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.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
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.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The real story of Occupy Wall Street
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)