If you can't laugh at this.....

Seems the nation has lost its collective sense of humor judging by a couple of incidents in the news recently.  First, Senator John McCain drew charges of racism for a quip regarding Iran's claim of having sent a monkey into space.  McCain wondered if the monkey was not, in fact, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Cue the church of the aggrieved and offended - even a fellow member of Congress called McCain's remark racist. 

When it is beyond the pale to make a joke about a man who has repeatedly denied the Holocaust, routinely refers to Jews in the most vile terms, and fantasizes about Israel's destruction, then nothing can ever be said about anyone, no matter who true or appropriate, no matter how loathsome the subject, nothing.  Have we become so pecksniffian as to take offense at everything, even those things that should be offended from time to time? 

The second example comes from the education system, whose self-righteousness meter is calibrated at a nuclear level.  A second grader in Colorado was suspended for pretending to throw a grenade at imaginary monsters on the playground.  Pretending.  On the playground.  At imaginary monsters.  And these are the people many of you trust your children to on a daily basis.  If pretending is now tantamount to terrorism, the theater arts are in for a rude awakening.  Unless, of course, their targets are white males, particularly of the Southern variety, and the point is to paint said targets as wife-beater-wearing, gun-totin, gap-toothed hayseeds. 

We are beyond political correctness at this point; we have moved into social paralysis, where anything said about anyone at anytime is subject to purposeful misinterpretation.  This week, CNN's Don Lemon opined in almost sympathetic terms about the wanted killer and how the suspect's actions, at least prior to his killing people, are practically acceptable given the black community's experience with cops.  That a cartoon style gaffer's hook did not come from off-set and yank Lemon out of sight is hardly unbelievable. 

A commentator opined that perhaps Lemon's new boss, Jeff Zucker, had that bit of broadcast stupidity and would have a chat with his anchor.  Not likely and for two reasons:  1) it is entirely possible that Zucker believes the same thing Lemon does, that cops always have it in for minorities and that any skepticism of law enforcement on their part is justified.  But I think 2) is more likely:  Zucker, a balding, middle-aged white man, would not dare challenge Lemon as the former knows nothing of "the black experience" and to call out obvious stupidity would be akin to a racist remark in itself. 

This is where we have come people, from PC police to thought police, a near-Orwellian experience where offense is taken whether intended or not, where apologies are demanded, where the victim industry rides herd over everything from Tweeter feeds to Victoria's Secret advertisements.  You heard about the Vicky's Secrets flap, right?  Oh, yeah; a model wore an Indian headdress and the pious lost their minds.  Because every company uses its models to purposely insult entire groups.  It's madness and it is not going to slow down.  And when you have lost the ability to laugh at yourself or anything else, no matter how much truth lies behind a joke or quip, an important part of the social fabric has unraveled, and people withdraw from one another a little bit more.  

Chicken Sandwiches and Jackboots

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.   

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:

• "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.")  

The part in parentheses is simple:  Mark Zuckerberg came up with Facebook, but that's just an application.  It was the prior generation that invented the operating system on which the app runs.  Of course, that last part goes down a lot better if said with a smile on your face; you are applying for a job, after all, not seeking to make enemies.  There is nothing wrong being firm about the fact that every convenience that your kids take for granted was invented by the generation or two that came before it.  

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.  

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?     

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. 

 

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. 

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.