Amid the signs, the slogans, the semi-coherent rambling of the participants, there is a clear and unmistakable story regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement. That story is the utter failure of the public and higher education systems. The lack of knowledge regarding civics, economics, and history is neither tragic nor surprising; rather, it is frightening. To think that an entire generation of Americans has been shuffled through the K-12 system plus four (at least) years of college with so little understanding of capitalism, the representative republic form of govt, the purpose of taxation, and the Constitution should give anyone pause. As a taxpayer, it makes me want my money back.
Let's begin with govt itself. Ours is not a democracy and, frankly, you would not want to live in such a place. As someone else once said, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. We have a republic, wherein citizens are represented by duly-elected representatives. The framework means that a majority vote is needed to enact a law but it also means the minority is not without protection. A group of six cannot simply tell the other five what to do because six is greater than five. OWS does not seem to want that; instead, it wants to use the force of govt in order to enact its vision of what the country should be.
When did schools stop teaching civics? When did it become painfully apparent that more young folks knew the names of the finalists on American Idol than knew the names of their Senators or Congressman (the latter is singular, by the way, because each of us only has one)? Like any other group that wants to be seen as even remotely credible, OWS has its own manifesto: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/.
Read it at your own peril. Have plenty of Kleenex handy for it will leave you crying for the future of the union. As an academic exercise, compare the list to the Constitution and the enumerated powers. Go ahead; take a few minutes. I'll wait.
Now, where were we? Oh, yes; comparing what you found in the Constitution with the demands of OWS. The OWS' wants reads like a wish list from the faculty lounge of a high-priced university where people think deep thoughts but seldom put their ideas into actual practice. And, they bear no resemblance to the country as it was formed. Surely, the degreed class knows this. Surely, the educrats in the public system know it, too. So, what is their excuse?
I will submit that this educational malpractice is not the result of negligent but the foundation of an ongoing effort to transform America. Why transform history's single most successful effort at self-government? Precisely because it is. A good chunk of Americans resent the nation's place on the world stage; they resent its wealth, its power, its influence. Their fondest desire is to knock the nation down a peg or two, to make it like Denmark but with more outdoor space. The goal for doing this is simple - power.
Leftist ideology makes a big show of talking about the little guy, the worker, and inequality but look at any nation that has been governed by the left. The only thing that is shared is the misery; everyone is equally poor except for those who talk the talk about the little guy, the worker, and inequality. Leftist ideology cannot survive without useful idiots; what better way to ensure a never-ending supply of them than by co-opting the institution guaranteed to funnel in new schools of unshaped mush every year.
Capitalism revolves around competition. We don't just have a single company that makes cars, televisions, provides mobile service, food, furniture, or any other product. We have dozens if not hundreds. Why? Because competing forces business to consider customers. Competition is what sparks product innovation, it's what keeps prices reasonable, it's what creates new opportunity. Capitalism brought us the telegraph, the telephone, and the television; planes, trains, automobiles, and the space shuttle; the regular phone, cell phone, and mass use of the Internet; and, virtually every since convenience that you take for granted. Capitalism is what armed the OWS gaggle with iPhones, laptops, North Face gear, and all the other trappings of the world they seem to hate. By comparison, name the innovation that came from an alternative economy. Take your time.
While you're thinking, I'll wrap this up. The protesters live in the freest society on the planet but are too blinded by years of dogma to recognize it. They believe accomplishment and wealth to be bad things, though who can blame them. They grew up in an environment where everyone received a trophy, where self-esteem trumped achievement, where competition was discouraged, and where business was presented as evil. They hear about giving back and public service rather than been encouraged to go forth and create something knew; they are preached the gospel of the non-profit, blissfully unaware that it is the for-profit that makes such possible.
Sadly, they will be the ones whose FICA deductions will fund your Social Security checks, provided the program still exists in another decade or so. They will also be the ones who believe you owe them a job. With a generous wage and benefits. And, not much heavy lifting. Ironic in a sense. Each one of us can remember a couple of teachers or professors who shaped our lives and career choices. And yet, the system in which they work is largely responsible for the misinformation and incoherence that passes for modern-day education.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Splain this
Just a few questions and observations:
--I have seen the new sign of the apocalypse. It is the Oreo Triple Threat; no, it's not enough to simply have double-stuff cookies. Now, two of those are melded together, an inspired thumb in the eye of all the nannies out there whining about the "epidemic" of obesity. Nothing says American excess quite like taking a single cookie packed with sugar and doubling it. Besides, an "epidemic" is not caused by self-inflicted activity.
--On the eve of the 10th anniversay of 9/11, I heard New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg justify the omission of clergy from tomorrow's ceremony by referring to the "separation" clause in the Constitution. Just one problem; there is no such clause in the Constitution and shouldn't the chief executive of the nation's largest city know that? I get the rationale for Bloomberg's decision; if you let in one priest, rabbi, or imam, you have to let in all of them. The Baptists, Methodists, Hindus, Buddhists, and quite possibly the atheists, will want their voice represented, too. Besides, it is a memorial service, not a prayer meeting.
--The new govt talking point is infrastructure..it's falling apart, we need to fix it, blah blah blah. What has happened to revenue from the gas tax, which goes to every state plus the feds and is suppposed to be a dedicated source of funding for street and road projects? We don't have an infrastructure problem, we have a how-govt-spends-money problem. Last I checked, gas prices are not going down and people are not driving less. So, the money should be there. Well, is it?
--Where I live, the weather folks recorded record or near-record highs about a month ago, and now the forecast mentions record or near-record lows. The scaremongers will say "climate change" since global warming cannot apply to low temperatures. Of course, that same crowd will point to man as the cause, something NO bit of science has been able to accomplish. That climate changes is a given; that man causes it is a belief and the mere repetition of opinion does not turn it into fact.
--I have seen the new sign of the apocalypse. It is the Oreo Triple Threat; no, it's not enough to simply have double-stuff cookies. Now, two of those are melded together, an inspired thumb in the eye of all the nannies out there whining about the "epidemic" of obesity. Nothing says American excess quite like taking a single cookie packed with sugar and doubling it. Besides, an "epidemic" is not caused by self-inflicted activity.
--On the eve of the 10th anniversay of 9/11, I heard New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg justify the omission of clergy from tomorrow's ceremony by referring to the "separation" clause in the Constitution. Just one problem; there is no such clause in the Constitution and shouldn't the chief executive of the nation's largest city know that? I get the rationale for Bloomberg's decision; if you let in one priest, rabbi, or imam, you have to let in all of them. The Baptists, Methodists, Hindus, Buddhists, and quite possibly the atheists, will want their voice represented, too. Besides, it is a memorial service, not a prayer meeting.
--The new govt talking point is infrastructure..it's falling apart, we need to fix it, blah blah blah. What has happened to revenue from the gas tax, which goes to every state plus the feds and is suppposed to be a dedicated source of funding for street and road projects? We don't have an infrastructure problem, we have a how-govt-spends-money problem. Last I checked, gas prices are not going down and people are not driving less. So, the money should be there. Well, is it?
--Where I live, the weather folks recorded record or near-record highs about a month ago, and now the forecast mentions record or near-record lows. The scaremongers will say "climate change" since global warming cannot apply to low temperatures. Of course, that same crowd will point to man as the cause, something NO bit of science has been able to accomplish. That climate changes is a given; that man causes it is a belief and the mere repetition of opinion does not turn it into fact.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Questions no one is asking
-What is being done with revenue from the gasoline tax?
The stimulus plan was allegedly for shovel-ready infrastructure jobs; the president has talked about an infrastructure bank; and, a lot of people make mention of crumbling infrastructure. Well, aren't the revenues from gasoline sales that flow to both the federal and state governments supposed to be used for roads, bridges, etc., i.e. infrastructure? Obviously, that is not happening so, where is the money going?
The notion that a bunch of public works, make-work projects constitute meaningful economic rejuvenation is political pabulum for people either too lazy to factcheck it, or too partisan to care that it's a lie. The country already has an "infrastructure bank" and deposits are made every time you and your friends fill their gas tanks. Part of the tax from gasoline purchases goes to the feds, and part goes to the states where the transactions occur. But, to hear the political class, this gas tax is something they are unaware of, its revenues are a secret.
-How, exactly, do you "afford" tax cuts?
Working through this question first requires accepting that it is rooted in a great deal of intellectual bankruptcy and fundamental dishonesty. Taxes are taken by the govt from you, BY FORCE, to use for a variety of things that may or may not constitute genuine public services. Those who claim that tax cuts require affordability base their claim on the false premise that your earnings really are not yours, that they belong to govt which decides how much of your own money you can actually keep. To "afford" those cuts would imply that the money that does not accrue to govt is being generated from other sources, in which case one can rightfully ask, who pockets do those other sources tap? The answer, by the way, is yours.
I accept that the role of taxes is to fund certain functions that benefit the public as a whole - police and fire protection, education, streets and roads, defense, jails and courts, and a few others. But, I do not accept that what people earn belongs to the govt, that the public is required to funnel an endless pipeline of cash to the elected class, or that you or me keeping more of our own money somehow harms the republic.
-What is a moderate or, for that matter, an independent?
I understand voters registering as independents; I have done it, too, when living in areas that are so one-party dominant that you have to be independent in order to participate. But, what does this mean on the national level? Ideologies range from liberal to conservative, libertarian to socialist/communist, and most of us fall somewhere in those ranges. Finding candidates or even parties that reflect most of what each of us believes is not difficult.
Independents have a self-righteousness that they are somehow above the fray, that they are flexible enough to consider each issue on its own merits. They also have a heightened sense of self-importance based on the media's constant reference to independents as the deciders on national matters. Frankly, being independent or moderate sounds a lot like being either indecisive or inattentive, and easily manipulated by whichever side delivers the prettiest speech and more artfully vilifies the opposition.
Most of us have a belief system, most of us have a notion of what the proper role of govt is and of what constitutes good or bad policy. Being moderate sounds like working within a huge gray area that has very small pockets of black and white, totally unlike real life. People make decisions on where to work, where to live, who to be friends with, what stores to patronize, and who their kids hang out with based largely on black and white factors.
None of these questions is especially difficult, IF people are willing to confront and answer them honestly. But, it is easier and more colorful to retreat to pat answers that are often heavy on misdirection and virtually bereft of rational thought. Then again, if rational thought were in abundance, we would have another term for the questions - moot points.
The stimulus plan was allegedly for shovel-ready infrastructure jobs; the president has talked about an infrastructure bank; and, a lot of people make mention of crumbling infrastructure. Well, aren't the revenues from gasoline sales that flow to both the federal and state governments supposed to be used for roads, bridges, etc., i.e. infrastructure? Obviously, that is not happening so, where is the money going?
The notion that a bunch of public works, make-work projects constitute meaningful economic rejuvenation is political pabulum for people either too lazy to factcheck it, or too partisan to care that it's a lie. The country already has an "infrastructure bank" and deposits are made every time you and your friends fill their gas tanks. Part of the tax from gasoline purchases goes to the feds, and part goes to the states where the transactions occur. But, to hear the political class, this gas tax is something they are unaware of, its revenues are a secret.
-How, exactly, do you "afford" tax cuts?
Working through this question first requires accepting that it is rooted in a great deal of intellectual bankruptcy and fundamental dishonesty. Taxes are taken by the govt from you, BY FORCE, to use for a variety of things that may or may not constitute genuine public services. Those who claim that tax cuts require affordability base their claim on the false premise that your earnings really are not yours, that they belong to govt which decides how much of your own money you can actually keep. To "afford" those cuts would imply that the money that does not accrue to govt is being generated from other sources, in which case one can rightfully ask, who pockets do those other sources tap? The answer, by the way, is yours.
I accept that the role of taxes is to fund certain functions that benefit the public as a whole - police and fire protection, education, streets and roads, defense, jails and courts, and a few others. But, I do not accept that what people earn belongs to the govt, that the public is required to funnel an endless pipeline of cash to the elected class, or that you or me keeping more of our own money somehow harms the republic.
-What is a moderate or, for that matter, an independent?
I understand voters registering as independents; I have done it, too, when living in areas that are so one-party dominant that you have to be independent in order to participate. But, what does this mean on the national level? Ideologies range from liberal to conservative, libertarian to socialist/communist, and most of us fall somewhere in those ranges. Finding candidates or even parties that reflect most of what each of us believes is not difficult.
Independents have a self-righteousness that they are somehow above the fray, that they are flexible enough to consider each issue on its own merits. They also have a heightened sense of self-importance based on the media's constant reference to independents as the deciders on national matters. Frankly, being independent or moderate sounds a lot like being either indecisive or inattentive, and easily manipulated by whichever side delivers the prettiest speech and more artfully vilifies the opposition.
Most of us have a belief system, most of us have a notion of what the proper role of govt is and of what constitutes good or bad policy. Being moderate sounds like working within a huge gray area that has very small pockets of black and white, totally unlike real life. People make decisions on where to work, where to live, who to be friends with, what stores to patronize, and who their kids hang out with based largely on black and white factors.
None of these questions is especially difficult, IF people are willing to confront and answer them honestly. But, it is easier and more colorful to retreat to pat answers that are often heavy on misdirection and virtually bereft of rational thought. Then again, if rational thought were in abundance, we would have another term for the questions - moot points.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
It is not a deal, it's discrimination
They were actually proud of themselves. A group of opthalmologists engaging in a self-congratulatory commercial about the free cataract surgeries they had performed for "deserving" people. What made those folks deserving exactly, beyond (presumably) their inability or unwillingness to pay for the services they received? What makes them more deserving than anyone else who is doing what they have to do to get by, whether their efforts are wildly successful or marginal? And, that got me thinking, which anyone who knows me would say is a dangerous thing.
This business of cutting special deals for folks, based on age or occupation, has a word. That word is discrimination. American law forbids businesses from treating customers differently. That means they CANNOT charge military members or cops or teachers or anyone else less for a product than they charge the general public. It is a ploy cloaked in self-righteousness, since the beneficiaries are usually public sector employees, often servicemen or first responder types. No one has more respect for the military than I do, but these "deals" fly directly in the face of the values our fighting men and women are sworn to uphold. Would they be okay if haircuts cost less for, say, whites or for Baptists? Of course, not; and they should be just as outraged when the deal works to their advantage.
This probably dates back to the early-bird specials, which gave way to senior discounts, one of the most ridiculous ideas ever since older folks are the most affluent among us. Then, some communities that host military installations followed suit, which I found a bit insulting seeing as how I patronized many of those businesses all year long. Where was my "thank you" for helping owners during deployments? Where was their loyalty in recognition of mine? And really, where is a gutsy lawyer when you need one?
I have made a point of avoiding businesses that offer such discounts. They are wrong and probably illegal. But no one says anything. Just like no one says anything when someone's obnoxious kid makes a fuss while you are trying to have dinner and the parents do nothing. Because saying something automatically turns the focus on the person speaking up; he becomes the bad guy. I suspect anyone raising sand here would be painted as anti-military, because one bullet-proof summation of people is that they will attack the messenger long before engaging in a substantive debate about the message. So, I get to vent here. And, I get to patronize companies that do not discriminate against those of us who are not seniors. Or cops. Or in the military. Or in some other occupation that certain business owners deem to be more worthy than the rest of us.
This business of cutting special deals for folks, based on age or occupation, has a word. That word is discrimination. American law forbids businesses from treating customers differently. That means they CANNOT charge military members or cops or teachers or anyone else less for a product than they charge the general public. It is a ploy cloaked in self-righteousness, since the beneficiaries are usually public sector employees, often servicemen or first responder types. No one has more respect for the military than I do, but these "deals" fly directly in the face of the values our fighting men and women are sworn to uphold. Would they be okay if haircuts cost less for, say, whites or for Baptists? Of course, not; and they should be just as outraged when the deal works to their advantage.
This probably dates back to the early-bird specials, which gave way to senior discounts, one of the most ridiculous ideas ever since older folks are the most affluent among us. Then, some communities that host military installations followed suit, which I found a bit insulting seeing as how I patronized many of those businesses all year long. Where was my "thank you" for helping owners during deployments? Where was their loyalty in recognition of mine? And really, where is a gutsy lawyer when you need one?
I have made a point of avoiding businesses that offer such discounts. They are wrong and probably illegal. But no one says anything. Just like no one says anything when someone's obnoxious kid makes a fuss while you are trying to have dinner and the parents do nothing. Because saying something automatically turns the focus on the person speaking up; he becomes the bad guy. I suspect anyone raising sand here would be painted as anti-military, because one bullet-proof summation of people is that they will attack the messenger long before engaging in a substantive debate about the message. So, I get to vent here. And, I get to patronize companies that do not discriminate against those of us who are not seniors. Or cops. Or in the military. Or in some other occupation that certain business owners deem to be more worthy than the rest of us.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Credentialed Society
It was about this time last year that my bride and I approached the fork in the road. As the character is old Johnny Carson skits advised, we took it and embarked on a journey that saw us leave jobs, pack up a home, and move two states away to care for an aging parent while entering graduate school. One year later the journey continues, in a different town, new school, but with the same goal of earning a Master's which has evidently become the equivalent of what a Bachelor's degree used to be.
Few things spell out reality more clearly than sitting in a classroom with a dozen or so other students, all of whom are younger than your youngest child. Faced with stumbling economy, they opted to stay in school rather than apply for jobs that do not exist. Can't say I blame them. My rationale for returning to school was different - whereas applying for jobs once meant humans looking over resumes for qualified candidates, today's technology scans them for specific keywords. And, when a job posting says "Master's preferred", it may as well say required. My experience never mattered, because HR never had the chance to review it.
What happens if the economy continues to stagnate, a good likelihood of government persists in meddling with it? How many hyperqualified bartenders, waiters, retail clerks, and others working far below their ability and qualification levels does a society need? I left a job that I enjoyed, working with people I enjoyed for a company that, frankly, seemed to take its responsibility to employees seriously. At the same time, I had topped out; there was no upward mobility available that I could see and most of us expect to have at least the possibility of moving up. So, I have more than a passing curiosity in learning what my soon-to-be-earned degree will bring.
At the same time, will my competition for work be ex-classmates, whose experience is virtually non-existent compared to mine, but whose salary expectations will be substantially less? Will I wind up working for someone a bit younger, perhaps someone wondering if I am angling for his/her job? Will the experience of 20+ years actually carry some influence, particularly when combined with a graduate degree? Or, will I just be another in the growing legion of folks whose jobs are at odds with their experiences and qualifications? A lot of letters after one's name do not guarantee finding the right job, or even a suitable one. They don't answer how an individual will react to stress, how that person will work with others, how he/she would solve problems, or what someone genuinely brings to the table.
Not long ago, a four-year degree was sufficient for launching a successful career. Now, it seems like a start, particularly as some question the value of their educations. What did they really learn that prepared them for professional environments? Can they think independently, can they handle perspectives other than their own, and how can the classroom translate to the office? And, does adding two more years of school really change anything? Seems that, like me, society has come to a similar fork in the road, decided to take it without knowing to where it leads, and is headed toward an unknown destination.
Few things spell out reality more clearly than sitting in a classroom with a dozen or so other students, all of whom are younger than your youngest child. Faced with stumbling economy, they opted to stay in school rather than apply for jobs that do not exist. Can't say I blame them. My rationale for returning to school was different - whereas applying for jobs once meant humans looking over resumes for qualified candidates, today's technology scans them for specific keywords. And, when a job posting says "Master's preferred", it may as well say required. My experience never mattered, because HR never had the chance to review it.
What happens if the economy continues to stagnate, a good likelihood of government persists in meddling with it? How many hyperqualified bartenders, waiters, retail clerks, and others working far below their ability and qualification levels does a society need? I left a job that I enjoyed, working with people I enjoyed for a company that, frankly, seemed to take its responsibility to employees seriously. At the same time, I had topped out; there was no upward mobility available that I could see and most of us expect to have at least the possibility of moving up. So, I have more than a passing curiosity in learning what my soon-to-be-earned degree will bring.
At the same time, will my competition for work be ex-classmates, whose experience is virtually non-existent compared to mine, but whose salary expectations will be substantially less? Will I wind up working for someone a bit younger, perhaps someone wondering if I am angling for his/her job? Will the experience of 20+ years actually carry some influence, particularly when combined with a graduate degree? Or, will I just be another in the growing legion of folks whose jobs are at odds with their experiences and qualifications? A lot of letters after one's name do not guarantee finding the right job, or even a suitable one. They don't answer how an individual will react to stress, how that person will work with others, how he/she would solve problems, or what someone genuinely brings to the table.
Not long ago, a four-year degree was sufficient for launching a successful career. Now, it seems like a start, particularly as some question the value of their educations. What did they really learn that prepared them for professional environments? Can they think independently, can they handle perspectives other than their own, and how can the classroom translate to the office? And, does adding two more years of school really change anything? Seems that, like me, society has come to a similar fork in the road, decided to take it without knowing to where it leads, and is headed toward an unknown destination.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Tell me again why I should share?
The next time I hear a politician talk about "shared sacrifice", the likely sacrifice will be my flatscreen when the remote flies through it. The elected class loves to talk about everyone pitching to clean up the mess made, in total, by the elected class. Medicare and Social Security are not on the verge of implosion because of me. I did not offer up hundreds of billions of dollars to bankers who made bad decisions, nor did I take your money and use it to thank campaign contributors. Further, I did not enact a prescription drug benefit during dual wars and I have not used your money to subsidize any number of businesses. No, folks; the sacrifice needs to come from Washington. It's called leadership. Look into it.
Establishment DC has collaborated on making such a colossal cluster of the nation's finances that it hopes you are so dizzied by the numbers that you will not notice neither side has a claim to the high ground. For six years, Republicans had both chambers in Congress AND the White House, and spending went up. Then Democrats had both chambers plus the White House for two years, and spendint went up even further. We have the party of big government and the party of bigger government; the only difference is the things that each likes to spend your money on, whether you actually have the money or not.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan dared to, out loud, notice the elephant in the living room when he put forth a budget proposal that would overhaul Medicare. The Democrat response? Cheesy, not to mention dishonest, ads about grandma being tossed over a cliff. The donkey party could have put forth its own plan, so could the President. Neither did. How come? If you have no plan, then just say you have no plan. Otherwise, stop bitching about the other guy's proposal.
The folks in Washington believe you are their personal ATMs and they believe you can be tapped on a whim. Which, actually, you can, which should also make you mad. When the government talks about investing, subsidizing, or anything else, it is talking about your money. When it whines about the "cost" of tax cuts, it is also talking about your money while simultaneously saying that it can spend those dollars more responsibly than you can. How's that working for you?
The problem is not one of revenue, it is one of spending. Too much spending on too many things that have little, if anything, to do with the role of the federal government. Oil does not need your money any more than Planned Parenthood does or ethanol producers do or NPR does. I am perfectly willing to be bipartisan is saying no to all these leeches who see the federal treasury as their personal playground. If they want your money, they should have the good grace to ask for it through fundraising campaigns, delivering quality service that you want to support, and other traditional means, not through donating money to members of Congress who them become industry and non-profit bagmen. It is a disgusting scenario, one created solely by the elected class and one that can only be fixed by the elected class sacrificing.
Establishment DC has collaborated on making such a colossal cluster of the nation's finances that it hopes you are so dizzied by the numbers that you will not notice neither side has a claim to the high ground. For six years, Republicans had both chambers in Congress AND the White House, and spending went up. Then Democrats had both chambers plus the White House for two years, and spendint went up even further. We have the party of big government and the party of bigger government; the only difference is the things that each likes to spend your money on, whether you actually have the money or not.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan dared to, out loud, notice the elephant in the living room when he put forth a budget proposal that would overhaul Medicare. The Democrat response? Cheesy, not to mention dishonest, ads about grandma being tossed over a cliff. The donkey party could have put forth its own plan, so could the President. Neither did. How come? If you have no plan, then just say you have no plan. Otherwise, stop bitching about the other guy's proposal.
The folks in Washington believe you are their personal ATMs and they believe you can be tapped on a whim. Which, actually, you can, which should also make you mad. When the government talks about investing, subsidizing, or anything else, it is talking about your money. When it whines about the "cost" of tax cuts, it is also talking about your money while simultaneously saying that it can spend those dollars more responsibly than you can. How's that working for you?
The problem is not one of revenue, it is one of spending. Too much spending on too many things that have little, if anything, to do with the role of the federal government. Oil does not need your money any more than Planned Parenthood does or ethanol producers do or NPR does. I am perfectly willing to be bipartisan is saying no to all these leeches who see the federal treasury as their personal playground. If they want your money, they should have the good grace to ask for it through fundraising campaigns, delivering quality service that you want to support, and other traditional means, not through donating money to members of Congress who them become industry and non-profit bagmen. It is a disgusting scenario, one created solely by the elected class and one that can only be fixed by the elected class sacrificing.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Howling at reality
Thomas Wolfe was right - going home simply does not work. I tried it with the best of intentions, both personal and professional. The need for a Master's Degree was coupled with two dying parents who could not live independently. So, we moved. And learned the hard way what happens when good intentions meet incomplete information and reality. I'm not griping; if the option were to come up again, I would do the same thing. But, it is doubtful the outcome would be any different.
Sixteen months later, two dying parents became two parents who have passed on, a lifetime of things and memories collected in their house has either been stored (for the important keepsakes) or swept out (for the calendars from 1985), the Master's has been half-earned in an effort that was one-third fun and two-thirds frustrating, and a lot of people I used to consider friends are no longer people with whom any communication is necessary. Again, not griping, just saying.
The town of my youth is no longer; it has been replaced by something bigger, something less inviting, something more impersonal, populated by people who are of other places and/or heading to other places, with little use for natives. I tried to stay, applying for numerous jobs that would not only keep me in school, but further tie me to the community that was such a formative part of my upbringing. At least two dozen applications; not a single interview. Not one. Not even a phone call.
It is not about qualifications; I am old enough to apply only for jobs that call for my skills set, in this case 20 years of communications and marketing experience. Near the end of my time in town, I found out I was hardly the only one. The attorney who helped with the closing on the folks' house, a native who graduated a year ahead of me, had the same issue and the man has a law degree. He recounted tales of other locals similarly rebuffed. I'm not sure if this made me feel better or worse. Of course, I was glad to hear it was not just me; a lot of rejection and you start to take it personally. On the other hand, that an institution would ignore people who grew up in its shadow and wanted to return was depressing. It does not say much about an organization when it refuses to consider its own graduates for employment.
The upside was the football season and the chance to see, in person, a once in a generation athlete and a magical season. Saturdays will be different this fall; I won't be attending games this time. I just can't write checks for tickets to an institution that wrote me off, so while I retain an allegiance born of a lifetime of cheering for one set of colors, there will be a new team to pull for, one emblematic of a new set of colors, the one that will adorn the Master's to be completed. And, it will be completed. The folks would have insisted and, in some way, they still do. It will just be a little different. The remaining ties are gradually being cut - a storage unit to be emptied out in the next few days, a bank account to be closed down, license plates to be changed, and old hopes to be retired. It's not the way I had wanted it to be but, apparently, it's the only way it could have been.
Sixteen months later, two dying parents became two parents who have passed on, a lifetime of things and memories collected in their house has either been stored (for the important keepsakes) or swept out (for the calendars from 1985), the Master's has been half-earned in an effort that was one-third fun and two-thirds frustrating, and a lot of people I used to consider friends are no longer people with whom any communication is necessary. Again, not griping, just saying.
The town of my youth is no longer; it has been replaced by something bigger, something less inviting, something more impersonal, populated by people who are of other places and/or heading to other places, with little use for natives. I tried to stay, applying for numerous jobs that would not only keep me in school, but further tie me to the community that was such a formative part of my upbringing. At least two dozen applications; not a single interview. Not one. Not even a phone call.
It is not about qualifications; I am old enough to apply only for jobs that call for my skills set, in this case 20 years of communications and marketing experience. Near the end of my time in town, I found out I was hardly the only one. The attorney who helped with the closing on the folks' house, a native who graduated a year ahead of me, had the same issue and the man has a law degree. He recounted tales of other locals similarly rebuffed. I'm not sure if this made me feel better or worse. Of course, I was glad to hear it was not just me; a lot of rejection and you start to take it personally. On the other hand, that an institution would ignore people who grew up in its shadow and wanted to return was depressing. It does not say much about an organization when it refuses to consider its own graduates for employment.
The upside was the football season and the chance to see, in person, a once in a generation athlete and a magical season. Saturdays will be different this fall; I won't be attending games this time. I just can't write checks for tickets to an institution that wrote me off, so while I retain an allegiance born of a lifetime of cheering for one set of colors, there will be a new team to pull for, one emblematic of a new set of colors, the one that will adorn the Master's to be completed. And, it will be completed. The folks would have insisted and, in some way, they still do. It will just be a little different. The remaining ties are gradually being cut - a storage unit to be emptied out in the next few days, a bank account to be closed down, license plates to be changed, and old hopes to be retired. It's not the way I had wanted it to be but, apparently, it's the only way it could have been.
Do they want to win?
The economy is a shambles, we remain mired in two wars with POTUS getting us into a third, health care costs continue spiraling, and the education system is a disgrace. And Republicans? They are racing to see who can claim the high ground on an issue that, for most Americans, ranks 316th on the kitchen table priority list. The country is divided about abortion and no one sees it as the pressing priority of the day, week, month, or year. Perhaps someone can remind Republicans that the idea is to nominate a candidate who can defeat Obama, not to see which candidate can out-demagogue the others by signing a meaningless pledge disguised as litmus test.
Like most Americans who understand that the sun rises in the East, I get that Republicans are typically pro-life while Democrats are typically pro-choice. Therefore, what is the point of the Susan B. Anthony's List pledge beyond yet another opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate why Libertarians and a good many other independents -- whose votes will be crucial in 2012 - are made uneasy, if not queasy, by the self-righteous wing of the GOP, the section that preaches about limited government unless that same government can limit things it dislikes.
Whatever your position on abortion, there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to change it and that is irrespective of which camp you are in. That is why even the US Supreme Court cringes when yet another abortion case comes before it. It is why the Roe decision has gone virtually unchanged it became law. And, this national ambivalence is also why anytime a pregnant woman is murdered, the state only files a single charge of homicide.
We waste time debating a phantom "right" to abortion while scores of children who are already here languish in the foster care system, while Americans go abroad to adopt because doing so domestically is a bureaucratic nightmare, and while government rewards serial pregnancy through a system that only perpetuates poverty. The real shame is that poll after poll already shows the United States to be a center-right country (hint: this means the majority is already receptive to conservatism, at least the fiscal kind), but instead of speaking to Americans about the issues that impact their lives, many in this class of candidates are more interested in being Moralist-in-Chief than Commander-in-Chief.
The incumbent president is a committed left-wing ideologue who is only unbeatable in the minds of his steno pool, or as some call them, the media. Whatever "inherited" problems existed have only grown worse under Obama's watch, yet the Republican field wants to see which candidate can more closely align him/herself with the Almighty than with the average American voter. I hate to break it to the field, but there are a lot conservatives who don't see the so-called social issues as the government's business, whose dinner conversations have far more to do with dollars and opportunity than pregnancy and gay marriage; and whose votes are more likely to be lost than won by piety. To paraphrase Newt Gingrich, social engineering is no prettier when it comes from the right than from the left, and the field might do well to recall that James Carville's 1992 mantra is applicable in EVERY presidential election - it is always the economy.
Like most Americans who understand that the sun rises in the East, I get that Republicans are typically pro-life while Democrats are typically pro-choice. Therefore, what is the point of the Susan B. Anthony's List pledge beyond yet another opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate why Libertarians and a good many other independents -- whose votes will be crucial in 2012 - are made uneasy, if not queasy, by the self-righteous wing of the GOP, the section that preaches about limited government unless that same government can limit things it dislikes.
Whatever your position on abortion, there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to change it and that is irrespective of which camp you are in. That is why even the US Supreme Court cringes when yet another abortion case comes before it. It is why the Roe decision has gone virtually unchanged it became law. And, this national ambivalence is also why anytime a pregnant woman is murdered, the state only files a single charge of homicide.
We waste time debating a phantom "right" to abortion while scores of children who are already here languish in the foster care system, while Americans go abroad to adopt because doing so domestically is a bureaucratic nightmare, and while government rewards serial pregnancy through a system that only perpetuates poverty. The real shame is that poll after poll already shows the United States to be a center-right country (hint: this means the majority is already receptive to conservatism, at least the fiscal kind), but instead of speaking to Americans about the issues that impact their lives, many in this class of candidates are more interested in being Moralist-in-Chief than Commander-in-Chief.
The incumbent president is a committed left-wing ideologue who is only unbeatable in the minds of his steno pool, or as some call them, the media. Whatever "inherited" problems existed have only grown worse under Obama's watch, yet the Republican field wants to see which candidate can more closely align him/herself with the Almighty than with the average American voter. I hate to break it to the field, but there are a lot conservatives who don't see the so-called social issues as the government's business, whose dinner conversations have far more to do with dollars and opportunity than pregnancy and gay marriage; and whose votes are more likely to be lost than won by piety. To paraphrase Newt Gingrich, social engineering is no prettier when it comes from the right than from the left, and the field might do well to recall that James Carville's 1992 mantra is applicable in EVERY presidential election - it is always the economy.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Tough Times Reveal Character
You learn a great deal about people when things are at their worst. Folks can surprise you, in ways both good and bad, and that is the parting lesson from my mother's death. Many of the people who have known me seemingly forever, I am almost ashamed to say "my" people, were virtually non-existent if not outright dismissive or hostile. Others were exactly as I remember them as a kid - warm, friendly people who would do anything for you. And a group of former co-workers who had known me for all of 3 1/2 years were far more comforting than I could rightly expect, with e-mails and calls of condolence, even a couple of cards. It is almost funny; the ones from whom you expect the most do the least, and those with the least connection wind up doing the most.
As services go, I think we gave Mary a nice sendoff. We did not waller in misery and maudlin overwraught emotion, though my brother broke down a time or two. Then again, I was there when mom died and he was not, so I had already had the opportunity to get the immediate grief out of my system. We chose to focus on the happy times, and my bride and step-daughter put together a wonderful collage of a smiling mom that dated back nearly 50 years. It was nice to see her visibly enjoying the moments captured in those pictures.
It was also nice to see a couple of neighbors from way back, including my first little league coach, a very nice man whose son and I spent a lot of afternoons riding bikes and doing kid stuff. And, a couple that used to live right next to us came in from Montgomery, great folks whose son was my brother's best friend back in the day. I think mom would have been happy to see people like that come to remember her. There were some of dad's faculty friends, people whose kids both of us went to school with and one gentleman who was one of dad's students. He came in part for himself as his wife is now in year 12 of Alzheimer's; I can honestly say I know how he feels and hope a guardian angel looks out for his and his wife.
The disappointing aspect came from a few fellow Greeks, not all of them, but some who saw fit to say nasty things about me, my brother, and my wife for the past several months, as though we had conspired to make my mom ill. My brother's eulogy made mention of us doing the best we could under trying circumstances; I am confident we did that and anyone who disagrees, well, they can kiss our asses. They have become people I never again have to speak to.
I hope mom is now at peace, that what my brother and I had to say let her know that we loved her and gave her comfort in knowing she raised two pretty decent men. I appreciate the old neighbors and friends who came to pay their respects, and the one old friend who called with condolences but was unable to attend due to her husband's failing health. I hope someone watches over the two of them, too. I probably shouldn't be surprised, but I was to hear from my old co-workers, a solid group of people whose company I miss and whose reaching out reminds one what friends are all about. And now we move on, for there is no other option. It has been the longest of years and now comes a new chapter. We'll see what it holds.
As services go, I think we gave Mary a nice sendoff. We did not waller in misery and maudlin overwraught emotion, though my brother broke down a time or two. Then again, I was there when mom died and he was not, so I had already had the opportunity to get the immediate grief out of my system. We chose to focus on the happy times, and my bride and step-daughter put together a wonderful collage of a smiling mom that dated back nearly 50 years. It was nice to see her visibly enjoying the moments captured in those pictures.
It was also nice to see a couple of neighbors from way back, including my first little league coach, a very nice man whose son and I spent a lot of afternoons riding bikes and doing kid stuff. And, a couple that used to live right next to us came in from Montgomery, great folks whose son was my brother's best friend back in the day. I think mom would have been happy to see people like that come to remember her. There were some of dad's faculty friends, people whose kids both of us went to school with and one gentleman who was one of dad's students. He came in part for himself as his wife is now in year 12 of Alzheimer's; I can honestly say I know how he feels and hope a guardian angel looks out for his and his wife.
The disappointing aspect came from a few fellow Greeks, not all of them, but some who saw fit to say nasty things about me, my brother, and my wife for the past several months, as though we had conspired to make my mom ill. My brother's eulogy made mention of us doing the best we could under trying circumstances; I am confident we did that and anyone who disagrees, well, they can kiss our asses. They have become people I never again have to speak to.
I hope mom is now at peace, that what my brother and I had to say let her know that we loved her and gave her comfort in knowing she raised two pretty decent men. I appreciate the old neighbors and friends who came to pay their respects, and the one old friend who called with condolences but was unable to attend due to her husband's failing health. I hope someone watches over the two of them, too. I probably shouldn't be surprised, but I was to hear from my old co-workers, a solid group of people whose company I miss and whose reaching out reminds one what friends are all about. And now we move on, for there is no other option. It has been the longest of years and now comes a new chapter. We'll see what it holds.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The end of the Mary tales
Sometimes, death is a shock and, sometimes, it is a relief. When my father died about a year ago, there was a suddenness to it that was not expected. We knew he was going to die; no one escapes cancer forever, but the degree of the downward slope was more severe than anyone thought it would be. Then came my mother.
There is a huge gulf between physical deterioration and the non-physical kind. The latter is especially nasty business, watching a loved one gradually lose the ability to do just about everything independently while slowly fading away from the world they knew. The only variable is how long the fade process takes. By the time the end comes, the person you knew has long since left this earth and when their final breath is let out, there is a bit of sadness but, bad as it may sound, there is mostly relief. Relief certainly for the individual, who not too long ago, was also aware of what was happening and not too happy about it. And relief for everyone else.
When that loved one no longer remembers who you are, who your siblings are, who your children are, who her husband was, and has reverted to early childhood remembering only her own immediate family, it is fair to say the individual is no longer with you. And so it is. And that is the end of the maudlin portion of this.
In looking back at old pictures, I am going to remember a woman who enjoyed life, enjoyed her kids and friends, enjoyed going back to the old country and rekindling old relationships, and enjoyed her husband. I will remember a woman who not only had an opinion on just about everything but also believed that you were entitled to it. If mom's life were a book, it would have to be called "The Last Word" because no matter the discussion, she was going to get it. I like to say that at least one my kids has inherited that and that this trait skips a generation; my wife is not so sure.
It is a bit odd to look up and suddenly realize you are an orphan, which sounds a bit ridiculous for a 50-year old man. Orphans are little ragamuffins from 1930s movies where Andy Rooney plays a character wise beyond his years, street smart urchins schooled in the unpleasantries of life. In reality, most of us wind up wearing that title at some point and it is part of the natural order. Never being an orphan only means one thing, dying before your parents which is about the worst thing I can imagine.
I am going to believe that mom is at peace, bending dad's ear again. Of course, he had more than a year to rest up so he should be okay. A lifetime of pictures and memories will erase the difficulty of the past several months, and I'll leave it with this - if you or an elderly person that you know has even an inkling of "senior moments" going on, make a doctor's apppointment immediately if not sooner. The last thing you want is for your kids to find out after-the-fact that mom or dad or grandma is mentally fading away. I've read too many stories of families being ripped apart over how to care for the person who can no longer care for him/herself. Get the check up and make a plan; it will be the thing you can do for the ones left behind.
There is a huge gulf between physical deterioration and the non-physical kind. The latter is especially nasty business, watching a loved one gradually lose the ability to do just about everything independently while slowly fading away from the world they knew. The only variable is how long the fade process takes. By the time the end comes, the person you knew has long since left this earth and when their final breath is let out, there is a bit of sadness but, bad as it may sound, there is mostly relief. Relief certainly for the individual, who not too long ago, was also aware of what was happening and not too happy about it. And relief for everyone else.
When that loved one no longer remembers who you are, who your siblings are, who your children are, who her husband was, and has reverted to early childhood remembering only her own immediate family, it is fair to say the individual is no longer with you. And so it is. And that is the end of the maudlin portion of this.
In looking back at old pictures, I am going to remember a woman who enjoyed life, enjoyed her kids and friends, enjoyed going back to the old country and rekindling old relationships, and enjoyed her husband. I will remember a woman who not only had an opinion on just about everything but also believed that you were entitled to it. If mom's life were a book, it would have to be called "The Last Word" because no matter the discussion, she was going to get it. I like to say that at least one my kids has inherited that and that this trait skips a generation; my wife is not so sure.
It is a bit odd to look up and suddenly realize you are an orphan, which sounds a bit ridiculous for a 50-year old man. Orphans are little ragamuffins from 1930s movies where Andy Rooney plays a character wise beyond his years, street smart urchins schooled in the unpleasantries of life. In reality, most of us wind up wearing that title at some point and it is part of the natural order. Never being an orphan only means one thing, dying before your parents which is about the worst thing I can imagine.
I am going to believe that mom is at peace, bending dad's ear again. Of course, he had more than a year to rest up so he should be okay. A lifetime of pictures and memories will erase the difficulty of the past several months, and I'll leave it with this - if you or an elderly person that you know has even an inkling of "senior moments" going on, make a doctor's apppointment immediately if not sooner. The last thing you want is for your kids to find out after-the-fact that mom or dad or grandma is mentally fading away. I've read too many stories of families being ripped apart over how to care for the person who can no longer care for him/herself. Get the check up and make a plan; it will be the thing you can do for the ones left behind.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Mary Tales
When your mother struggles to recognize you, as in she knows that she should know you but is not exactly sure why, that is a tough day. Even knowing the day would come does not make it much easier. Since this part of the story last appeared, Mary has moved to a nursing home. Nice place, ridiculously clean, perpetually cheerful. If you have to put a parent into such a facility, this one is as good as it gets. She is well-fed (it may sound bad but any time a group of Southern black women are in a kitchen, good things are coming out), clean, and never allowed to wallow in bed. But.....
Dementia is a nasty condition. Some want to see it as an alternate form of Alzheimer's, but it is far more insidious. It not only robs memory, it robs cognitive ability in general along with motor skills. And, there is not a damn thing that modern medicine can do about it. In a sense, it is like watching a cancer patient slowly waste away, with one cruel difference - the cancer patient remains mentally aware, able to converse and reminisce, recognize hunger and thirst, and to a limited degree, participate in life. The dementia patient does not really even observe life; more likely, he or she endures it. Or, at least, the rest of the family does.
My wife and I have been through numerous books, websites, and blogs dealing with dementia. None tells a pretty tale - no patient ever recovers, no family gets through it without some scars, no one really cries when the end finally comes. It is something one must see and experience to understand, yet it is not a fate I would wish on anyone. The confounding thing is that there is no trace of anything like this that I can find in either side of the family. Two grandmothers lived into their 90s, one grandfather to near 90, the other past 70. The first three died of the obvious, being 90+ or near it, and the fourth I am not sure of, though no mention of anything like mental deterioration was ever made. Seems doubtful something like that could be kept secret.
We visit a couple of times a week; some trips are better than before. On occasion, there is a moment of lucidity but invariably, it serves to raise the question of, why. Why is this going on? How long will it last? When your mom, out of the blue, breaks from a string of incoherence and in perfect English says "this isn't very good for anyone", there is little mistaking what she is talking about. And so we go on, visiting, trying to make the best of it, occasionally asking dad why he never clued us in about this. Probably didn't want us to worry, through it would have made some decision-making after his death a lot easier and much less traumatic. We'll see what Tuesday holds.
Dementia is a nasty condition. Some want to see it as an alternate form of Alzheimer's, but it is far more insidious. It not only robs memory, it robs cognitive ability in general along with motor skills. And, there is not a damn thing that modern medicine can do about it. In a sense, it is like watching a cancer patient slowly waste away, with one cruel difference - the cancer patient remains mentally aware, able to converse and reminisce, recognize hunger and thirst, and to a limited degree, participate in life. The dementia patient does not really even observe life; more likely, he or she endures it. Or, at least, the rest of the family does.
My wife and I have been through numerous books, websites, and blogs dealing with dementia. None tells a pretty tale - no patient ever recovers, no family gets through it without some scars, no one really cries when the end finally comes. It is something one must see and experience to understand, yet it is not a fate I would wish on anyone. The confounding thing is that there is no trace of anything like this that I can find in either side of the family. Two grandmothers lived into their 90s, one grandfather to near 90, the other past 70. The first three died of the obvious, being 90+ or near it, and the fourth I am not sure of, though no mention of anything like mental deterioration was ever made. Seems doubtful something like that could be kept secret.
We visit a couple of times a week; some trips are better than before. On occasion, there is a moment of lucidity but invariably, it serves to raise the question of, why. Why is this going on? How long will it last? When your mom, out of the blue, breaks from a string of incoherence and in perfect English says "this isn't very good for anyone", there is little mistaking what she is talking about. And so we go on, visiting, trying to make the best of it, occasionally asking dad why he never clued us in about this. Probably didn't want us to worry, through it would have made some decision-making after his death a lot easier and much less traumatic. We'll see what Tuesday holds.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Obama must be Roman
Leaders in the Roman Empire used bread and circuses to distract the populace from more pressing issues. Likewise, President Obama is becoming increasingly adept at misdirection to avoid discussing topics he either cannot answer or does not want to confront. Consider the past three weeks: the federal budget is a mess, states are in similar bad straits, the Middle East is on the verge of either revolution or implosion, gas prices are spiking, and unemployment remains high.
The White House response? Two weeks ago, it was an announcement that the Defense of Marriage Act would no longer be defended in court. Last week, the Oval used its clout to speak out against bullying in schools. And this week, POTUS vowed to defend gender equality. Can you say "the re-election campaign is underway." How else to explain the highlighting of three issues that fly below the public's current-day radar? And to compound matters, they are directed at three constituencies - the gay community, teachers unions, and feminists - who are as reliably pro-Obama as the labor unions. Curiously, the unions actually are involved in a discussion of national significance, but the president has not had much to say on that. At least publicly. Given the frequency with which the head of the AFL-CIO visits the White House, however, there could be plenty of discussion afoot.
I realize being president is a tough job but I keep hoping that, at some point, Mr. Obama will understand that has actually won the job. Two years ago. When a corner of the world is in a state of multi-national upheaval, people everywhere expect to hear the President of the United States say something, even if it as benign as declaring America's unwavering support of individual liberty and freedom. We do not need to take up arms in Libya, Yemen, or any other Arab country; people there should plot their own destiny. But we should at least give voice to the notion of self-determination in a part of the globe that has never seen it. If people give the impression of trying to escape oppression, that has historically be the sort of thing the Oval Office supported, even if the support was only rhetorical.
Meanwhile, the budget debate (if it can be called such) continues in Congress with Dems and Repubs debating whether $60-billion or $6-billion is a more suitable reduction, from a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars. Put a calculator to either set of proposed cuts. It is like debating what type of floor mat to put in your Bentley. If neither side is serious about actually cutting spending, and there is no reason to believe that either is, then say so and be done with it. Tell Americans they can expect continually-expanding government until far more than the 35% of US paychecks are made up of taxpayer dollars. Tell us the whole country will be one giant nanny state, where our minders will dictate the light bulbs we use, foods we eat, cars we drive, and eventually, thoughts we think.
Rome's ignoring of genuine issues led to the fall of the empire. Already, America is in a state of decline whether it wants to admit it or not. One reason is the unwillingness of elected leaders to face the problems they were elected to solve. The elephant in the living room does not disappear simply because one pretends it does not exist. The world is changing around us and the Senate Majority Leader worries about the demise of a cowboy poetry festival, the House Speaker and some of his deputies are consumed with abortion, and the President apparently stays up nights worrying about schoolkids being bullied. And, all three wonder why some of us take none of them seriously.
The White House response? Two weeks ago, it was an announcement that the Defense of Marriage Act would no longer be defended in court. Last week, the Oval used its clout to speak out against bullying in schools. And this week, POTUS vowed to defend gender equality. Can you say "the re-election campaign is underway." How else to explain the highlighting of three issues that fly below the public's current-day radar? And to compound matters, they are directed at three constituencies - the gay community, teachers unions, and feminists - who are as reliably pro-Obama as the labor unions. Curiously, the unions actually are involved in a discussion of national significance, but the president has not had much to say on that. At least publicly. Given the frequency with which the head of the AFL-CIO visits the White House, however, there could be plenty of discussion afoot.
I realize being president is a tough job but I keep hoping that, at some point, Mr. Obama will understand that has actually won the job. Two years ago. When a corner of the world is in a state of multi-national upheaval, people everywhere expect to hear the President of the United States say something, even if it as benign as declaring America's unwavering support of individual liberty and freedom. We do not need to take up arms in Libya, Yemen, or any other Arab country; people there should plot their own destiny. But we should at least give voice to the notion of self-determination in a part of the globe that has never seen it. If people give the impression of trying to escape oppression, that has historically be the sort of thing the Oval Office supported, even if the support was only rhetorical.
Meanwhile, the budget debate (if it can be called such) continues in Congress with Dems and Repubs debating whether $60-billion or $6-billion is a more suitable reduction, from a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars. Put a calculator to either set of proposed cuts. It is like debating what type of floor mat to put in your Bentley. If neither side is serious about actually cutting spending, and there is no reason to believe that either is, then say so and be done with it. Tell Americans they can expect continually-expanding government until far more than the 35% of US paychecks are made up of taxpayer dollars. Tell us the whole country will be one giant nanny state, where our minders will dictate the light bulbs we use, foods we eat, cars we drive, and eventually, thoughts we think.
Rome's ignoring of genuine issues led to the fall of the empire. Already, America is in a state of decline whether it wants to admit it or not. One reason is the unwillingness of elected leaders to face the problems they were elected to solve. The elephant in the living room does not disappear simply because one pretends it does not exist. The world is changing around us and the Senate Majority Leader worries about the demise of a cowboy poetry festival, the House Speaker and some of his deputies are consumed with abortion, and the President apparently stays up nights worrying about schoolkids being bullied. And, all three wonder why some of us take none of them seriously.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wanted: Leaders, Not Politicians
We are living the Chinese proverb of being in interesting times and it is a golden era of sorts for America's chattering class. It is also a missed opportunity for the leadership class, which continues its sorry habit of trying to make things appear to be everything but what they really are. No one disputes that the nation's spending addiction is a dead-end road; yet, few people are willing to do anything that even remotely resembles a fiscal intervention.
The president proposed a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars that, once again, ignored the elephant in the living room. Despite his own rhetoric, during the '08 campaign and even during his presidency, of the need to get the country's finances in order, he put forth a spending proposal that includes hiring 5,000 more IRS agents and continuing the boondoggle of high speed rail. In Congress, the idea of trimming less than 100-million dollars - from a budget of ALMOST FOUR TRILLION - has caused convulsions among some who consider every taxpayer dollar that is earned to be government money awaiting confiscation.
Looming is a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling, falsely portrayed as something that could cause the nation to default on its obligations. Fresh, grade-A BS. Let me ask you this - when you max out your credit card, does that free you from paying the balance that is due? Of course, not; and the country would similarly have to pay its bills. Not raising the debt ceiling means the government cannot simply borrow even more money. Put another way - when you hit your credit card max, can you call the company and ask for your limit to be raised? Doubtful. Raising the debt ceiling is akin to borrowing from Peter to pay Paul; the downside is that you wind up owing Peter more than he lent you because of interest. When the amounts being discussed are in the billions and trillions of dollars, interest is a hefty sum.
Then, there is the issue of public sector unions in several states. Curiously, the states enduring the most crushing problems are the ones with the largest obligations to public employees. There is likely a correlation there but I could be wrong. Regardless, here is my question: why should membership in a union be a requirement for working in the public sector? And does it seem curious that the consistently pro-choice Democrat Party has an issue with people making choices on the most personal of things? Second, does it seem fair to you that, along with compulsory membership, union dues are automatically deducted from an employee's paycheck, whether the employee is okay with that or not? Third, this process reeks of conflict of interest and here's how: the union dues are typically used to fund electoral campaigns of Democrat officials, though it would be just as wrong if the money went toward Republican candidates. In essence, unions siphon off taxpayer dollars in order to give to the campaigns of politicians whom they will lobby later for even more taxpayer dollars. That's not the democratic process, that is a Mafia-style protection racket.
Voters spoke loudly and clearly in November, screaming "no" to more government spending. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial. Elections have consequences; we spent two years hearing that from a Congressional majority that rammed through as many things as possible, public opinion be damned. With the shoe firmly on the other foot, the same folks are now squawking about bipartisanship, compromise, and negotiation. Here's a clue: how about the lot of you stop acting like children, stop treating the federal treasury and state budgets as your personal slush funds, and do what even elementary school kids know has to be done.
It's called leadership and I realize that it is a scarce commodity among the political class. Today's soundbite culture makes it easy to vilify anyone who proposes anything that smacks of responsible government. And, responsible government can happen; I have seen it done by honorable men and women who realized that compromise is not a dirty word. It just means no one gets everything they want; at the same time, action that benefits the masses winds up being taken. Stop with talk of government shutdowns, stop running away to other states to avoid your constitutional responsibility, and stop whining and talking past each other. In short, do your damn jobs. No one made you run for office; politics is a choice. So is being responsible.
The president proposed a budget of nearly 4-trillion dollars that, once again, ignored the elephant in the living room. Despite his own rhetoric, during the '08 campaign and even during his presidency, of the need to get the country's finances in order, he put forth a spending proposal that includes hiring 5,000 more IRS agents and continuing the boondoggle of high speed rail. In Congress, the idea of trimming less than 100-million dollars - from a budget of ALMOST FOUR TRILLION - has caused convulsions among some who consider every taxpayer dollar that is earned to be government money awaiting confiscation.
Looming is a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling, falsely portrayed as something that could cause the nation to default on its obligations. Fresh, grade-A BS. Let me ask you this - when you max out your credit card, does that free you from paying the balance that is due? Of course, not; and the country would similarly have to pay its bills. Not raising the debt ceiling means the government cannot simply borrow even more money. Put another way - when you hit your credit card max, can you call the company and ask for your limit to be raised? Doubtful. Raising the debt ceiling is akin to borrowing from Peter to pay Paul; the downside is that you wind up owing Peter more than he lent you because of interest. When the amounts being discussed are in the billions and trillions of dollars, interest is a hefty sum.
Then, there is the issue of public sector unions in several states. Curiously, the states enduring the most crushing problems are the ones with the largest obligations to public employees. There is likely a correlation there but I could be wrong. Regardless, here is my question: why should membership in a union be a requirement for working in the public sector? And does it seem curious that the consistently pro-choice Democrat Party has an issue with people making choices on the most personal of things? Second, does it seem fair to you that, along with compulsory membership, union dues are automatically deducted from an employee's paycheck, whether the employee is okay with that or not? Third, this process reeks of conflict of interest and here's how: the union dues are typically used to fund electoral campaigns of Democrat officials, though it would be just as wrong if the money went toward Republican candidates. In essence, unions siphon off taxpayer dollars in order to give to the campaigns of politicians whom they will lobby later for even more taxpayer dollars. That's not the democratic process, that is a Mafia-style protection racket.
Voters spoke loudly and clearly in November, screaming "no" to more government spending. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial. Elections have consequences; we spent two years hearing that from a Congressional majority that rammed through as many things as possible, public opinion be damned. With the shoe firmly on the other foot, the same folks are now squawking about bipartisanship, compromise, and negotiation. Here's a clue: how about the lot of you stop acting like children, stop treating the federal treasury and state budgets as your personal slush funds, and do what even elementary school kids know has to be done.
It's called leadership and I realize that it is a scarce commodity among the political class. Today's soundbite culture makes it easy to vilify anyone who proposes anything that smacks of responsible government. And, responsible government can happen; I have seen it done by honorable men and women who realized that compromise is not a dirty word. It just means no one gets everything they want; at the same time, action that benefits the masses winds up being taken. Stop with talk of government shutdowns, stop running away to other states to avoid your constitutional responsibility, and stop whining and talking past each other. In short, do your damn jobs. No one made you run for office; politics is a choice. So is being responsible.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Dad would have enjoyed it
My father would have enjoyed watching Auburn raise that crystal trophy this week. He had seats at Jordan-Hare when it was still Cliff Hare Stadium with one end zone still open. My earliest memory of watching the Tigers was when the defense intercepted Florida's John Reaves 9 times in an upset win back in '69. In those days, fans could walk down onto the field and exit underneath the stands in the corners of the end where the dressing room sits. No dogs, no yellow-coated security guards, and no people acting stupid. It was mostly a treat for the kids to be on the grass their Saturday heroes had just trampled.
Auburn never won a national title during that time. There were the undefeated years of '93 and '04, several Iron Bowl wins, and some other big games, but never that one season where the combination of good play and good fortune united for the whole year. Then came 2010, perhaps the most unlikely season in which Auburn would rule college football. Dad died almost a year ago but he was curious as to what the upcoming season might hold. Honest Auburn fans will tell you they approached this season with optimism but not overconfidence and, for many, 9 - 10 wins seemed a reasonable expectation between the advantage of the schedule and the anticipation of a couple of breaks going our way. Perhaps I should have known it would be different on opening night.
Our seats were the second and third from the aisle; the aisle seat had one of those pre-installed chairbacks some ticket holders pay for, but whoever arranged that didn't show that night. Or at the next home game. Or the one after that. My bride and I took turns using the seat and it is nice to be able to lean back from time to time. It was her idea that the empty seat was more than a seating chart mistake, that it was a purposeful act. It was dad's seat and he would take the ride with us, week in and week out, win or lose. Obviously, lose never came, with an overtime thriller followed by turnover-filled victory as Auburn became the unlikely South Carolina state champion setting up the year's two decisive home games.
The scores you already know, but my brother, who came in for the LSU game, walked away with the same feeling my wife had - there was something about that seat that had been paid for and equipped with a seatback, yet no one claiming it. It had to be dad's spot and surely he was enjoying not just the team winning but the excitement the Tigers and their big kid of a quarterback were generating. How could any long-time fan not get swept up in the excitement of a player seemingly having the time of his life and wanting an entire stadium to know about it.
Perhaps the real key that the seat belonged to dad was the Auburn seemed to master the football question he always asked - how come teams don't have a special play for short yardage that is a virtual lock? Sending a back into a pile or running a sneak is never guaranteed to be successful and, time and again, he would ask how it was that a team could fail to pick up 6 inches or two feet. This year provided the answer - you put a 6-foot-6, 250 pound quarterback in the shotgun, after the snap he takes two steps forward, and dives over the pile. First down. Or touchdown. Worked every time. Without fail. Of course, the challenge becomes finding a player to replicate that feat game after game, year after year. But, for one season at least, that nagging question was answered. And for one season at least, the Tigers won the last game of the year. I hope dad enjoyed the season as much as the rest of us did.
Auburn never won a national title during that time. There were the undefeated years of '93 and '04, several Iron Bowl wins, and some other big games, but never that one season where the combination of good play and good fortune united for the whole year. Then came 2010, perhaps the most unlikely season in which Auburn would rule college football. Dad died almost a year ago but he was curious as to what the upcoming season might hold. Honest Auburn fans will tell you they approached this season with optimism but not overconfidence and, for many, 9 - 10 wins seemed a reasonable expectation between the advantage of the schedule and the anticipation of a couple of breaks going our way. Perhaps I should have known it would be different on opening night.
Our seats were the second and third from the aisle; the aisle seat had one of those pre-installed chairbacks some ticket holders pay for, but whoever arranged that didn't show that night. Or at the next home game. Or the one after that. My bride and I took turns using the seat and it is nice to be able to lean back from time to time. It was her idea that the empty seat was more than a seating chart mistake, that it was a purposeful act. It was dad's seat and he would take the ride with us, week in and week out, win or lose. Obviously, lose never came, with an overtime thriller followed by turnover-filled victory as Auburn became the unlikely South Carolina state champion setting up the year's two decisive home games.
The scores you already know, but my brother, who came in for the LSU game, walked away with the same feeling my wife had - there was something about that seat that had been paid for and equipped with a seatback, yet no one claiming it. It had to be dad's spot and surely he was enjoying not just the team winning but the excitement the Tigers and their big kid of a quarterback were generating. How could any long-time fan not get swept up in the excitement of a player seemingly having the time of his life and wanting an entire stadium to know about it.
Perhaps the real key that the seat belonged to dad was the Auburn seemed to master the football question he always asked - how come teams don't have a special play for short yardage that is a virtual lock? Sending a back into a pile or running a sneak is never guaranteed to be successful and, time and again, he would ask how it was that a team could fail to pick up 6 inches or two feet. This year provided the answer - you put a 6-foot-6, 250 pound quarterback in the shotgun, after the snap he takes two steps forward, and dives over the pile. First down. Or touchdown. Worked every time. Without fail. Of course, the challenge becomes finding a player to replicate that feat game after game, year after year. But, for one season at least, that nagging question was answered. And for one season at least, the Tigers won the last game of the year. I hope dad enjoyed the season as much as the rest of us did.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Things I hope to never hear again
Sometimes it is painful being a sports fan. So many cliches, so many attempts at humor that fall flat, so many announcers hoping to be clever and carve out a signature phrase that will live forever. Perhaps the play by play guys could simply focus on describing the action and the analysts could, well, analyze. In so doing, this is a starter list of words and phrases to NEVER say again:
--'the next level' in describing the NFL. Players are not going to the next level of football; they are going to the pros, to playing for a living, even to playing on Sundays, but NOT the next level. Levels are things people encounter in video games. No one ever says the shortstop in Double-A is going to the next level; he's going to The Show. The NFL lacks its equivalent of baseball's The Show, though a couple of guys have used The League, which is a lot better than the next level.
--'elevate.' No, basketball players and some football receivers do not elevate, they jump. Just like guys run fast, not accelerate. Cars accelerate and hydraulic lifts elevate; people run and jump.
--"a buck (fill in the blank)" when referring to a player gaining more than a hundred yards, or instances of a minute and some number of seconds left to play, or an anemic batting average during a slump. The buck analogy has been done, overdone, cooked, fileted, baked, fricasseed, and grilled to a point that is the opposite of original. A buck-something means money and while some players are certainly money, they're long past the point of worrying about a buck-anything.
--the tendency to turn football into rocket surgery, and football announcers are by far the worst offenders. For all the schemes coaches devise, it remains a basic game - blocking and tackling. The team that does those two things better invariably wins. Much like baseball is about catch the ball, throw the ball, hit the ball. There are no scientific formulas being used, no atoms being split, no petrie dishes employed, not even for Gus Malzhan's offense. However, you will hear an endless cacophony of teams "disguising" pass coverages or something similar that conjures up notions of Houdini ball.
With so many games and so many announcers, everyone wants to be the next Madden or Vitale or Berman. Unfortunately, the mix tends to include too many folks who can barely speak English. Pat Summerall was as understated as could be and for good reason - he worked on television and realized it. The power of the medium is visuals; sometimes, it's best to simply be quiet and let them tell the story. Of course, expecting change is barking at the moon. But, it would be nice.
--'the next level' in describing the NFL. Players are not going to the next level of football; they are going to the pros, to playing for a living, even to playing on Sundays, but NOT the next level. Levels are things people encounter in video games. No one ever says the shortstop in Double-A is going to the next level; he's going to The Show. The NFL lacks its equivalent of baseball's The Show, though a couple of guys have used The League, which is a lot better than the next level.
--'elevate.' No, basketball players and some football receivers do not elevate, they jump. Just like guys run fast, not accelerate. Cars accelerate and hydraulic lifts elevate; people run and jump.
--"a buck (fill in the blank)" when referring to a player gaining more than a hundred yards, or instances of a minute and some number of seconds left to play, or an anemic batting average during a slump. The buck analogy has been done, overdone, cooked, fileted, baked, fricasseed, and grilled to a point that is the opposite of original. A buck-something means money and while some players are certainly money, they're long past the point of worrying about a buck-anything.
--the tendency to turn football into rocket surgery, and football announcers are by far the worst offenders. For all the schemes coaches devise, it remains a basic game - blocking and tackling. The team that does those two things better invariably wins. Much like baseball is about catch the ball, throw the ball, hit the ball. There are no scientific formulas being used, no atoms being split, no petrie dishes employed, not even for Gus Malzhan's offense. However, you will hear an endless cacophony of teams "disguising" pass coverages or something similar that conjures up notions of Houdini ball.
With so many games and so many announcers, everyone wants to be the next Madden or Vitale or Berman. Unfortunately, the mix tends to include too many folks who can barely speak English. Pat Summerall was as understated as could be and for good reason - he worked on television and realized it. The power of the medium is visuals; sometimes, it's best to simply be quiet and let them tell the story. Of course, expecting change is barking at the moon. But, it would be nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)