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.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
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.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
It is not a deal, it's discrimination
They were actually proud of themselves. A group of opthalmologists engaging in a self-congratulatory commercial about the free cataract surgeries they had performed for "deserving" people. What made those folks deserving exactly, beyond (presumably) their inability or unwillingness to pay for the services they received? What makes them more deserving than anyone else who is doing what they have to do to get by, whether their efforts are wildly successful or marginal? And, that got me thinking, which anyone who knows me would say is a dangerous thing.
This business of cutting special deals for folks, based on age or occupation, has a word. That word is discrimination. American law forbids businesses from treating customers differently. That means they CANNOT charge military members or cops or teachers or anyone else less for a product than they charge the general public. It is a ploy cloaked in self-righteousness, since the beneficiaries are usually public sector employees, often servicemen or first responder types. No one has more respect for the military than I do, but these "deals" fly directly in the face of the values our fighting men and women are sworn to uphold. Would they be okay if haircuts cost less for, say, whites or for Baptists? Of course, not; and they should be just as outraged when the deal works to their advantage.
This probably dates back to the early-bird specials, which gave way to senior discounts, one of the most ridiculous ideas ever since older folks are the most affluent among us. Then, some communities that host military installations followed suit, which I found a bit insulting seeing as how I patronized many of those businesses all year long. Where was my "thank you" for helping owners during deployments? Where was their loyalty in recognition of mine? And really, where is a gutsy lawyer when you need one?
I have made a point of avoiding businesses that offer such discounts. They are wrong and probably illegal. But no one says anything. Just like no one says anything when someone's obnoxious kid makes a fuss while you are trying to have dinner and the parents do nothing. Because saying something automatically turns the focus on the person speaking up; he becomes the bad guy. I suspect anyone raising sand here would be painted as anti-military, because one bullet-proof summation of people is that they will attack the messenger long before engaging in a substantive debate about the message. So, I get to vent here. And, I get to patronize companies that do not discriminate against those of us who are not seniors. Or cops. Or in the military. Or in some other occupation that certain business owners deem to be more worthy than the rest of us.
This business of cutting special deals for folks, based on age or occupation, has a word. That word is discrimination. American law forbids businesses from treating customers differently. That means they CANNOT charge military members or cops or teachers or anyone else less for a product than they charge the general public. It is a ploy cloaked in self-righteousness, since the beneficiaries are usually public sector employees, often servicemen or first responder types. No one has more respect for the military than I do, but these "deals" fly directly in the face of the values our fighting men and women are sworn to uphold. Would they be okay if haircuts cost less for, say, whites or for Baptists? Of course, not; and they should be just as outraged when the deal works to their advantage.
This probably dates back to the early-bird specials, which gave way to senior discounts, one of the most ridiculous ideas ever since older folks are the most affluent among us. Then, some communities that host military installations followed suit, which I found a bit insulting seeing as how I patronized many of those businesses all year long. Where was my "thank you" for helping owners during deployments? Where was their loyalty in recognition of mine? And really, where is a gutsy lawyer when you need one?
I have made a point of avoiding businesses that offer such discounts. They are wrong and probably illegal. But no one says anything. Just like no one says anything when someone's obnoxious kid makes a fuss while you are trying to have dinner and the parents do nothing. Because saying something automatically turns the focus on the person speaking up; he becomes the bad guy. I suspect anyone raising sand here would be painted as anti-military, because one bullet-proof summation of people is that they will attack the messenger long before engaging in a substantive debate about the message. So, I get to vent here. And, I get to patronize companies that do not discriminate against those of us who are not seniors. Or cops. Or in the military. Or in some other occupation that certain business owners deem to be more worthy than the rest of us.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The Credentialed Society
It was about this time last year that my bride and I approached the fork in the road. As the character is old Johnny Carson skits advised, we took it and embarked on a journey that saw us leave jobs, pack up a home, and move two states away to care for an aging parent while entering graduate school. One year later the journey continues, in a different town, new school, but with the same goal of earning a Master's which has evidently become the equivalent of what a Bachelor's degree used to be.
Few things spell out reality more clearly than sitting in a classroom with a dozen or so other students, all of whom are younger than your youngest child. Faced with stumbling economy, they opted to stay in school rather than apply for jobs that do not exist. Can't say I blame them. My rationale for returning to school was different - whereas applying for jobs once meant humans looking over resumes for qualified candidates, today's technology scans them for specific keywords. And, when a job posting says "Master's preferred", it may as well say required. My experience never mattered, because HR never had the chance to review it.
What happens if the economy continues to stagnate, a good likelihood of government persists in meddling with it? How many hyperqualified bartenders, waiters, retail clerks, and others working far below their ability and qualification levels does a society need? I left a job that I enjoyed, working with people I enjoyed for a company that, frankly, seemed to take its responsibility to employees seriously. At the same time, I had topped out; there was no upward mobility available that I could see and most of us expect to have at least the possibility of moving up. So, I have more than a passing curiosity in learning what my soon-to-be-earned degree will bring.
At the same time, will my competition for work be ex-classmates, whose experience is virtually non-existent compared to mine, but whose salary expectations will be substantially less? Will I wind up working for someone a bit younger, perhaps someone wondering if I am angling for his/her job? Will the experience of 20+ years actually carry some influence, particularly when combined with a graduate degree? Or, will I just be another in the growing legion of folks whose jobs are at odds with their experiences and qualifications? A lot of letters after one's name do not guarantee finding the right job, or even a suitable one. They don't answer how an individual will react to stress, how that person will work with others, how he/she would solve problems, or what someone genuinely brings to the table.
Not long ago, a four-year degree was sufficient for launching a successful career. Now, it seems like a start, particularly as some question the value of their educations. What did they really learn that prepared them for professional environments? Can they think independently, can they handle perspectives other than their own, and how can the classroom translate to the office? And, does adding two more years of school really change anything? Seems that, like me, society has come to a similar fork in the road, decided to take it without knowing to where it leads, and is headed toward an unknown destination.
Few things spell out reality more clearly than sitting in a classroom with a dozen or so other students, all of whom are younger than your youngest child. Faced with stumbling economy, they opted to stay in school rather than apply for jobs that do not exist. Can't say I blame them. My rationale for returning to school was different - whereas applying for jobs once meant humans looking over resumes for qualified candidates, today's technology scans them for specific keywords. And, when a job posting says "Master's preferred", it may as well say required. My experience never mattered, because HR never had the chance to review it.
What happens if the economy continues to stagnate, a good likelihood of government persists in meddling with it? How many hyperqualified bartenders, waiters, retail clerks, and others working far below their ability and qualification levels does a society need? I left a job that I enjoyed, working with people I enjoyed for a company that, frankly, seemed to take its responsibility to employees seriously. At the same time, I had topped out; there was no upward mobility available that I could see and most of us expect to have at least the possibility of moving up. So, I have more than a passing curiosity in learning what my soon-to-be-earned degree will bring.
At the same time, will my competition for work be ex-classmates, whose experience is virtually non-existent compared to mine, but whose salary expectations will be substantially less? Will I wind up working for someone a bit younger, perhaps someone wondering if I am angling for his/her job? Will the experience of 20+ years actually carry some influence, particularly when combined with a graduate degree? Or, will I just be another in the growing legion of folks whose jobs are at odds with their experiences and qualifications? A lot of letters after one's name do not guarantee finding the right job, or even a suitable one. They don't answer how an individual will react to stress, how that person will work with others, how he/she would solve problems, or what someone genuinely brings to the table.
Not long ago, a four-year degree was sufficient for launching a successful career. Now, it seems like a start, particularly as some question the value of their educations. What did they really learn that prepared them for professional environments? Can they think independently, can they handle perspectives other than their own, and how can the classroom translate to the office? And, does adding two more years of school really change anything? Seems that, like me, society has come to a similar fork in the road, decided to take it without knowing to where it leads, and is headed toward an unknown destination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)