDonald shows just why this appellation, while perhaps a tad extreme, is not far off the mark.

Like political officials in an authoritarian state, John Heilman, Abbe Land and Lindsay Horvath have done their utmost to avoid direct contact with the citizens they serve.  Heilman, McDonald reports,

. . . refused to be interviewed for this article, although he’s an elected official running for public office and is considered the most powerful member of the City Council. Land and fellow incumbent Lindsey Horvath refused to be interviewed on the phone or in person, demanding that e-mail questions be sent to them, allowing them to prepare responses and choose which questions they are willing to entertain.

So, the guy’s been a public official for 26 years and he won’t stoop to talk to an openly gay reporter for the region’s respected alternative weekly?  Indeed, when reporters approach him, he acts like the Wicked Witch of the West when confronted with a bucket of water, shrieking and running away as if her life were in danger::

Heilman, who has now served seven one-year terms as mayor of this city of more than 23,000 registered voters and some 36,000 residents, refuses to respond to e-mailed requests for interviews, and twice shoots down the Weekly’s attempts to speak with him in person. During one tense, face-to-face encounter, Heilman appears to be shaking with anger or fear or both when he is approached inside the West Hollywood Park Auditorium after winning an endorsement from the Stonewall Democratic Club.

“I am not having a conversation with you!” he tells this reporter, then suddenly breaks into a run.

Accessible information about Heilman is hard to come by. In this age of new media, he doesn’t have the obligatory campaign website for reporters and voters to see where he stands on issues or to tout what he considers to be his achievements from 1984 to 2010 — a period of time when Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have all served as presidents of the United States, three of them for two terms.

It’s not just Heilman.  Horvath, appointed last year “to an open seat on the City Council to solidify a three-person voting bloc rather than allowing the democratic process — a special election — so WeHo residents could choose their own representative”, also refuses to talk to the Weekly reporter.  As does Ms. Land.

The three inaccessible incumbents “are running together as a well-financed, politically connected slate and sharing campaign costs.” (more…)

Had it on for a few minutes while I was puttering around the apartment.   Found the delivery so dull and his manner so self-righteous, I had to turn it off.  He seemed to be going through the motions, reading a prepared text rather than engaging his audience.

When I did watch it, he bemoaned the fact that businesses are shipping jobs overseas and praised those companies building new factories in the United States.  Maybe I missed it, but did he express any understanding of the role our own tax and regulatory policies play in the choices businesses make to “send jobs overseas”?  Did he propose reducing regulations which make it costly to hire new employees and to run a plant efficiently.

Let me know if I missed anything.

As soon as I find the transcript, I’ll link it, but did find this good critique (not of the speech but of the president’s similarly-themed Saturday radio address) in my first quick search.

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin has more.

(H/t: Jim Geraghty)