The recent dust-up over comments by the CEO of Chick-fil-A on gay marriage have provided a good test case regarding the type society we are vs. the type society some would wish us to be. Liberals constantly crow about "tolerance" and "diversity", but their walk almost never keeps pace with their talk. After Truett Cathy surprised absolutely no one who knows anything about him by saying he believes marriage to be defined as one man/one woman, the left went into high hysteria with a few mayors suggested that Chick-fil-A not even look at their cities for possible expansion. That those mayors can be supported by anyone should be frightening, but in this age of speech codes, it isn't.
Last I checked, Cathy had a Constitutional right to his opinion. There is no corresponding right that forces me to agree with him, nor is there one that inoculates him from potential backlash. In this case, 'backlash' means anyone offended by his remarks can stop buying Chick-fil-A's products. In a free society, it does not - or should not - mean that elected officials get to use veiled threats of govt action in order to force businesses into ideological compliance. If a city has the legal authority to stop a business from building because its CEO opposes gay marriage, then nothing can stop another city from similar sanctions against a CEO who, say, opposes abortion or favors gun control. And, that's the thing about the left.
Liberals believe that diversity is a group of folks who look different but march in ideological lockstep, and tolerance is everyone agreeing with even the stupidest ideas. Wrong on both counts. Diversity means accepting that individuals are different and and will have varying opinions on a range of topics. Tolerance means understanding that not everyone has to agree with you and that a person having a different viewpoint is not inherently evil or motivated by sinister forces. It just means that person has his/her own opinion.
We get into (potentially) serious trouble when govt believes that its role is mandating thought and what the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, among others, are doing is exactly that. Each has said that Chick-fil-A may not be allowed to build in their cities because some elected official - that would be a person who works for us - does not like what a CEO believes. To call this a slippery slope insults the term; it is a steep precipice that can only produce bad results.
There are some in this country, okay there are many, who hate the concept of individual liberty or of individual anything, for that matter. They would prefer that we become a Borg-like collective where everyone is assigned a specific set of thoughts and then does what our betters dictate. That sort of approach has been tried in numerous places, always with bad outcomes. Liberty means the freedom to think and act for yourself, and to understate that statements can have consequences. Some folks may boycott Chick-fil-A just as surely as folks who agree with Cathy may double down on doing business with the chain. That is how a free society works.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
This is how you beat age discrimination
In this current state of normal - and sorry, I refuse to call it the new normal because nothing lasts forever - there are some economic realities to be faced. One of them is, seasoned workers stand a very good chance of being screwed, sometimes because of self-defeating reasons and sometimes because of misperception.
The biggest self-defeating reason is the most obvious - economics. Less experienced people command lower salaries. Why self-defeating? If you run an organization, new hires are essentially learning on your watch, quite possibly learning enough so that they can shop themselves to a higher bidder. There is nothing wrong with inexperienced people; I used to be one. But, you can't run a place on their backs. They need people to learn from, people whose roles they can move into at some point. Conversely, the older worker will also learn from younger counterparts, but that is another topic.
Areas of misperception are going to be more common and they are infinitely more maddening:
Tough economic times have made for a much competitive workplace. Graduate schools have enrolled a goodly number of older students who find that their experience alone is not enough. And, it is difficult to blame organizations. When hundreds of people apply for an opening, there is no way a human is going to sift through every resume. So, screening parameters are designed to cull the resume herd; "Masters" is one of the words used to narrow the field of prospects.
You cannot change your age but you don't have to run away from it either. Experience matters, perhaps more so today than in fatter times. But be aware; you are going to face one or more of the bullet items if you are of a certain age and on the job hunt. Be ready with answers.
The biggest self-defeating reason is the most obvious - economics. Less experienced people command lower salaries. Why self-defeating? If you run an organization, new hires are essentially learning on your watch, quite possibly learning enough so that they can shop themselves to a higher bidder. There is nothing wrong with inexperienced people; I used to be one. But, you can't run a place on their backs. They need people to learn from, people whose roles they can move into at some point. Conversely, the older worker will also learn from younger counterparts, but that is another topic.
Areas of misperception are going to be more common and they are infinitely more maddening:
- "You are overqualified." While that may be true, you are not applying for such a job in order to show off. It may be that you've been in your boss' shoes and you found the view unpleasant. Or, it could be that you want to dial down your level of responsibility. Or, you want to focus on a specific task(s) without also having to supervise/internalize the drama of subordinates. But your best means of overcoming that objection is this: "I have had your position and I understand the demands and pressures you face. I can help you with some of them and you can be certain I will not add to them."
- "Are you sure you won't be bored?" The plain fact is that not every job is a thrill a minute, but jobs exist for one purpose - there is work to be done. Presumably, you will be busy. Focus on the skills required for the job and the tasks that are entailed in it. "The mark of a well-run organization is when the routine things are done routinely. Every place has its things that, while maybe not exciting, are nonetheless critical to the overall function. I like contributing to success and a big part of success is so-called little things; this is where my experience really comes to the fore. I have seen what happens when details are addressed and when they are not."
- "The workplace has changed." Pardon the expression, but no shit. If you are a Boomer, your entire existence has been about change. You remember when research meant going to the library, using the Dewey Decimal System to track down reference material, and then typing the finished work. Maybe even on a manual typewriter. If you know the words "pica" and "elite", you know what I am talking about. The tools have been changing your entire career and each time, you acclimated. Here's the bottom line answer to that objection: "Communicating with people is about ideas, not about the means through which ideas are transmitted. People can learn gadgets quickly; it takes a lot longer to learn to think. (Besides, all of these tools that your generation takes for granted? My generation invented most of them.")
Tough economic times have made for a much competitive workplace. Graduate schools have enrolled a goodly number of older students who find that their experience alone is not enough. And, it is difficult to blame organizations. When hundreds of people apply for an opening, there is no way a human is going to sift through every resume. So, screening parameters are designed to cull the resume herd; "Masters" is one of the words used to narrow the field of prospects.
You cannot change your age but you don't have to run away from it either. Experience matters, perhaps more so today than in fatter times. But be aware; you are going to face one or more of the bullet items if you are of a certain age and on the job hunt. Be ready with answers.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
America is NOT other countries, part II
Whenever you hear someone use "but other countries do it" as the rationalization for why the US should do anything, that is a red flag. What will follow is a false argument based on emotion rather than logic, numbers that are virtually meaningless, and policy desires focused on intentions rather than outcomes.
The most obvious example is health care. Set aside the Supreme Court's decisions to a key argument surrounding support for govt running the health care delivery system: "other democratic nations do it and they spend much less than America does." On its face, that claims is absolutely true; the US spends far more on a per-capita basis on health care than does any other country. What is left out of the argument is a key reason behind that fact - all of those other countries say NO to spending that the US routinely approves.
I can use my own parents as examples. My father died from leukemia at age 83. One of his last medical statements included a $12,000 bill, and insurance payment, for chemotherapy. In his native Europe, that would have been 12K saved because a govt-run system would not spend that sort of money on a person of his age. And there is my mother, whose coverage repeatedly paid for $500 prescriptions refills for a drug that, as best I can tell, did nothing to either extend her life or improve its quality. Again, in her native land, this expense would have been a no-go.
That is an unpleasant truth too many Americans refuse to acknowledge. Those dastardly death panels that Sarah Palin mentioned, the ones that liberals used as a cudgel with which to beat her, exist. No, they are not actually called death panels but they are the functional equivalent. When a bureaucracy decides that it will NOT pay for a particular course of treatment, the outcome is no different. And Obamacare includes a panel that will be making such decisions.
Whether these panels are good or not is immaterial; the point is that they exist in all the other democracies that advocates of govt-run health care point to as the example we follow. As it is, no one disputes that health care dollars are disproportionately spent in the last few years of an individual's life. In actuarial terms, this makes no sense. The taxpayer is forced to spend hundreds, if not thousands and tens of thousands, so that grandpa can have an additional three weeks, often three weeks that are going to be miserable. That spending comes at the expense of people who are much younger and whose potential for quality life is much greater. Fair? Maybe, maybe not, but few things in life are.
The argument that the US should do something because someone else does - without explaining all of what someone else does - is sure as hell unfair. But, it strikes at emotion, a powerful weapon. Few things are easier than using emotion as the basis for spending someone else's money; it gets a bit harder when folks eventually realize that "someone else" is them. In her lucid moments, my mother repeatedly asked for a pill, but it was one that would have ended her life, not added several months of dubious quality where she was unable to do something as simple as brush her own teeth. Keep that in mind next time someone suggests that you should participate in something "because everyone else is doing it." Ironic, isn't it? We tell our kids to NOT do things based on that logic; why is it okay to use public funds to do the opposite?
The most obvious example is health care. Set aside the Supreme Court's decisions to a key argument surrounding support for govt running the health care delivery system: "other democratic nations do it and they spend much less than America does." On its face, that claims is absolutely true; the US spends far more on a per-capita basis on health care than does any other country. What is left out of the argument is a key reason behind that fact - all of those other countries say NO to spending that the US routinely approves.
I can use my own parents as examples. My father died from leukemia at age 83. One of his last medical statements included a $12,000 bill, and insurance payment, for chemotherapy. In his native Europe, that would have been 12K saved because a govt-run system would not spend that sort of money on a person of his age. And there is my mother, whose coverage repeatedly paid for $500 prescriptions refills for a drug that, as best I can tell, did nothing to either extend her life or improve its quality. Again, in her native land, this expense would have been a no-go.
That is an unpleasant truth too many Americans refuse to acknowledge. Those dastardly death panels that Sarah Palin mentioned, the ones that liberals used as a cudgel with which to beat her, exist. No, they are not actually called death panels but they are the functional equivalent. When a bureaucracy decides that it will NOT pay for a particular course of treatment, the outcome is no different. And Obamacare includes a panel that will be making such decisions.
Whether these panels are good or not is immaterial; the point is that they exist in all the other democracies that advocates of govt-run health care point to as the example we follow. As it is, no one disputes that health care dollars are disproportionately spent in the last few years of an individual's life. In actuarial terms, this makes no sense. The taxpayer is forced to spend hundreds, if not thousands and tens of thousands, so that grandpa can have an additional three weeks, often three weeks that are going to be miserable. That spending comes at the expense of people who are much younger and whose potential for quality life is much greater. Fair? Maybe, maybe not, but few things in life are.
The argument that the US should do something because someone else does - without explaining all of what someone else does - is sure as hell unfair. But, it strikes at emotion, a powerful weapon. Few things are easier than using emotion as the basis for spending someone else's money; it gets a bit harder when folks eventually realize that "someone else" is them. In her lucid moments, my mother repeatedly asked for a pill, but it was one that would have ended her life, not added several months of dubious quality where she was unable to do something as simple as brush her own teeth. Keep that in mind next time someone suggests that you should participate in something "because everyone else is doing it." Ironic, isn't it? We tell our kids to NOT do things based on that logic; why is it okay to use public funds to do the opposite?
Friday, June 29, 2012
A tax on inactivity
Next time someone tells you that nothing is new, that any idea, book or movie title, marketing approach, etc. is simply a rehash of previous thought, point them to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. For the first time in American history, you can be taxed for NOT doing something. Take a break from your partisan thoughts about health care and let that proposition roll around in your brain for a moment.
In upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, Roberts argued what the administration did not - that the mandate is really a tax, and that govt has the power to tax people. Usually, taxation is done in conjunction with an activity: income tax is paid on what you earn while working, sales tax is tacked onto purchases you make, property taxes come from having bought real estate. With this tax, however, money will be confiscated from you because of what you do not do. If you opt out of health insurance, govt will forcibly take some of your money. If your employer decides against offering health coverage as a benefit, govt will forcibly take some of the company's money. If you already thought that taxation was a de facto form of theft, this ruling puts that theft on steroids.
A host of self-appointed deep thinkers is working overtime to think deep thoughts about Roberts' decision: He did not want the Court to appear political; He did not want to be perceived as activist; He has helped Romney with his ruling. I am calling BS on each of those pronouncements. The Court already is deemed as political by whichever side loses on a particular vote. The Court would have been perceived as activist regardless of the outcome. And, if the Chief Justice fancies himself a political kingmaker, then he should resign his post and run for the post of RNC Chairman.
Where Roberts' decision strains credulity is that, all along, the President and his Congressional allies had done rhetorical back-flips and pirouettes insisting that the mandate was NOT a tax, mostly because they knew the bill would have never passed had the word "tax" actually been in the text. It barely passed as it was, owing its passage largely to last-minute bribes to a handful of Senators. Had the Court simply upheld the mandate as constitutional, there would still be heartburn and hand-wringing, but the measure would have passed on its own merit. Instead, Roberts chose to re-write it, to recast the proposition as some warped version of Solomon saying "this is what I think you meant to put in the bill."
Taxation for inactivity is truly a plumbing of new depths and like all SCOTUS rulings, it sets a precedent. What else can govt now tax you for NOT doing? How about a non-exercise tax - unless you can show a receipt for a gym membership or large piece of home equipment, you may be taxed; and no, simply being a jogger will not do. For politicians who love to use the tax code for social engineering, this opens up a new avenue of approach. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was easy to laugh at when he tried to ban the sale of large-size soft drinks; how silly will you think him when he takes a different tack, say taxing you if you order water in a restaurant since it's free and if you have a soda or tea, at least the state gets some sales tax revenue.
There is no end to how stupid such an application can become. Meanwhile, never let it be said again that there are no new ideas, that everything is a rehash of something previously thought up by someone else. No, the Chief Justice has cemented his status in the deep thinking brigade forever. That he has made himself look utterly foolish in the process apparently does not matter.
In upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, Roberts argued what the administration did not - that the mandate is really a tax, and that govt has the power to tax people. Usually, taxation is done in conjunction with an activity: income tax is paid on what you earn while working, sales tax is tacked onto purchases you make, property taxes come from having bought real estate. With this tax, however, money will be confiscated from you because of what you do not do. If you opt out of health insurance, govt will forcibly take some of your money. If your employer decides against offering health coverage as a benefit, govt will forcibly take some of the company's money. If you already thought that taxation was a de facto form of theft, this ruling puts that theft on steroids.
A host of self-appointed deep thinkers is working overtime to think deep thoughts about Roberts' decision: He did not want the Court to appear political; He did not want to be perceived as activist; He has helped Romney with his ruling. I am calling BS on each of those pronouncements. The Court already is deemed as political by whichever side loses on a particular vote. The Court would have been perceived as activist regardless of the outcome. And, if the Chief Justice fancies himself a political kingmaker, then he should resign his post and run for the post of RNC Chairman.
Where Roberts' decision strains credulity is that, all along, the President and his Congressional allies had done rhetorical back-flips and pirouettes insisting that the mandate was NOT a tax, mostly because they knew the bill would have never passed had the word "tax" actually been in the text. It barely passed as it was, owing its passage largely to last-minute bribes to a handful of Senators. Had the Court simply upheld the mandate as constitutional, there would still be heartburn and hand-wringing, but the measure would have passed on its own merit. Instead, Roberts chose to re-write it, to recast the proposition as some warped version of Solomon saying "this is what I think you meant to put in the bill."
Taxation for inactivity is truly a plumbing of new depths and like all SCOTUS rulings, it sets a precedent. What else can govt now tax you for NOT doing? How about a non-exercise tax - unless you can show a receipt for a gym membership or large piece of home equipment, you may be taxed; and no, simply being a jogger will not do. For politicians who love to use the tax code for social engineering, this opens up a new avenue of approach. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was easy to laugh at when he tried to ban the sale of large-size soft drinks; how silly will you think him when he takes a different tack, say taxing you if you order water in a restaurant since it's free and if you have a soda or tea, at least the state gets some sales tax revenue.
There is no end to how stupid such an application can become. Meanwhile, never let it be said again that there are no new ideas, that everything is a rehash of something previously thought up by someone else. No, the Chief Justice has cemented his status in the deep thinking brigade forever. That he has made himself look utterly foolish in the process apparently does not matter.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
They have to believe you will hurt them
By now, you have likely heard about the New York school monitored hassled by a sorry assemblage of today's youth. The woman has decided against pressing charges and what do you want to be that none of the kids' parents are going to take action, either? Maybe I will be wrong but I doubt it, and it is doubt based on simple observation - bad behavior, particularly involving youths, is hardly ever punished.
Adults have willfully ceded not just control, but authority, over the young through well-intentioned (and aren't bad outcomes usually associated with good intentions?) but misguided attempts to police behavior through time-outs, talking, and other benign measures. You want to make your kid, or someone else's, stays in line? To quote a character from an episode of the "House" television series some time back, "They have to believe you will hurt them."
Now, this does not imply that physical punishment should be used exclusively or even often as a means of discipline. But either it or some similarly harsh measure has to be on the table and those in your charge have to know that this measure is most certainly an option. My two boys, now 28 and 25, collectively got about five spankings while growing up. However, and this is the key point, they knew that a spanking was a potential outcome if they acted stupidly. I did not waste their time or mine with meaningless three-counts to convince them to stop whatever they were doing, we did not engage in corner-sitting or in losing television privileges.
No, the consequences for the worst offenses were swift and they were unpleasant. That is why they were effective. You cannot spank a child for every silly thing that occurs; all that does is make spanking meaningless and, when really bad things occur and a parent has to escalate punishment, well, the next step up from spanking is abuse. Not good. Because harsh sanctions existed and because they were harsh, really bad behavior happened so seldom I cannot even recall why the boys ever got one of the few spankings either ever received.
On a broader point, some have characterized the actions of the NY monsters as bullying, a term seen almost continuously in the news. Want to know the best means of stopping a bully? Smack him in the mouth. Period. The bully's target does not have to actually win a fight; he/she only has to show willingness to engage in one. Ironically, bullies are generally cowards and the first sign of pushback is usually enough to make them go away. Unfortunately, the people who many expect to know better actually do not know better.
School officials usually respond to confrontations by treating instigation and retaliation as the same thing, which anyone with two working brain cells, let alone an advanced degree, knows is untrue. When instigation draws no response and, more important, no sanction, what do you suppose happens? A gold star if you said "more instigation." If nothing of substance happens to the kids in the NY case - and by substance, I mean the system bans them from riding the bus, from extra-curriculars for a year, their parents do something like suspend the little darlings' cell phone service - then you can expect the same kids to harass someone else until they run across the proverbial wrong person.
At that point, the response will be wholly disproportionate to its trigger and a lot of grownups will engage in ritual hand-wringing and navel-gazing about the need for expanding conflict-resolutions methods that are already ineffective. Frankly, I am tremendously disappointed that the bus monitor is not filing charges. That makes her an accomplice and an enabler in what will likely be more bad behavior from this group of miscreants.
Look for a lot of editorials tut-tutting the state of youth and decorum, and a lot of television pundits bloviating about the same. The one thing you will not see is someone suggesting that sometimes, an old-fashioned ass-whipping goes a long way toward sending a message that certain behavior is simply not going to be tolerated if we are to have a civil society.
Adults have willfully ceded not just control, but authority, over the young through well-intentioned (and aren't bad outcomes usually associated with good intentions?) but misguided attempts to police behavior through time-outs, talking, and other benign measures. You want to make your kid, or someone else's, stays in line? To quote a character from an episode of the "House" television series some time back, "They have to believe you will hurt them."
Now, this does not imply that physical punishment should be used exclusively or even often as a means of discipline. But either it or some similarly harsh measure has to be on the table and those in your charge have to know that this measure is most certainly an option. My two boys, now 28 and 25, collectively got about five spankings while growing up. However, and this is the key point, they knew that a spanking was a potential outcome if they acted stupidly. I did not waste their time or mine with meaningless three-counts to convince them to stop whatever they were doing, we did not engage in corner-sitting or in losing television privileges.
No, the consequences for the worst offenses were swift and they were unpleasant. That is why they were effective. You cannot spank a child for every silly thing that occurs; all that does is make spanking meaningless and, when really bad things occur and a parent has to escalate punishment, well, the next step up from spanking is abuse. Not good. Because harsh sanctions existed and because they were harsh, really bad behavior happened so seldom I cannot even recall why the boys ever got one of the few spankings either ever received.
On a broader point, some have characterized the actions of the NY monsters as bullying, a term seen almost continuously in the news. Want to know the best means of stopping a bully? Smack him in the mouth. Period. The bully's target does not have to actually win a fight; he/she only has to show willingness to engage in one. Ironically, bullies are generally cowards and the first sign of pushback is usually enough to make them go away. Unfortunately, the people who many expect to know better actually do not know better.
School officials usually respond to confrontations by treating instigation and retaliation as the same thing, which anyone with two working brain cells, let alone an advanced degree, knows is untrue. When instigation draws no response and, more important, no sanction, what do you suppose happens? A gold star if you said "more instigation." If nothing of substance happens to the kids in the NY case - and by substance, I mean the system bans them from riding the bus, from extra-curriculars for a year, their parents do something like suspend the little darlings' cell phone service - then you can expect the same kids to harass someone else until they run across the proverbial wrong person.
At that point, the response will be wholly disproportionate to its trigger and a lot of grownups will engage in ritual hand-wringing and navel-gazing about the need for expanding conflict-resolutions methods that are already ineffective. Frankly, I am tremendously disappointed that the bus monitor is not filing charges. That makes her an accomplice and an enabler in what will likely be more bad behavior from this group of miscreants.
Look for a lot of editorials tut-tutting the state of youth and decorum, and a lot of television pundits bloviating about the same. The one thing you will not see is someone suggesting that sometimes, an old-fashioned ass-whipping goes a long way toward sending a message that certain behavior is simply not going to be tolerated if we are to have a civil society.
Monday, June 18, 2012
False comparisons and straw men
One of the biggest intellectual frauds some try to perpetuate is comparing the US to other nations. Usually, it's done as a means of suggesting one more area where govt can infiltrate your life. Well, just one small problem with comparing America to European or Asian societies, and it is a problem so obvious one has to wonder why it is missed. Then again, because it is so obvious, the greater likelihood is that the issue is not simply overlooked, it is purposely ignored.
That problem/issue/factor is culture. What the cultural relativists among us refuse to accept is that, culturally speaking, the US is light years apart from other societies. Here is the simplest test - go to Europe, Asia, or Africa and I guarantee that you will look out of place in at least one of those continents, if not all three. By contrast, no one looks out of place here. At first glance, it is impossible to tell whether the guy in the convenience store or the girl at the counter has been here for five generations or five minutes.
There is a secondary aspect to culture. The govt programs in place overseas, the type of social welfare initiatives many here want to see implemented, work because of universal buy-in among those populations. In fact, one big problem in Greece is that, for too long, a large segment has shirked its responsibility to contribute toward benefit programs by either being paid under the table and avoiding taxes or not paying them altogether. But in places like Germany, Denmark, and Japan, where the system works relatively well, everyone understands that s/he has a responsibility to put money into the kitty.
There is no politically-perpetuated permanent underclass in those societies. There are no 3rd or 4th generation welfare recipients. There are no programs that incentivize bad behavior as there are here. But, it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge this malicious truth. As it is, nearly half the American population has zero federal income tax liability; a high percentage of folks get back more in benefits than they ever kick into the system. Does anyone believe that such a system can work forever? Please.
Of course, facing this reality makes some people uncomfortable. They hope you won't recognize that a govt which takes from Peter to give to Paul can always count on Paul's support, and we are reaching the tipping point where the number of Pauls outnumbers the Peters. As a wise man once said, democracy works just fine until people figure out that they can vote themselves the money of others. In the book Atlas Shrugged, the Peter class eventually went on strike. In reality, the creative class is not likely to up and quit and political opportunists know that. By the same token, you should know many of them are being intellectually dishonest, which is hardly a novel concept, but it bears remembering when you are faced with a round of intellectual dishonesty.
That problem/issue/factor is culture. What the cultural relativists among us refuse to accept is that, culturally speaking, the US is light years apart from other societies. Here is the simplest test - go to Europe, Asia, or Africa and I guarantee that you will look out of place in at least one of those continents, if not all three. By contrast, no one looks out of place here. At first glance, it is impossible to tell whether the guy in the convenience store or the girl at the counter has been here for five generations or five minutes.
There is a secondary aspect to culture. The govt programs in place overseas, the type of social welfare initiatives many here want to see implemented, work because of universal buy-in among those populations. In fact, one big problem in Greece is that, for too long, a large segment has shirked its responsibility to contribute toward benefit programs by either being paid under the table and avoiding taxes or not paying them altogether. But in places like Germany, Denmark, and Japan, where the system works relatively well, everyone understands that s/he has a responsibility to put money into the kitty.
There is no politically-perpetuated permanent underclass in those societies. There are no 3rd or 4th generation welfare recipients. There are no programs that incentivize bad behavior as there are here. But, it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge this malicious truth. As it is, nearly half the American population has zero federal income tax liability; a high percentage of folks get back more in benefits than they ever kick into the system. Does anyone believe that such a system can work forever? Please.
Of course, facing this reality makes some people uncomfortable. They hope you won't recognize that a govt which takes from Peter to give to Paul can always count on Paul's support, and we are reaching the tipping point where the number of Pauls outnumbers the Peters. As a wise man once said, democracy works just fine until people figure out that they can vote themselves the money of others. In the book Atlas Shrugged, the Peter class eventually went on strike. In reality, the creative class is not likely to up and quit and political opportunists know that. By the same token, you should know many of them are being intellectually dishonest, which is hardly a novel concept, but it bears remembering when you are faced with a round of intellectual dishonesty.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The box is the box; standing outside of it gets you nowhere
High on any list of shopworn phrases is the demand to think outside the box. It passes for high-level thinking in marketing and communication circles, and it is absolutely wrong-headed. The box is what it is and no matter what anyone tells you, we all live and work inside of one. Let's look at it from a business standpoint - consider your industry; that is the box in which you operate. What you do inside that box, not outside, is what will separate you from the pack.
Here's a simple illustration: give 100 interior decorators identical 10 x 10 rooms; in other words, identical boxes. Chances are extremely high that the end products will be 100 unique styles of design. That is redesigning the box to fit your goals. That is creativity. Any artist can put something on a blank canvas; a more true test comes when a person is given limits within which to work.
A former colleague of mine encapsulated the notion of creativity in a simple phrase: it's not art, it's work. And that is so true. The notion of thinking "outside the box" emerged as a means of encouraging folks to think beyond their usual bounds. Maybe it was a case of being too clever by half; perhaps more plain-spoken terminology could have led to something other than a cliche.
As it is, the thought process is hardly revolutionary; so-called lateral thinking is about considering ideas and methods that are not immediately obvious and has been around for some time. The trick is not what to call it but to actually do it. This is where the box comes into play. Consider the box to be the industry in which you are employed. It's okay; every industry has parameters.
Every widget does specific things and is used by specific people, often for specific functions. But, inside the box is where you can change the perception of the widget and perhaps spark new markets. Here's an example: chocolate milk is being re-positioned as perhaps the ideal post-workout drink because of its protein-to-carb ratio. Now, chocolate milk is hardly new but who thought of it as a drink for adults, especially for health-conscious adults? The people behind the choco campaign are the same ones who came up with the "Got Milk?" messaging for the white stuff.
It's thinking differently within the box. Same applies to social media in a sense. It is one more tool for professional communicators to use. It's still communication; the message still has to be appealing and meaningful, but the idea remains to impart a message onto a prospect. A slight difference is that social channels allow for interactivity, something lacking in legacy media. Without a strong message, however, social media is simply one more lost opportunity.
So, stop worrying about the box itself and start focusing on how to rearrange what is in it. Two decades ago, no home had the open floor plan concept. Today, it is practically the industry standard. The box, that would be the house, is largely unchanged. What has happened inside it, however, is markedly different. What are you doing to reshape your box?
Here's a simple illustration: give 100 interior decorators identical 10 x 10 rooms; in other words, identical boxes. Chances are extremely high that the end products will be 100 unique styles of design. That is redesigning the box to fit your goals. That is creativity. Any artist can put something on a blank canvas; a more true test comes when a person is given limits within which to work.
A former colleague of mine encapsulated the notion of creativity in a simple phrase: it's not art, it's work. And that is so true. The notion of thinking "outside the box" emerged as a means of encouraging folks to think beyond their usual bounds. Maybe it was a case of being too clever by half; perhaps more plain-spoken terminology could have led to something other than a cliche.
As it is, the thought process is hardly revolutionary; so-called lateral thinking is about considering ideas and methods that are not immediately obvious and has been around for some time. The trick is not what to call it but to actually do it. This is where the box comes into play. Consider the box to be the industry in which you are employed. It's okay; every industry has parameters.
Every widget does specific things and is used by specific people, often for specific functions. But, inside the box is where you can change the perception of the widget and perhaps spark new markets. Here's an example: chocolate milk is being re-positioned as perhaps the ideal post-workout drink because of its protein-to-carb ratio. Now, chocolate milk is hardly new but who thought of it as a drink for adults, especially for health-conscious adults? The people behind the choco campaign are the same ones who came up with the "Got Milk?" messaging for the white stuff.
It's thinking differently within the box. Same applies to social media in a sense. It is one more tool for professional communicators to use. It's still communication; the message still has to be appealing and meaningful, but the idea remains to impart a message onto a prospect. A slight difference is that social channels allow for interactivity, something lacking in legacy media. Without a strong message, however, social media is simply one more lost opportunity.
So, stop worrying about the box itself and start focusing on how to rearrange what is in it. Two decades ago, no home had the open floor plan concept. Today, it is practically the industry standard. The box, that would be the house, is largely unchanged. What has happened inside it, however, is markedly different. What are you doing to reshape your box?
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The company you keep
Friends are the people in your life who can call bullshit on you and make you laugh while they are doing it. Everyone else is expendable. I am on week 4 of the great FaceBook experiment, the one in which I have unsubscribed from people whose postings make you wonder why they were friended in the first place.
I love a vigorous debate, a healthy exercise in point/counter-point; I cannot stand attempts to dismiss someone's argument by attacking them personally or by relying on talking points. Folks whose value judgments are based on whether something comes from an R or a D are not people with whom one can debate anything. Ideas are either beneficial or harmful; they either promote liberty or diminish it; they either cost you money or they don't. Yes, that is a black and white view of things but much in life is black and white.
Nuance is another way of avoiding a decision or (gasp!) making a judgment, as if that is a bad thing. Please. People make judgments every day - in where they choose to live, with whom they associate, who they let their kids play with, the stores/restaurants they patronize, and so forth. While all men may be created equal, they do not all remain that way. Pretending otherwise is delusional but, at the same time, one should be able to explain the rationale for a judgment using something more than partisan affiliation as the calculus.
For instance, the noise involving the Catholics and birth control. The White House wants to require every employer who provides health insurance to cover the cost of birth control, of abortion, and of things like in-vitro fertilization. Set aside for a moment that this is not govt's business at all; the extent of benefits are a private contract between employer and employee. The interesting part is how the religious folks see this as a "war" on them. They conveniently forget that, for the past several presidential elections, Catholics have voted Democrat. Obama is a Democrat; Catholics supported him by a fair margin in ' 08. Elections have consequences and not always the consequences you hope for. When some of the most pro-life people on the planet vote the party that is not pro-life, it is difficult to take their protestations seriously. But, I digress.
FaceBook and other social media tools have the same effect on behavior as do tough times - they tend to reveal character. People will post or tweet things that they would never say directly to another person. That's not moral courage; it is a profile in cowardice. These tools offer the opportunity to vent about anything anytime; they do not include a self-censoring button or a cooling off device that suggests you actually think about the words you just typed before making them public. I am obviously right; how often has someone been forced to backtrack or apologize over a Twitter comment or FB post? Makes you wonder how many friendships have been ruined over opinions that were best left unshared.
I am headed to a multi-class high school reunion next month. Attendees will include people with whom I chat regularly and people whose opinions are no longer viewable. The former will be just as fun in person; I am less sure about the latter but am reasonably sure that my diminishing tolerance for weapons-grade levels of stupid will not reverse course. It could mean that some folks stop being even FB friends and that's okay. Remember, your friends are the ones who make you laugh at yourself when calling you out, who do not get offended or take personally even your most foolish moments. The other folks belong in the discard pile, just like that pair of pants from ten years ago that fits neither you nor the time.
I love a vigorous debate, a healthy exercise in point/counter-point; I cannot stand attempts to dismiss someone's argument by attacking them personally or by relying on talking points. Folks whose value judgments are based on whether something comes from an R or a D are not people with whom one can debate anything. Ideas are either beneficial or harmful; they either promote liberty or diminish it; they either cost you money or they don't. Yes, that is a black and white view of things but much in life is black and white.
Nuance is another way of avoiding a decision or (gasp!) making a judgment, as if that is a bad thing. Please. People make judgments every day - in where they choose to live, with whom they associate, who they let their kids play with, the stores/restaurants they patronize, and so forth. While all men may be created equal, they do not all remain that way. Pretending otherwise is delusional but, at the same time, one should be able to explain the rationale for a judgment using something more than partisan affiliation as the calculus.
For instance, the noise involving the Catholics and birth control. The White House wants to require every employer who provides health insurance to cover the cost of birth control, of abortion, and of things like in-vitro fertilization. Set aside for a moment that this is not govt's business at all; the extent of benefits are a private contract between employer and employee. The interesting part is how the religious folks see this as a "war" on them. They conveniently forget that, for the past several presidential elections, Catholics have voted Democrat. Obama is a Democrat; Catholics supported him by a fair margin in ' 08. Elections have consequences and not always the consequences you hope for. When some of the most pro-life people on the planet vote the party that is not pro-life, it is difficult to take their protestations seriously. But, I digress.
FaceBook and other social media tools have the same effect on behavior as do tough times - they tend to reveal character. People will post or tweet things that they would never say directly to another person. That's not moral courage; it is a profile in cowardice. These tools offer the opportunity to vent about anything anytime; they do not include a self-censoring button or a cooling off device that suggests you actually think about the words you just typed before making them public. I am obviously right; how often has someone been forced to backtrack or apologize over a Twitter comment or FB post? Makes you wonder how many friendships have been ruined over opinions that were best left unshared.
I am headed to a multi-class high school reunion next month. Attendees will include people with whom I chat regularly and people whose opinions are no longer viewable. The former will be just as fun in person; I am less sure about the latter but am reasonably sure that my diminishing tolerance for weapons-grade levels of stupid will not reverse course. It could mean that some folks stop being even FB friends and that's okay. Remember, your friends are the ones who make you laugh at yourself when calling you out, who do not get offended or take personally even your most foolish moments. The other folks belong in the discard pile, just like that pair of pants from ten years ago that fits neither you nor the time.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Simplifying
It is quite likely the single best component of Facebook and utilizing it can have a profound effect on your blood pressure, if not your life. It is the "unsubscribe" button. Clicking on it means you no longer to tolerate the aimless meanderings and musings of some of your friends. The epiphany for me came after an election in my former home state. While I do not begrudge people their opinions or their political leanings, I cannot abide slavish devotion to party, gullibility if not ignorance, or posts that have zero grounding in fact.
I love a good debate as much as anyone and, with some friends, it is actually possible. We present our points of view without rancor, without personal attacks, without resorting to talking points. Unfortunately, this approach is not universal. In fact, it may be the opposite of universal. Maybe I have reached an age where the tolerance level on my stupid meter need recalibration, but I refuse to suffer fools, gladly or otherwise. If you believe the problem with rising college tuition rates is the interest rate on student loans, we are unable to have a sensible discussion. If you believe that a politician doing a 180 on a long-held view the day after a state votes on that issue is a profile in courage, there is nothing for us to say. And if you are unable to breathe in and out without seeking divine assistance, wow.
Clicking "unsubscribe" is, in a word, liberating. Look, no one wants to be "that guy", the cranky old coot telling all the neighborhood kids to "get off my lawn", but I have reached the point where I demand certain things from people in order to consider them either friends or worthy debate partners. First, you have to be consistent, meaning your position on an issue cannot change based on which party supports or opposes your viewpoint. Partisan politics may be the single-most destructive force in American rhetoric today. It is breathtaking the number of people who wanted to try George Bush for war crimes based on a series of anti-terrorism measures put in place under his watch but do not bat an eye when Barrack Obama not only continues those policies but adds to them.
Second, you have to come to the discussion with facts. Not talking points, not bumper sticker slogans, not conspiracy theories. Facts. If technology has done nothing else, it has made it impossible for the truly interested person to be uninformed on any issue. There are countless sources to peruse, both inclined to support your viewpoint and oppose it. It is often worthwhile to look over a source that disagrees with you to see what substantive reasons, if any, are enumerated.
Third, personal attacks are a discussion killer. When you decide that the opposition is stupid, evil, motivated by sinister forces, or in any way driven by something other than a different point of view, you have not only lost the argument, you have forfeited the right to engage in it. There is nothing to be gained by talking to people who take the ad hominem route and valuable time to lose.
Today, the list of people from whom I will see thoughts, articles, opinions, or pictures is smaller than it was yesterday. And, it feels pretty good. People are entitled to their beliefs; however, they are not entitled to force others to listen to them or to agree with them. I love a good debate as much as anyone and tuning these folks out means maximizing the chances of good debates by limiting the possibility of being sucked into pointless ones. Many of you know what I am talking about - a friend posts something that is so out there that you can't help yourself. You have to respond and you may spend an ensuing period of time wondering how your seemingly intelligent friend can be so obtuse. It is a waste of time for you will find no answer. In addition, you will lose respect for that individual and, in some cases, may wonder why you thought him/her a friend in the first place. Simplify. You will be glad you did.
I love a good debate as much as anyone and, with some friends, it is actually possible. We present our points of view without rancor, without personal attacks, without resorting to talking points. Unfortunately, this approach is not universal. In fact, it may be the opposite of universal. Maybe I have reached an age where the tolerance level on my stupid meter need recalibration, but I refuse to suffer fools, gladly or otherwise. If you believe the problem with rising college tuition rates is the interest rate on student loans, we are unable to have a sensible discussion. If you believe that a politician doing a 180 on a long-held view the day after a state votes on that issue is a profile in courage, there is nothing for us to say. And if you are unable to breathe in and out without seeking divine assistance, wow.
Clicking "unsubscribe" is, in a word, liberating. Look, no one wants to be "that guy", the cranky old coot telling all the neighborhood kids to "get off my lawn", but I have reached the point where I demand certain things from people in order to consider them either friends or worthy debate partners. First, you have to be consistent, meaning your position on an issue cannot change based on which party supports or opposes your viewpoint. Partisan politics may be the single-most destructive force in American rhetoric today. It is breathtaking the number of people who wanted to try George Bush for war crimes based on a series of anti-terrorism measures put in place under his watch but do not bat an eye when Barrack Obama not only continues those policies but adds to them.
Second, you have to come to the discussion with facts. Not talking points, not bumper sticker slogans, not conspiracy theories. Facts. If technology has done nothing else, it has made it impossible for the truly interested person to be uninformed on any issue. There are countless sources to peruse, both inclined to support your viewpoint and oppose it. It is often worthwhile to look over a source that disagrees with you to see what substantive reasons, if any, are enumerated.
Third, personal attacks are a discussion killer. When you decide that the opposition is stupid, evil, motivated by sinister forces, or in any way driven by something other than a different point of view, you have not only lost the argument, you have forfeited the right to engage in it. There is nothing to be gained by talking to people who take the ad hominem route and valuable time to lose.
Today, the list of people from whom I will see thoughts, articles, opinions, or pictures is smaller than it was yesterday. And, it feels pretty good. People are entitled to their beliefs; however, they are not entitled to force others to listen to them or to agree with them. I love a good debate as much as anyone and tuning these folks out means maximizing the chances of good debates by limiting the possibility of being sucked into pointless ones. Many of you know what I am talking about - a friend posts something that is so out there that you can't help yourself. You have to respond and you may spend an ensuing period of time wondering how your seemingly intelligent friend can be so obtuse. It is a waste of time for you will find no answer. In addition, you will lose respect for that individual and, in some cases, may wonder why you thought him/her a friend in the first place. Simplify. You will be glad you did.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Hardest Thing
Some truths are so self-evident that they give the term self-evident a bad rap. One of those is recognizing that the hardest thing is getting started. On whatever it is you want to do. There are plenty of cliches to back that up: a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, change happens when decide to change something, and so forth. Same applies to writing, whether for a paper, a business proposal, a book, even a blog. Ideas pass through; the rustling in the writer's brain is obvious. But ideas are no good if no one puts them on paper. Or computer screen. If that necessary first step of committing thought to document is not performed. And so here we are.
Today is going to begin a more regular habit of participating with this forum. Ironically, my entire professional career has been wrapped up in writing of one sort or another: news stories, press releases, marketing and advertising copy, and most recently, communication audits as part of grad school assignments. A good bit of idle time is consumed with it, too, whether arguing or connecting with friends on FaceBook, debating the issues of the day on a couple of politically-oriented sites, or bloviating about the fortunes of my alma mater for the upcoming football season. Meanwhile this forum, which began about a year ago to coincide with my entry into graduate school, is only periodically taken out of the stall and out onto the track. How silly. I contribute thoughts to advance the aims of other people but neglect to do so regarding my own.
So, where to begin. This incarnation will go in multiple directions. The genesis of the blog was influenced by two conditions: being a decidedly non-traditional student in a very traditional setting and the discovery of my mother's path through dementia. The latter was more difficult to write about because doing so entailed a re-living of circumstances that were not always pleasant. Entries fell under the broad heading of "The Mary Tales" as my mother's name was Mary and you learn quickly that if you cannot laugh at some aspects of this disease, you will die nearly as torturous a death as the person afflicted with it.
School was a different matter, beginning with the reality that I actually was old enough to be my classmates' father. Add to that an unexpected discovery: egos in academia are especially fragile, particularly when confronted by someone with practical (as in, for pay) experience in the subject being taught. What I expected to be my greatest strength as a teaching assistant emerged as my biggest liability. At least at Auburn. Things are markedly different at Florida State. Curiously, the folks I work with at FSU are PhD's; the ones at AU had only Master's. There is probably a psychological explanation to the difference; maybe the PhD's are more secure in who they are. Or maybe it was just me. Regardless, the Auburn experiment ended with my mother's death and Florida has been home for nearly a year. I lost some credits in the transfer but gained a great deal of peace of mind, some practical new work skills, and a classroom environment filled with other professionals. Not to mention a shiny new condo near the bay and a couple of shades on my tan.
Moving ahead, this will at times resemble a journal and, at other times, reflect on issues of the day. I will strive to do less of the latter as there is no shortage of pundits already in play. One more voice in the cacophony may not change much though I like to think that, on occasion, I bring a different perspective to light. Morphing this blog requires some heavy mental lifting; do you realize how difficult it is to come to grips with the reality that while I may have an opinion, not everyone feels entitled to it? As the comedian Ron White said in a performance when confronted by his wife about a difficult turn of events, "I had the right to remain silent. And the ability." Those two things make for a tremendous combination. Actually, life is easier in not feeling the need to share and the holes in my tongue have almost healed. That does not mean new ones will not be created but the goal is to keep the number to a minimum. Instead, this space will become a repository for information with lasting value, lasting designed as longer than the typical news cycle. We'll see how this goes. But, the hardest thing has been done - I've started.
Today is going to begin a more regular habit of participating with this forum. Ironically, my entire professional career has been wrapped up in writing of one sort or another: news stories, press releases, marketing and advertising copy, and most recently, communication audits as part of grad school assignments. A good bit of idle time is consumed with it, too, whether arguing or connecting with friends on FaceBook, debating the issues of the day on a couple of politically-oriented sites, or bloviating about the fortunes of my alma mater for the upcoming football season. Meanwhile this forum, which began about a year ago to coincide with my entry into graduate school, is only periodically taken out of the stall and out onto the track. How silly. I contribute thoughts to advance the aims of other people but neglect to do so regarding my own.
So, where to begin. This incarnation will go in multiple directions. The genesis of the blog was influenced by two conditions: being a decidedly non-traditional student in a very traditional setting and the discovery of my mother's path through dementia. The latter was more difficult to write about because doing so entailed a re-living of circumstances that were not always pleasant. Entries fell under the broad heading of "The Mary Tales" as my mother's name was Mary and you learn quickly that if you cannot laugh at some aspects of this disease, you will die nearly as torturous a death as the person afflicted with it.
School was a different matter, beginning with the reality that I actually was old enough to be my classmates' father. Add to that an unexpected discovery: egos in academia are especially fragile, particularly when confronted by someone with practical (as in, for pay) experience in the subject being taught. What I expected to be my greatest strength as a teaching assistant emerged as my biggest liability. At least at Auburn. Things are markedly different at Florida State. Curiously, the folks I work with at FSU are PhD's; the ones at AU had only Master's. There is probably a psychological explanation to the difference; maybe the PhD's are more secure in who they are. Or maybe it was just me. Regardless, the Auburn experiment ended with my mother's death and Florida has been home for nearly a year. I lost some credits in the transfer but gained a great deal of peace of mind, some practical new work skills, and a classroom environment filled with other professionals. Not to mention a shiny new condo near the bay and a couple of shades on my tan.
Moving ahead, this will at times resemble a journal and, at other times, reflect on issues of the day. I will strive to do less of the latter as there is no shortage of pundits already in play. One more voice in the cacophony may not change much though I like to think that, on occasion, I bring a different perspective to light. Morphing this blog requires some heavy mental lifting; do you realize how difficult it is to come to grips with the reality that while I may have an opinion, not everyone feels entitled to it? As the comedian Ron White said in a performance when confronted by his wife about a difficult turn of events, "I had the right to remain silent. And the ability." Those two things make for a tremendous combination. Actually, life is easier in not feeling the need to share and the holes in my tongue have almost healed. That does not mean new ones will not be created but the goal is to keep the number to a minimum. Instead, this space will become a repository for information with lasting value, lasting designed as longer than the typical news cycle. We'll see how this goes. But, the hardest thing has been done - I've started.
Monday, May 7, 2012
The Death of Debate
Give someone enough time during a discussion and that individual will eventually reveal him/herself. Chances are, the results will not be pretty. I had that experience on Facebook over the weekend when some from my distant past turned out to be a walking, living, breathing caricature. I have known people across the ideological spectrum, largely by necessity through my previous work in the media and, for the most part, discussions were spirited, civil, and often concluded by agreements to disagree. This weekend's person, however, was one of those. You know the type - a person who believes that if you hold an opposing point of view, you are uncultured, uneducated, and unworthy of further time. Carry on the discussion long enough and condescension begins to seep through whatever points are being made. Frankly, it is tiresome.
This discussion began with the other individual's posting of a picture that "corporations don't bleed". I started to simply call bullshit but took a more civil approach in responding that such an assertion is wrong on its face. Corporations are staffed by individuals who are impacted by the do-gooder rules govt imposes on them. For some, corporations have become a favored whipping boy but, apparently, only certain corporations. You see, this name does not apply to smaller, locally-owned business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority are incorporated. Corporations are much easier to villify if portrayed as nameless, faceless entities out to rape and pillage all corners of the world.
It makes no different, at least not to that sparring partner, that corporations are responsible for virtually every convenience that we enjoy. Every tool that has made our lives simpler, more efficient, and otherwise better is the result of some "corporation" that saw a market need and worked to fill it. That these corporations act as such in pursuit of profit is not evil, it is how business works. Then again, the dissenting opinion came from someone who works in a setting where job performance is immaterial, where market pressures and competition are non-existent, and where profit is a word tossed about with contempt. I don't begrudge public sector employees their role in society; my late father was a college professor, a man of science whose work resulted in outcomes that benefitted farmers. However, I do get a bit irritated with the self-righteousness of some who believe themselves entitled to criticizing the same private sector that makes their world richer, and not just in the material sense.
After a couple of parries and thrusts, the inevitable occurred: I was "instructed" to undertake certain reading, the type of which was almost as predictable as the outcome of the discussion. Three authors were recommended, all of whom dislike capitalism and one of whom is an "eco-feminist", whatever the hell that is. My response that perhaps the other person consider the likes of Friedman/Hayek/Smith went unignored. After all, what fun is an ideological position when you are unwilling to see it challenged? I can live with disagreements over issues; it is part of what makes life interesting. What I cannot stand are snide, smug assertions that anyone holding a differing view is somehow beneath the time of the person making the initial point, no matter how ridiculous that initial point is.
Over the span of a few posts and counter-posts, this one-time classmate devolved into one giant talking point, a caricature of everything you hear regarding people who dislike the private sector, who dislike business in general, and who don't seem to have much regard for the West. It takes an immense lack of self-awareness to slam the very system that allows you to live in relative comfort and happiness. I feel genuinely sorry for such people, for individuals whose default position is to blame their own culture for the sorry plight of others, for refusing to acknowledge that for all their inherent flaws, capitalism and free markets remain the single best path to individual liberty and prosperity. Facts are stubborn things in that regard; the societies which are the most prosperous tend to be the most free and the ones with the most misery tend to be the most oppressive. This malicious truth is more than some can bear, so the problem instead becomes the person uttering it. In the weekend's discussion, that was me.
Funny thing about Facebook. People believe that they can post damn near anything and no one will question it, challenge it, or otherwise disagree with it. Sorry, free speech does work that way. You have the right to say it; you do not, however, have the corresponding right to be agreed with or even heard. And, when you cannot defend your points without resorting to thinly-veiled personal attacks on the other individual's intelligence or character, you have lost. I expected better, particularly from someone in academia, where logic and reasoning are supposed to be fundamental tools. Then again, living in an ideological hothouse where your views are never challenged, never scrutinized, or never dissected leads breeds intellectual laziness that no number of fancy words, or cheap shots, can mask.
This discussion began with the other individual's posting of a picture that "corporations don't bleed". I started to simply call bullshit but took a more civil approach in responding that such an assertion is wrong on its face. Corporations are staffed by individuals who are impacted by the do-gooder rules govt imposes on them. For some, corporations have become a favored whipping boy but, apparently, only certain corporations. You see, this name does not apply to smaller, locally-owned business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority are incorporated. Corporations are much easier to villify if portrayed as nameless, faceless entities out to rape and pillage all corners of the world.
It makes no different, at least not to that sparring partner, that corporations are responsible for virtually every convenience that we enjoy. Every tool that has made our lives simpler, more efficient, and otherwise better is the result of some "corporation" that saw a market need and worked to fill it. That these corporations act as such in pursuit of profit is not evil, it is how business works. Then again, the dissenting opinion came from someone who works in a setting where job performance is immaterial, where market pressures and competition are non-existent, and where profit is a word tossed about with contempt. I don't begrudge public sector employees their role in society; my late father was a college professor, a man of science whose work resulted in outcomes that benefitted farmers. However, I do get a bit irritated with the self-righteousness of some who believe themselves entitled to criticizing the same private sector that makes their world richer, and not just in the material sense.
After a couple of parries and thrusts, the inevitable occurred: I was "instructed" to undertake certain reading, the type of which was almost as predictable as the outcome of the discussion. Three authors were recommended, all of whom dislike capitalism and one of whom is an "eco-feminist", whatever the hell that is. My response that perhaps the other person consider the likes of Friedman/Hayek/Smith went unignored. After all, what fun is an ideological position when you are unwilling to see it challenged? I can live with disagreements over issues; it is part of what makes life interesting. What I cannot stand are snide, smug assertions that anyone holding a differing view is somehow beneath the time of the person making the initial point, no matter how ridiculous that initial point is.
Over the span of a few posts and counter-posts, this one-time classmate devolved into one giant talking point, a caricature of everything you hear regarding people who dislike the private sector, who dislike business in general, and who don't seem to have much regard for the West. It takes an immense lack of self-awareness to slam the very system that allows you to live in relative comfort and happiness. I feel genuinely sorry for such people, for individuals whose default position is to blame their own culture for the sorry plight of others, for refusing to acknowledge that for all their inherent flaws, capitalism and free markets remain the single best path to individual liberty and prosperity. Facts are stubborn things in that regard; the societies which are the most prosperous tend to be the most free and the ones with the most misery tend to be the most oppressive. This malicious truth is more than some can bear, so the problem instead becomes the person uttering it. In the weekend's discussion, that was me.
Funny thing about Facebook. People believe that they can post damn near anything and no one will question it, challenge it, or otherwise disagree with it. Sorry, free speech does work that way. You have the right to say it; you do not, however, have the corresponding right to be agreed with or even heard. And, when you cannot defend your points without resorting to thinly-veiled personal attacks on the other individual's intelligence or character, you have lost. I expected better, particularly from someone in academia, where logic and reasoning are supposed to be fundamental tools. Then again, living in an ideological hothouse where your views are never challenged, never scrutinized, or never dissected leads breeds intellectual laziness that no number of fancy words, or cheap shots, can mask.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Hey, I got banned from Hannity!!!
Got a first-hand lesson in why talk show host Sean Hannity dislikes Obama so much. It's because their personalities are so similar - incredibly thin-skinned, committed ideologues who are willing to say outlandish things to advance their agendas with zero tolerance for anyone who might dissent. Why do I say this? It seems the folks at hannity.com frown on someone calling bullshit on the host in one of the forums where the politically interested can voice their opinions. At least some of their opinions.
I don't remember the exact context of what got me banned - for life - but it likely had to do with one of two things: Sean's pathetic insistence that Rick Santorum represents the vanguard of small govt conservatism or the unspoken reason he and the other talkmeisters can't stand Romney. Since I am not sure which, might as well address both.
If Ricky from PA represents fiscal conservatism and small govt, then Barack Obama is a moderate. Santorum voted for EVERY excess of the Bush years: No Child, Medicare Part D, Homeland Security and its evil offspring, the TSA, along with a series of increases in the debt ceiling. But as the talkocracy watched every hoped-for conservative son or daughter (that would be anyone NOT named Mitt Romney) either not run at all or self-immolate while doing so, Santorum was all that was left of the fire-breathing brigade come Iowa.
They conveniently ignore - or hope you are too stupid to figure out - that the only reason Ricky from PA was the last of the bunch was that he was the last one voters intended to support. But after Bachmann flamed out, Perry proved unready for fringe time let alone prime time, Newt kept being Noot, and a slew of others never got in, the former Senator who lost his Congressional seat by the largest defeat ever suffered by a Repub was suddenly Ronald Reagan in sweater vests. On social issues, Ricky is a one-man Taliban but few people are concerned with gays and abortion when unemployment remains high, gas prices creep upward, and govt power over our daily lives is growing.
Which leads us to the antipathy toward Romney and anyone who claims it is due to RomneyCare is, here's that word again, lying. When Romney was governor in MA, the legislature was almost exclusively Dem and health care was going to happen; Reagan himself could have been governor and some bill would have still passed. Non-believers are welcome to do their own research; count the provisions Romney vetoed but did not have the votes to sustain. Add up the money MA was losing to a combination of the purposely uninsured, the deadbeats, and illegals. When someone is stealing from you, one approach is theft prevention. But that's not why the talkers and the Catholic Channel (Fox) dislike Romney.
Oh, they won't say out loud but it comes down to his being Mormon. In fact, seems the only people who WILL say that aloud are Franklin Graham and Mike Huckabee. Graham, for some reason, went on MSNBC and was, predictably, asked if he believes Obama to be a Christian. Graham said he didn't know and, again predictably, liberals who usually hate anything having to do with organized religion began howling at the moon. Seems the only thing they hate more than the church is even the faintest of hints that their guy is not part of it. I know, sounds like the old Groucho Marx line about club memberships but without the humor. The right, of course and just as predictably rallied round the reverend.
What virtually no one mentioned was Graham's answer regarding Romney. According to Franklin, the House of Mormon does not have a place inside the House of God. But, neither Fox nor the talkocracy cared much about that since - as they often accuse the left of doing - they agree with Graham. At some point, you have to wonder if the Romney folks notice the antipathy with which he is treated. Look, I am not going to cast him as a modern-day Washington but Mitt seems like a nice man, certainly an extremely capable business exec, and someone with zero personal dirt that anyone can find. If being dull is the worst anyone can say about him, then perhaps we should embrace dull, especially when remembering what Greek columns and delusions about the oceans receding the and the planet healing got us.
Four more years of Obama and we'll look at Greece as something to aspire to, but you can never underestimate the ability of the Repub party or the conservative establishment to manufacture defeat in the face of certain victory. Ricky from PA cannot win; his brand of statism is no less repugnant than the left's. Newt has a million ideas but is unable to see a single one of them to fruition. Which leaves a business exec with a nice family who does not scare anyone and has a track record of producing chickensalad from less palatable alternatives. But, the radio folks want to feed you the notion of Ricky as Ronnie, which is offensive to an exponential level. And, I'm banned from the Hannity forums which is just as well; it helps complete my transformation to libertarian and frees up a lot of time for far more productive things than trying to reason with folks who are just as obstinate as the most self-entitled Occutard.
I don't remember the exact context of what got me banned - for life - but it likely had to do with one of two things: Sean's pathetic insistence that Rick Santorum represents the vanguard of small govt conservatism or the unspoken reason he and the other talkmeisters can't stand Romney. Since I am not sure which, might as well address both.
If Ricky from PA represents fiscal conservatism and small govt, then Barack Obama is a moderate. Santorum voted for EVERY excess of the Bush years: No Child, Medicare Part D, Homeland Security and its evil offspring, the TSA, along with a series of increases in the debt ceiling. But as the talkocracy watched every hoped-for conservative son or daughter (that would be anyone NOT named Mitt Romney) either not run at all or self-immolate while doing so, Santorum was all that was left of the fire-breathing brigade come Iowa.
They conveniently ignore - or hope you are too stupid to figure out - that the only reason Ricky from PA was the last of the bunch was that he was the last one voters intended to support. But after Bachmann flamed out, Perry proved unready for fringe time let alone prime time, Newt kept being Noot, and a slew of others never got in, the former Senator who lost his Congressional seat by the largest defeat ever suffered by a Repub was suddenly Ronald Reagan in sweater vests. On social issues, Ricky is a one-man Taliban but few people are concerned with gays and abortion when unemployment remains high, gas prices creep upward, and govt power over our daily lives is growing.
Which leads us to the antipathy toward Romney and anyone who claims it is due to RomneyCare is, here's that word again, lying. When Romney was governor in MA, the legislature was almost exclusively Dem and health care was going to happen; Reagan himself could have been governor and some bill would have still passed. Non-believers are welcome to do their own research; count the provisions Romney vetoed but did not have the votes to sustain. Add up the money MA was losing to a combination of the purposely uninsured, the deadbeats, and illegals. When someone is stealing from you, one approach is theft prevention. But that's not why the talkers and the Catholic Channel (Fox) dislike Romney.
Oh, they won't say out loud but it comes down to his being Mormon. In fact, seems the only people who WILL say that aloud are Franklin Graham and Mike Huckabee. Graham, for some reason, went on MSNBC and was, predictably, asked if he believes Obama to be a Christian. Graham said he didn't know and, again predictably, liberals who usually hate anything having to do with organized religion began howling at the moon. Seems the only thing they hate more than the church is even the faintest of hints that their guy is not part of it. I know, sounds like the old Groucho Marx line about club memberships but without the humor. The right, of course and just as predictably rallied round the reverend.
What virtually no one mentioned was Graham's answer regarding Romney. According to Franklin, the House of Mormon does not have a place inside the House of God. But, neither Fox nor the talkocracy cared much about that since - as they often accuse the left of doing - they agree with Graham. At some point, you have to wonder if the Romney folks notice the antipathy with which he is treated. Look, I am not going to cast him as a modern-day Washington but Mitt seems like a nice man, certainly an extremely capable business exec, and someone with zero personal dirt that anyone can find. If being dull is the worst anyone can say about him, then perhaps we should embrace dull, especially when remembering what Greek columns and delusions about the oceans receding the and the planet healing got us.
Four more years of Obama and we'll look at Greece as something to aspire to, but you can never underestimate the ability of the Repub party or the conservative establishment to manufacture defeat in the face of certain victory. Ricky from PA cannot win; his brand of statism is no less repugnant than the left's. Newt has a million ideas but is unable to see a single one of them to fruition. Which leaves a business exec with a nice family who does not scare anyone and has a track record of producing chickensalad from less palatable alternatives. But, the radio folks want to feed you the notion of Ricky as Ronnie, which is offensive to an exponential level. And, I'm banned from the Hannity forums which is just as well; it helps complete my transformation to libertarian and frees up a lot of time for far more productive things than trying to reason with folks who are just as obstinate as the most self-entitled Occutard.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Election's Over; Here's Why
Never underestimate the Republican Party's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of what should be the easiest of victories. In 2008, the party countered the Democrats' nomination of the single-weakest and most inexperienced nominee in their history by putting forth the least inspiring candidate imaginable. Fast forward to the current race and what do some in the GOP establishment consider worthy of discussion? Jon Huntsman's malicious truth regarding the state of the nation.
Former White House Press Secretary and current Fox pundit Dana Perino got a case of the vapors because Huntsman's summation of things included the word "screwed" in a campaign commercial. Screwed. Really? If anything, Hunstman did not go far enough. A more accurate assessment would have been to say that things are FUBAR'ed to an exponential level. Those unfamiliar with this acronym should take a minute and work through it; it is not too difficult. I say Huntsman took the rhetorically high road because of FCC rules; Perino found it unbefitting a presidential candidate and THAT is why the election is over. Why? Because it reveals Republicans as the spineless party unwilling to win a race that is theirs for the taking, preferring instead to hide behind a misguided sense of gentility.
Obama accuses Republicans of wanting "dirty air, dirty water" and host of other horribles; Republican candidate Newt Gingrich gets his knickers in a knot over some ads run by a political action committee that favors Mitt Romney. Obama purposely circumvents the Constitution with a recess appointment done in the absence of an actual Congressional recess; Republicans continue searching for the mythical 'perfect' candidate. Obama's approval ratings are on a par with Carter's in an economy that is even worse than what Jimmah left behind, and Republicans are hell-bent on seeing to it that he gets another four years.
All of this, of course, obscures the larger point - the system is broken, perhaps irretrievably. There is not a nickel's worth of difference Dems and Repubs in Washington; of the 535 members of Congress, maybe 100 do more than give lip service to things like out of control spending, a 15-trillion dollar debt, and the continuing encroachment of govt into people's lives. And of those 100, you saw how the Tea Party newbies from the 2010 election were treated for daring to suggest that spending be corraled. Not only did Dems and the media assault them as kooks, radicals, and dangerous people, so did a good number of Repubs and a fair chunk of so-called conservative press. Again, Huntsman told the truth and in far less graphic terms than the situation demands but the prissy wing of the party chooses to clutch its pearls over his choice of words than to acknowledge the reality behind them.
Former White House Press Secretary and current Fox pundit Dana Perino got a case of the vapors because Huntsman's summation of things included the word "screwed" in a campaign commercial. Screwed. Really? If anything, Hunstman did not go far enough. A more accurate assessment would have been to say that things are FUBAR'ed to an exponential level. Those unfamiliar with this acronym should take a minute and work through it; it is not too difficult. I say Huntsman took the rhetorically high road because of FCC rules; Perino found it unbefitting a presidential candidate and THAT is why the election is over. Why? Because it reveals Republicans as the spineless party unwilling to win a race that is theirs for the taking, preferring instead to hide behind a misguided sense of gentility.
Obama accuses Republicans of wanting "dirty air, dirty water" and host of other horribles; Republican candidate Newt Gingrich gets his knickers in a knot over some ads run by a political action committee that favors Mitt Romney. Obama purposely circumvents the Constitution with a recess appointment done in the absence of an actual Congressional recess; Republicans continue searching for the mythical 'perfect' candidate. Obama's approval ratings are on a par with Carter's in an economy that is even worse than what Jimmah left behind, and Republicans are hell-bent on seeing to it that he gets another four years.
All of this, of course, obscures the larger point - the system is broken, perhaps irretrievably. There is not a nickel's worth of difference Dems and Repubs in Washington; of the 535 members of Congress, maybe 100 do more than give lip service to things like out of control spending, a 15-trillion dollar debt, and the continuing encroachment of govt into people's lives. And of those 100, you saw how the Tea Party newbies from the 2010 election were treated for daring to suggest that spending be corraled. Not only did Dems and the media assault them as kooks, radicals, and dangerous people, so did a good number of Repubs and a fair chunk of so-called conservative press. Again, Huntsman told the truth and in far less graphic terms than the situation demands but the prissy wing of the party chooses to clutch its pearls over his choice of words than to acknowledge the reality behind them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)