It is interesting to observe that, in the words of Thomas Sowell, our society has been trained like Pavlov's dog to respond to certain phrases and stimuli. One of these often used stimuli is to call upon an individual's "right" to do something. The meaning of individual "rights" has been twisted and damaged beyond belief, to the point that we can't even distinguish what "rights" are anymore.
I started thinking about this as I saw a recent news article, giving account of an incident in Boston. Apparently, a man was driving down the street in a neighborhood, when he decided to throw his Chihuahua out of the moving vehicle. How this ended up on the evening news, I will never know. But I'm glad that it did. Because the man has already been raked up by the local media and the animal "rights" groups. Now, as a dog enthusiast, I am in complete agreement that it was a cruel and meaningless thing to do to an animal. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior. So I do not scorn the anger of the public. I do point out, however, the glaring self-contradiction our society embraces when we persecute a man for tossing a canine out of a car, but refer to abortion as a "woman's right" to subject her living, unborn child to unbelievable and grotesque mutilations that result in murder.
Now, be rational with me for a moment. What happened to the man's "rights" when he wanted to play toss with his dog? No one seemed concerned for his "rights" to do as he pleased. That was his dog, and he can do with his dog what he pleases. It belonged to him, didn't it? I say, tongue in cheek, that it is certainly not anyone's business what he does with his own dog. I mean, it's not anyone's business what a woman does with her own child, right? This is the reasoning that abortion supporters use. So why is that reasoning used for humans, but discarded when it comes to animals? If we are going to establish the "rights" of those who want to have an abortion, then in all fairness we have to establish the "rights" of man to toss his dog wherever he pleases. Perhaps we ought to set up roadside areas for this behavior, you know, make it all official and everything, just like abortion.
I have witnessed the abortion crowds fight hysterically for the "rights" of a woman to submit her unborn child to the tools used by abortion practitioners, which include things like the "skull fork." I am amazed that we will tolerate, as a society, the murder of millions of children, and then act as righteous defenders of the Chihuahua. I for one will not stand for it.
There was another recent news piece about a Lubbock, Texas man who is being charged with "child injury and endangerment" for subjecting his children to sub-standard living conditions. To be sure, the evidence police found in the home was shocking. The children had to live in a roach-infested house, with the closets full of dirty diapers. The public was outraged, and they ought to be. But again, from a rational perspective; where are the "rights" activists on this one? That guy can keep his house however he pleases, and that is his "right." Right? He has individual freedom, the "right to choose", as we so often hear from the abortion crowd. There is another phrase that the modern Pavlov's dogs respond to so well: the right to choose. I guess we throw that one out when it comes to keeping house. So, still thinking rationally, why do we get upset about a man subjecting his children to these standards, if we accept and defend the murder of other children? The thinking is that this man exposed his defenseless children to conditions which were terrible. The anger, in both the case of the dog and the case of the man in Lubbock, comes from the mistreatment of the defenseless and innocent--and yet we do not get angry when the defenseless and innocent are savagely killed by the "right" to have an abortion. The self-contradiction here is amazing. We are taught to be outraged and shocked over sub-standard living conditions for children, but expected to be tolerant when unborn children are torn limb from limb, and murdered like science experiments.
If you carry out the arguments of the abortion "rights" groups to their logical ends, we would have people throwing dogs out of windows and children living amongst dirty diapers and rats--and it would all be legal. Rationally, it should be legal to keep a disgusting house like that if it is legal to murder your own child. There is no rational basis for defending abortion and persecuting the man in Lubbock. So, witness for yourself the twisted, modern definition of the words "rights." It is definitively selective. Can you imagine what the world would look like if everyone acted upon their perceived "rights"? Civilization begins to unravel at that point. And we already have.
21 May 2009
19 May 2009
PLOM Disease
Zig Ziglar called it the PLOM disease, Poor Little Old Me. Some people spend an entire lifetime mired is self pity, their endeavors and pursuits never approaching full potential because of the focus on something in their lives that troubles them. To be sure, we all have good reason to feel this way. I doubt there is a human who couldn't spend at least two hours telling me about the bad things that have happened to them in life. Since this is a universal feeling, albeit in different degrees and stemming from a wide range of causes, where do we go from here?
That is the central question. I do not intend to belittle anyone's situation, or trivialize their past. My point is that everyone can tap into this feeling, no one is spared. I know there are horrific circumstances that I, thankfully, am ignorant of. But to suggest that because there is some injustice that exists, and therefore some people cannot ever be expected to be responsible for themselves is fallacy. It is also condescending when you really get down to it.
Let me give an example. A few weeks ago, my wife and I were out to dinner. We were having a conversation with a friend who had joined us. I was explaining the basic underpinnings of my political persuasions, stating that I think everyone must decide, at some point in their lives, whether to react to life, or respond. We all have things against which we can react: poverty, bad parents, unfair bosses, etc. With each of those situations, we can also choose to respond.
My friend interpreted this as cold, uncaring, and unsympathetic. Why, there are people who grow up without a loving family, without a support network. How could I, one who is fortunate in that area, even suggest that those people had an equal chance at life? You see, the trouble comes in looking at someone else's life from a distance, and prepackaging them into a box that says, "No challenges here. Since this person's life is very different than yours, they have never encountered hardship, or had to make that very difficult choice between reacting and responding."
She assumed that since I had a loving wife, that I could never had struggled with self-image, or self esteem, or wondered whether I could ever make something of myself. In the larger picture, this misunderstanding plays out in social programs or gov't quotas designed to somehow equalize outcomes for different groups. They end up coddling many people who simply choose to react in life, making excuses for their behavior.
This is how we end up looking at income quintiles and demanding that some people, because of some injustice (real or perceived), have a right to the earnings of others. Some Americans ought to bankroll others, because the recipients have undergone hardship that the gov't strong-armed financiers of these programs don't understand. You can call it what you want, I call it politically ginned-up rabble rousing to buy votes.
In the same way that my friend refused to entertain the idea that I had faced many challenges in my life, simply because she sees me now sitting next to my wife, millions of Americans buy into the idea that they are owed something. There are other Americans who have screwed them, life is a zero-sum game, and those people have alot. Therefore, they must have taken it from you, and some politician is going to get even for you.
This is the rationale (and I use that word very, very loosely) for "windfall" profit taxes on Exxon, a grotesque "progressive" income tax system, welfare, Medicaide, and the like. This feeling has been present throughout human history, but a group of men wrote the Constitution of the United States of America to guard against it. Over time, we have been lulled to sleep and failed to stop numerous encroachments on these protections. This is how great nations fall.
That is the central question. I do not intend to belittle anyone's situation, or trivialize their past. My point is that everyone can tap into this feeling, no one is spared. I know there are horrific circumstances that I, thankfully, am ignorant of. But to suggest that because there is some injustice that exists, and therefore some people cannot ever be expected to be responsible for themselves is fallacy. It is also condescending when you really get down to it.
Let me give an example. A few weeks ago, my wife and I were out to dinner. We were having a conversation with a friend who had joined us. I was explaining the basic underpinnings of my political persuasions, stating that I think everyone must decide, at some point in their lives, whether to react to life, or respond. We all have things against which we can react: poverty, bad parents, unfair bosses, etc. With each of those situations, we can also choose to respond.
My friend interpreted this as cold, uncaring, and unsympathetic. Why, there are people who grow up without a loving family, without a support network. How could I, one who is fortunate in that area, even suggest that those people had an equal chance at life? You see, the trouble comes in looking at someone else's life from a distance, and prepackaging them into a box that says, "No challenges here. Since this person's life is very different than yours, they have never encountered hardship, or had to make that very difficult choice between reacting and responding."
She assumed that since I had a loving wife, that I could never had struggled with self-image, or self esteem, or wondered whether I could ever make something of myself. In the larger picture, this misunderstanding plays out in social programs or gov't quotas designed to somehow equalize outcomes for different groups. They end up coddling many people who simply choose to react in life, making excuses for their behavior.
This is how we end up looking at income quintiles and demanding that some people, because of some injustice (real or perceived), have a right to the earnings of others. Some Americans ought to bankroll others, because the recipients have undergone hardship that the gov't strong-armed financiers of these programs don't understand. You can call it what you want, I call it politically ginned-up rabble rousing to buy votes.
In the same way that my friend refused to entertain the idea that I had faced many challenges in my life, simply because she sees me now sitting next to my wife, millions of Americans buy into the idea that they are owed something. There are other Americans who have screwed them, life is a zero-sum game, and those people have alot. Therefore, they must have taken it from you, and some politician is going to get even for you.
This is the rationale (and I use that word very, very loosely) for "windfall" profit taxes on Exxon, a grotesque "progressive" income tax system, welfare, Medicaide, and the like. This feeling has been present throughout human history, but a group of men wrote the Constitution of the United States of America to guard against it. Over time, we have been lulled to sleep and failed to stop numerous encroachments on these protections. This is how great nations fall.
05 May 2009
Geithner's Stress Tests
Well, the stress tests are out, at least partly. To provide some background, let's go over the setting for a moment. Gov't mandates and equal housing goals force lenders to lower their lending standards, which makes a large portion of loans unstable and dangerous. These home loans were traded as securities and derivatives in an effort to get some worth out of the worthless paper that was made worthless by gov't intervention. The market became so risky and strung out that the bubble burst, and the rest is history.
A domino effect rolled through the financial system, adversely affecting banks and other institutions. Obama & friends come out with the TARP program, which they force banks to accept, thus injecting federal bureaucracy into all these sectors. A myriad of whispers about shady deals come out, as if anyone should have had any doubt of nefarious intentions when a massive federal money pile gets rushed through Congress in the dark of night. Bank presidents report that the whole purpose of TARP was for banks to buy each other, not to create liquidity and get lending moving again. Lending isn't happening because everyone is scared to death of the new, over-arching gov't. Anyway, Obama then goes after the auto companies.
Now, they are going to play judge and jury on the health of banks and financial institutions? They're the ones who created and burst the bubble! Let's look at the motivation here: if, and this would be so sad, the banks are declared "unhealthy", then Obama would have to come to their rescue. Hmmm...good thing he's shown no inclination to want to be king, and have control over as much of the economy as possible. The playbook is fairly simple - cripple and hamstring the private sector to the point where he can declare a crisis, and then play the savior.
The problem is that in "saving" the banks, Obama plans to run them. He has a worldview of America as a soup kitchen, as a terrible immoral place where greed and corruption are the mainstay, and only his enlightened wisdom can change it. Just listen to his words and what they mean. That's the key - stop focusing on the goals he espouses. Learn enough about history and economics to see that the incentives he's creating and the unintended consequences involved will be deeply damaging.
For an added sense of irony, step back and realize that Geithner is telling the banks that they need to raise more cash to strengthen their financial standing, while Obama is simultaneously spending us into generational debt, which equals financial slavery to China and a dismantling of any sound fiscal policy in the federal gov't. (that's assuming their was any in the first place.) The stress tests are just another way to declare that the gov't is needed, the Treasury must step in to correct the situation.
Who among you thinks that James Madison or Thomas Jefferson envisioned the President running the financial and automotive industries? Is that within his enumerated powers? Or are we witnessing a gross abuse of federal power that threatens to reduce, or seek to reduce, the population to a permanent dependency class with Obama at the helm?
The course of action is clear: call your local representatives and demand action. Tell them you see what's going on and are not fooled. Our gov't has grown to such a morbidly obese state that it must be opposed when it tries to grow ever larger. As Thomas Jefferson said, "A gov't large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take it all away. " (paraphrased) Get involved or get ready to surrender your liberty.
A domino effect rolled through the financial system, adversely affecting banks and other institutions. Obama & friends come out with the TARP program, which they force banks to accept, thus injecting federal bureaucracy into all these sectors. A myriad of whispers about shady deals come out, as if anyone should have had any doubt of nefarious intentions when a massive federal money pile gets rushed through Congress in the dark of night. Bank presidents report that the whole purpose of TARP was for banks to buy each other, not to create liquidity and get lending moving again. Lending isn't happening because everyone is scared to death of the new, over-arching gov't. Anyway, Obama then goes after the auto companies.
Now, they are going to play judge and jury on the health of banks and financial institutions? They're the ones who created and burst the bubble! Let's look at the motivation here: if, and this would be so sad, the banks are declared "unhealthy", then Obama would have to come to their rescue. Hmmm...good thing he's shown no inclination to want to be king, and have control over as much of the economy as possible. The playbook is fairly simple - cripple and hamstring the private sector to the point where he can declare a crisis, and then play the savior.
The problem is that in "saving" the banks, Obama plans to run them. He has a worldview of America as a soup kitchen, as a terrible immoral place where greed and corruption are the mainstay, and only his enlightened wisdom can change it. Just listen to his words and what they mean. That's the key - stop focusing on the goals he espouses. Learn enough about history and economics to see that the incentives he's creating and the unintended consequences involved will be deeply damaging.
For an added sense of irony, step back and realize that Geithner is telling the banks that they need to raise more cash to strengthen their financial standing, while Obama is simultaneously spending us into generational debt, which equals financial slavery to China and a dismantling of any sound fiscal policy in the federal gov't. (that's assuming their was any in the first place.) The stress tests are just another way to declare that the gov't is needed, the Treasury must step in to correct the situation.
Who among you thinks that James Madison or Thomas Jefferson envisioned the President running the financial and automotive industries? Is that within his enumerated powers? Or are we witnessing a gross abuse of federal power that threatens to reduce, or seek to reduce, the population to a permanent dependency class with Obama at the helm?
The course of action is clear: call your local representatives and demand action. Tell them you see what's going on and are not fooled. Our gov't has grown to such a morbidly obese state that it must be opposed when it tries to grow ever larger. As Thomas Jefferson said, "A gov't large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take it all away. " (paraphrased) Get involved or get ready to surrender your liberty.
23 April 2009
Equal Outcomes? They Don't Exist
One of the most fruitless, and destructive, pursuits in our society today is the search for equal outcomes between socioeconomic groups. The intelligentsia and politicians promoting such ideas rarely have the pay the consequences (always unintended, of course) of the policies resulting from this pursuit, but society does.
Case in point: A city in Connecticut has decided to abolish a promotion test at the local fire department, saying that too few minorities would pass the test, and so it wasn't "fair". In other words, even though the test was not designed to benefit any certain person, but rather based upon a set of criteria specific to firefighting, it had to be thrown out because the outcome of this test might not be "equal" across racial lines.
The city cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as evidence, saying that the "disparate impact" would violate the Act. We must confront this erroneous reasoning. The Civil Rights Act was written to eliminate race as a factor in situation like this. The entire purpose of the act was to end the practice of deciding things like hiring and promotion based on the person's skin color.
Unless the test was designed to discriminate against an individual, then it doesn't violate the Act. Whether or not different racial groups will achieve the same passing rate should be of no concern to the gov't. The test is about the skills needed for fighting fires and saving lives and it is being trivialized and made racist. That's right, racist. Any time you decide something based on skin color, that's a racist viewpoint. Furthermore, there is no way to retroactively produce equal outcomes in any situation. It's a flawed idea from the beginning.
There is no way to engineer equal outcomes. No two people are identical. The officials who threw out the test said that too few hispanics and blacks were going to pass. The whites were all grouped together. This is even more racist. How many of those white firemen were of Italian descent? Did the Germans have an unfair advantage? If you want to break it down along racial lines, then go all the way. Once you start, it's clear how ridiculous it would be.
Policies like this have been tried across the globe: India, Malaysia, West Africa, Nigeria, America. Bureaucrats and busy bodies start running around trying to fix all these inequalities, but they do more harm than good. If you take the basis for promoting firefighters away from the skills of fighting fires, than it could be your wife or child that dies in a fire while a perfectly diverse, but less qualified, team of firemen works outside. And that's not to say that non-whites are less skilled, nothing could be farther from the truth. But making promotion criteria about stuff like race can only result in lowering the quality of those promoted. These scenarious always backfire, but they're good enough to win votes.
The bureaucrats sit in an office, look at the results of a fireman's test and declare it to be "unfair", and go about their merry way, patting themselves on the back for being so sensitive, so progressive, so in touch that they saved the day. But they only leave a trail of consequences in their wake. And I must mention, that the people deciding these policies rarely have any actual knowledge of the subject.
Meanwhile, the city has less qualified firefighters. The fire department has to take its focus off protecting the population and excelling at what they do, and turn to pleasing the abstract and subjective whims of politicians. Society pays the price of these leftist, social engineering schemes every time.
Case in point: A city in Connecticut has decided to abolish a promotion test at the local fire department, saying that too few minorities would pass the test, and so it wasn't "fair". In other words, even though the test was not designed to benefit any certain person, but rather based upon a set of criteria specific to firefighting, it had to be thrown out because the outcome of this test might not be "equal" across racial lines.
The city cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as evidence, saying that the "disparate impact" would violate the Act. We must confront this erroneous reasoning. The Civil Rights Act was written to eliminate race as a factor in situation like this. The entire purpose of the act was to end the practice of deciding things like hiring and promotion based on the person's skin color.
Unless the test was designed to discriminate against an individual, then it doesn't violate the Act. Whether or not different racial groups will achieve the same passing rate should be of no concern to the gov't. The test is about the skills needed for fighting fires and saving lives and it is being trivialized and made racist. That's right, racist. Any time you decide something based on skin color, that's a racist viewpoint. Furthermore, there is no way to retroactively produce equal outcomes in any situation. It's a flawed idea from the beginning.
There is no way to engineer equal outcomes. No two people are identical. The officials who threw out the test said that too few hispanics and blacks were going to pass. The whites were all grouped together. This is even more racist. How many of those white firemen were of Italian descent? Did the Germans have an unfair advantage? If you want to break it down along racial lines, then go all the way. Once you start, it's clear how ridiculous it would be.
Policies like this have been tried across the globe: India, Malaysia, West Africa, Nigeria, America. Bureaucrats and busy bodies start running around trying to fix all these inequalities, but they do more harm than good. If you take the basis for promoting firefighters away from the skills of fighting fires, than it could be your wife or child that dies in a fire while a perfectly diverse, but less qualified, team of firemen works outside. And that's not to say that non-whites are less skilled, nothing could be farther from the truth. But making promotion criteria about stuff like race can only result in lowering the quality of those promoted. These scenarious always backfire, but they're good enough to win votes.
The bureaucrats sit in an office, look at the results of a fireman's test and declare it to be "unfair", and go about their merry way, patting themselves on the back for being so sensitive, so progressive, so in touch that they saved the day. But they only leave a trail of consequences in their wake. And I must mention, that the people deciding these policies rarely have any actual knowledge of the subject.
Meanwhile, the city has less qualified firefighters. The fire department has to take its focus off protecting the population and excelling at what they do, and turn to pleasing the abstract and subjective whims of politicians. Society pays the price of these leftist, social engineering schemes every time.
26 March 2009
Obama's Refusal to Act: Empowering Our Enemies
It is not hard in some cases to make accurate predictions about a given situation, and I have made such a prediction about the situation with the Somali pirates. As I am typing this, four Somali pirates are holding an American captive in a lifeboat. The captain has tried to escape once, but was recaptured by the Somalis. And right about now, our President continues to do nothing.
On the surface, it might seem like Obama is being neutral with the situation, trying to be non-confrontational and calm in the face of a threat. However, such a pose is imaginary, since there is no neutral position in conflict. So here is my prediction: Soon there is a good chance that the Somalis will surrender, and Obama will be hailed for "solving" the situation without military action. He will appear to have been planning this outcome all along, calculating the scenarios and carefully weighing the risk involved in his options. I think he is hoping for something to happen in our favor, because he has no idea what to do.
If the Somalis do surrender, all of the smiles that Obama will give in front of the camera, and all of the suddenly tough statements he will make will be meaningless. Obama might even tell the captain about how ready he was to take action, and that he is headed over to have some "tough talks" with the brigands. My point is that this current inaction on the part of our President is the greatest communication of all, and I promise you that all parties interested in striking America are receiving that communication. What Obama has now shown the world, in no uncertain terms, is that violent actions toward America's citizens will not be met with action. I hope that soon after I publish this, Obama will prove me wrong.
Another interesting aspect to this, is that Obama hasn't said anything either. Now, being that speeches are his specialty, I would have thought that a carefully crafted, teleprompter-fed speech would be filling the news stations with a bunch of words about how this action against America will be met with decisive action, but that at the same time we aren't at war with them, and we hope to share some cultural aspects of each country in the near future. But we have not even seen a response from our "leader." Brilliant. While I can understand the desire for international relations, this is not the time to be worried about if the Somalis or anyone else is going to like us when this is over. There are innocent Americans, non-combatants, being held by enemy forces. This is the time to do something about it.
So the days of "Give me liberty or give me death" are far behind us. If our captive American captain were to be saying that right now, his President would give no reply. Make no mistake, that the illusions of peaceable inaction will have no positive result.
On the surface, it might seem like Obama is being neutral with the situation, trying to be non-confrontational and calm in the face of a threat. However, such a pose is imaginary, since there is no neutral position in conflict. So here is my prediction: Soon there is a good chance that the Somalis will surrender, and Obama will be hailed for "solving" the situation without military action. He will appear to have been planning this outcome all along, calculating the scenarios and carefully weighing the risk involved in his options. I think he is hoping for something to happen in our favor, because he has no idea what to do.
If the Somalis do surrender, all of the smiles that Obama will give in front of the camera, and all of the suddenly tough statements he will make will be meaningless. Obama might even tell the captain about how ready he was to take action, and that he is headed over to have some "tough talks" with the brigands. My point is that this current inaction on the part of our President is the greatest communication of all, and I promise you that all parties interested in striking America are receiving that communication. What Obama has now shown the world, in no uncertain terms, is that violent actions toward America's citizens will not be met with action. I hope that soon after I publish this, Obama will prove me wrong.
Another interesting aspect to this, is that Obama hasn't said anything either. Now, being that speeches are his specialty, I would have thought that a carefully crafted, teleprompter-fed speech would be filling the news stations with a bunch of words about how this action against America will be met with decisive action, but that at the same time we aren't at war with them, and we hope to share some cultural aspects of each country in the near future. But we have not even seen a response from our "leader." Brilliant. While I can understand the desire for international relations, this is not the time to be worried about if the Somalis or anyone else is going to like us when this is over. There are innocent Americans, non-combatants, being held by enemy forces. This is the time to do something about it.
So the days of "Give me liberty or give me death" are far behind us. If our captive American captain were to be saying that right now, his President would give no reply. Make no mistake, that the illusions of peaceable inaction will have no positive result.
24 March 2009
AIG Used as Cover for Frontal Assault
It is my sincere belief that Obama and Congress ginned up public fervor over AIG simply because they knew it would be convenient cover for what they are doing. Liberalism must have a bad guy, it must have a villain. The purpose of liberal politicians is to go get that villain on your behalf. AIG was a handy villain.
The problem is that Congress, swept along in the storm, actually tried to pass a "Sniper Tax" with AIG execs as the target. That is an abuse of power that ought to be so distasteful, such an afront to the idea of America, that Washington should be the mob's destination. Obama went on Jay Leno and said that America's brightest kids shouldn't even consider being investment bankers, they need to do something truly useful. He took this opportunity before a national audience, which was nothing but grandstanding anyway but I was hoping against hope he'd say something useful, to once again rip people who do something he can't understand. Obama said smart kids should do something else, like be scientists. There is nothing wrong with being a scientist or engineer, in fact we need more of those. But there is no place for a politician gutting certain portions of society for his own pleasure.
Above all, it is none of Barack Obama's damn business what ANY kid chooses to do with their future. That is not his prerogative, at least not in the America I know...maybe in Hugo Chavez's world it is. Second, this is part of a coordinated attack on certain parts of our country, an attack on capitalism. The Federal gov't is now trying to tell us who should fail and who should succeed, what industries are good and which aren't, and so forth.
Why do you think they want to curtail tax deductions for charitable giving? One reason is that money I give from my own pocket does not have a politician's name on it. The more they can control, the better. And if a group of people, this time it's AIG execs, need to have their lives destroyed in order to achieve it, then tough beans. They found themselves in the way of "progress."
I seem to remember a sort of rabble rousing accompanied by a select group of the population being blamed for society's ills before...in Nazi Germany.
The problem is that Congress, swept along in the storm, actually tried to pass a "Sniper Tax" with AIG execs as the target. That is an abuse of power that ought to be so distasteful, such an afront to the idea of America, that Washington should be the mob's destination. Obama went on Jay Leno and said that America's brightest kids shouldn't even consider being investment bankers, they need to do something truly useful. He took this opportunity before a national audience, which was nothing but grandstanding anyway but I was hoping against hope he'd say something useful, to once again rip people who do something he can't understand. Obama said smart kids should do something else, like be scientists. There is nothing wrong with being a scientist or engineer, in fact we need more of those. But there is no place for a politician gutting certain portions of society for his own pleasure.
Above all, it is none of Barack Obama's damn business what ANY kid chooses to do with their future. That is not his prerogative, at least not in the America I know...maybe in Hugo Chavez's world it is. Second, this is part of a coordinated attack on certain parts of our country, an attack on capitalism. The Federal gov't is now trying to tell us who should fail and who should succeed, what industries are good and which aren't, and so forth.
Why do you think they want to curtail tax deductions for charitable giving? One reason is that money I give from my own pocket does not have a politician's name on it. The more they can control, the better. And if a group of people, this time it's AIG execs, need to have their lives destroyed in order to achieve it, then tough beans. They found themselves in the way of "progress."
I seem to remember a sort of rabble rousing accompanied by a select group of the population being blamed for society's ills before...in Nazi Germany.
19 March 2009
Red Herring
The bonuses given to AIG employees are nothing more than a distraction, and the Obama administration and friends love every minute of it. $165 million is less than 1/1000th of the bailout money so far - it makes no sense to get this outraged.
I know what alot of people are saying, "It's not the amount that matters, it's the principle. They took taxpayer money and then got huge bonuses." A couple of points: Those bonuses were contractual. Maybe they were really poor contracts, but it doesn't change the fact. Also, shouldn't this call into question the efficacy of the gov't doing something as foolish as propping up businesses, rather than anger over people receiving something that was legally obligated to them?
The root of the problem is the gov't getting its hands all over everything. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank knew this was going to happen. Can anyone, especially those of you who are angry over this, seriously support the gov't trying to run the economy? They are making a mess of it. The strategy goes like this: Hamstring private enterprise to the point where is cannot function well and suffers a breakdown. Stand back and say, "Look, capitalism failed! We must take over!" Then, run it poorly and claim that the only solution is more power.
What really saddens, angers, and frustrates me is that this game works. If the AIG execs should not have received bonuses because their company did poorly, then why on earth should any firm get gov't money? The only ones that need a bailout are the ones doing poorly. The very anger over the bonuses is based on logic that the gov't has no business bailing out anybody. We are rewarding failure. So, in that light, what's wrong with the AIG guys getting some cash? We can't let them go broke, can we? That would be catastophic!
Please, don't take the bait. The architects of all this want you focused on AIG, they want you angry at capitalism, they want you so whipped into a frenzy over the red meat they're throwing out that you fail to notice what's really going on. Obama wants to implement an agenda that would be horrible for this country, and he is using cover for himself in the form of "corporate greed", trusting that the populace will be engrossed- then, he can get away with all kinds of things which would never fly in a sane environment.
Chaos, anger, tumult - they are the weapons and friends of demogogues.
I know what alot of people are saying, "It's not the amount that matters, it's the principle. They took taxpayer money and then got huge bonuses." A couple of points: Those bonuses were contractual. Maybe they were really poor contracts, but it doesn't change the fact. Also, shouldn't this call into question the efficacy of the gov't doing something as foolish as propping up businesses, rather than anger over people receiving something that was legally obligated to them?
The root of the problem is the gov't getting its hands all over everything. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank knew this was going to happen. Can anyone, especially those of you who are angry over this, seriously support the gov't trying to run the economy? They are making a mess of it. The strategy goes like this: Hamstring private enterprise to the point where is cannot function well and suffers a breakdown. Stand back and say, "Look, capitalism failed! We must take over!" Then, run it poorly and claim that the only solution is more power.
What really saddens, angers, and frustrates me is that this game works. If the AIG execs should not have received bonuses because their company did poorly, then why on earth should any firm get gov't money? The only ones that need a bailout are the ones doing poorly. The very anger over the bonuses is based on logic that the gov't has no business bailing out anybody. We are rewarding failure. So, in that light, what's wrong with the AIG guys getting some cash? We can't let them go broke, can we? That would be catastophic!
Please, don't take the bait. The architects of all this want you focused on AIG, they want you angry at capitalism, they want you so whipped into a frenzy over the red meat they're throwing out that you fail to notice what's really going on. Obama wants to implement an agenda that would be horrible for this country, and he is using cover for himself in the form of "corporate greed", trusting that the populace will be engrossed- then, he can get away with all kinds of things which would never fly in a sane environment.
Chaos, anger, tumult - they are the weapons and friends of demogogues.
10 March 2009
Compassion or Trickery?
The Feds have decided to bailout homeowners, to subsidize mortgages so some folks don't go into foreclosure. There are all kinds of hard questions not being asked. Aren't we simply protecting people from bad decisions? Why should those of us who chose to live within our means being forced to bankroll other citizens?
The claim is that foreclosure is bad for everybody. Excuse me, but it's not nearly as bad as creating a culture in which the general population feels free to cast aside restraint, because the kind, loving, all-knowing Federal angels will swoop in to save them. There is an old example in economics that says if you want people to drive safely, put a spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag.
Central to this push for subsidizing mortgages is the idea that it could happen to anyone. Every last one of us is on the brink, just a few paychecks away from disaster. So, we should buckle up and have compassion. Uh....simply not true. Foreclosure does not show up by surprise one day. Thomas Sowell said it well recently, that put another way, what we're seeing is many Americans living so stretched out, so financially risky, that a few common misfortunes in life push them over the edge.
That kind of decision making should not be subsidized, I don't care how bad it hurts for those involved. The cliche "saving for a rainy day" is cliche precisely because of its merit. Everyone experiences a transmission going out, a medical bill, getting laid off. It's part of life, learn to deal with it and be responsible. I know some people were not taught that by their parents, but we can't go back in time. They will never learn if we insulate them from their decisions.
(Let me emphasize that this is something wholly different that caring for those close to you. If some family or friends of mine were going through hard times, which can happen, then I would gladly open my home to them.)
But here's the impetus. People gaining wisdom through experience, and thus making wiser decisions, and the market restoring itself to balance....these are things for which politicians cannot take credit. Individual learning and success is poison to people like Obama, because it takes him completely out of the picture. They want you insulted from your decisions by their "compassion," and soon enough you won't be able to make very many decisions.
The essence of liberalism is this: We care, we understand. You can't make it on your own, and if you do something foolish and fiscally irresponsible, then don't worry about it, you were too stupid to know any better. We will fix it all, make everything alright, just become our indentured servants. You don't have it within yourself to overcome the challenges of life, and we will get even (on your behalf) with the people that do.
This leads to people relying on gov't for their security, safety, provision, happiness, and anything pleasurable in their life. Precisely what Obama & Co. want, I might add. The independent course of events that might lead us out of this has to be stopped. Otherwise, the voting blocs might wake up and realize they don't need a 3.5 Trillion dollar nanny.
The claim is that foreclosure is bad for everybody. Excuse me, but it's not nearly as bad as creating a culture in which the general population feels free to cast aside restraint, because the kind, loving, all-knowing Federal angels will swoop in to save them. There is an old example in economics that says if you want people to drive safely, put a spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag.
Central to this push for subsidizing mortgages is the idea that it could happen to anyone. Every last one of us is on the brink, just a few paychecks away from disaster. So, we should buckle up and have compassion. Uh....simply not true. Foreclosure does not show up by surprise one day. Thomas Sowell said it well recently, that put another way, what we're seeing is many Americans living so stretched out, so financially risky, that a few common misfortunes in life push them over the edge.
That kind of decision making should not be subsidized, I don't care how bad it hurts for those involved. The cliche "saving for a rainy day" is cliche precisely because of its merit. Everyone experiences a transmission going out, a medical bill, getting laid off. It's part of life, learn to deal with it and be responsible. I know some people were not taught that by their parents, but we can't go back in time. They will never learn if we insulate them from their decisions.
(Let me emphasize that this is something wholly different that caring for those close to you. If some family or friends of mine were going through hard times, which can happen, then I would gladly open my home to them.)
But here's the impetus. People gaining wisdom through experience, and thus making wiser decisions, and the market restoring itself to balance....these are things for which politicians cannot take credit. Individual learning and success is poison to people like Obama, because it takes him completely out of the picture. They want you insulted from your decisions by their "compassion," and soon enough you won't be able to make very many decisions.
The essence of liberalism is this: We care, we understand. You can't make it on your own, and if you do something foolish and fiscally irresponsible, then don't worry about it, you were too stupid to know any better. We will fix it all, make everything alright, just become our indentured servants. You don't have it within yourself to overcome the challenges of life, and we will get even (on your behalf) with the people that do.
This leads to people relying on gov't for their security, safety, provision, happiness, and anything pleasurable in their life. Precisely what Obama & Co. want, I might add. The independent course of events that might lead us out of this has to be stopped. Otherwise, the voting blocs might wake up and realize they don't need a 3.5 Trillion dollar nanny.
03 March 2009
Envy as a Political Strategy
We are witnessing, before our very eyes, the emergence of a political force headed by Barack Obama that is based upon envy, turmoil, anger, and a sense of entitlement. Well, I say "headed" by Obama, but its unclear exactly how much power he has to steer the beast. Looking at his cabinet nominations, there is no denying that he had to pay off the power brokers that rocketed him to his current status.
Let's start with a simple example. Have you ever seen a fit, attractive male or female get this comment - "You're not going to have any cheesecake? You can eat whatever you want!" The superficiality of an obsession with outward appearance aside, this comment and the emotion that gave birth to it are based purely on envy.
And no, they can't eat whatever they want. If they ate whatever they wanted, they wouldn't look the way they do. Here's the point - the envious onlooker has a sense of unfairness. They have been outdone in this scenario. Someone has achieved something beyond them. And this person, who has committed the crime of disciplining themselves to the point where their body takes on attributes that the onlooker judges more attractive than their own, must be gotten even with. They must be brought low, back down to the level of those who have been outdone.
Is this not what goes on in our minds when we make comments like that? If you will be honest with yourself, it is. I am not concerned with the deeper question of how these feeling arise in the first place, but rather the blind obedience I see displayed for a political ideology that functions on the same emotions. And it is emotion. Obama's rise to power has worked because he capitalizes on the emotions of people, but I will deal with that in a later post.
So, you Obama voters out there, if your man limits the pay of executives, and raises taxes on people who make more money than you, and confiscates the earnings of money they have invested, and takes a large portion of what they leave to their children....has your life changed? Has your situation improved? More importantly, have you been motivated to do anything differently for yourself, with your own energy and creativity?
Precisely the opposite has happened. You have been had, you have tricked into being a spectator, given a free pass to watch other people "pay" for excelling. The word 'motivation' means to draw forth, to bring out. We should ask what is being motivated in the population of this country when a man gets elected President because he is very skilled at telling large numbers of people that their situation in life is not only less than they should accept, their life is so ordered because anyone that excels beyond their situation has nefarious intentions, and their success is keeping you down.
Envy and anger are being motivated. The populace is being incentivized to hand over power to the central goverment because they, somehow, have a right to the earnings of other citizens, and the gov't is going to collect it for them. There is an anecdote of a Greek king who received an envoy from a neighboring kingdom. The king was asked how he was successful in keeping his population under control, thus securing his own power. The king walked out into the garden, and wherever one flower was taller than the ones around it, he took his scepter and cut down the tall flower.
Wealth cannot be mulitplied by dividing it. This is how demogogues rise to power. Obama is an excellent salesman, and he has sold enough people in America on the idea that whatever ills they suffer, it is caused by the people who have done better than them, and these "victims" need not change anything about their life, their values, their work ethic and principles. Obama the Savior will go get even with all those evil achievers on your behalf.
This is pure envy. You elected a man whose basis for governing is one of the deadly sins. Nice going.
Let's start with a simple example. Have you ever seen a fit, attractive male or female get this comment - "You're not going to have any cheesecake? You can eat whatever you want!" The superficiality of an obsession with outward appearance aside, this comment and the emotion that gave birth to it are based purely on envy.
And no, they can't eat whatever they want. If they ate whatever they wanted, they wouldn't look the way they do. Here's the point - the envious onlooker has a sense of unfairness. They have been outdone in this scenario. Someone has achieved something beyond them. And this person, who has committed the crime of disciplining themselves to the point where their body takes on attributes that the onlooker judges more attractive than their own, must be gotten even with. They must be brought low, back down to the level of those who have been outdone.
Is this not what goes on in our minds when we make comments like that? If you will be honest with yourself, it is. I am not concerned with the deeper question of how these feeling arise in the first place, but rather the blind obedience I see displayed for a political ideology that functions on the same emotions. And it is emotion. Obama's rise to power has worked because he capitalizes on the emotions of people, but I will deal with that in a later post.
So, you Obama voters out there, if your man limits the pay of executives, and raises taxes on people who make more money than you, and confiscates the earnings of money they have invested, and takes a large portion of what they leave to their children....has your life changed? Has your situation improved? More importantly, have you been motivated to do anything differently for yourself, with your own energy and creativity?
Precisely the opposite has happened. You have been had, you have tricked into being a spectator, given a free pass to watch other people "pay" for excelling. The word 'motivation' means to draw forth, to bring out. We should ask what is being motivated in the population of this country when a man gets elected President because he is very skilled at telling large numbers of people that their situation in life is not only less than they should accept, their life is so ordered because anyone that excels beyond their situation has nefarious intentions, and their success is keeping you down.
Envy and anger are being motivated. The populace is being incentivized to hand over power to the central goverment because they, somehow, have a right to the earnings of other citizens, and the gov't is going to collect it for them. There is an anecdote of a Greek king who received an envoy from a neighboring kingdom. The king was asked how he was successful in keeping his population under control, thus securing his own power. The king walked out into the garden, and wherever one flower was taller than the ones around it, he took his scepter and cut down the tall flower.
Wealth cannot be mulitplied by dividing it. This is how demogogues rise to power. Obama is an excellent salesman, and he has sold enough people in America on the idea that whatever ills they suffer, it is caused by the people who have done better than them, and these "victims" need not change anything about their life, their values, their work ethic and principles. Obama the Savior will go get even with all those evil achievers on your behalf.
This is pure envy. You elected a man whose basis for governing is one of the deadly sins. Nice going.
12 February 2009
Ice Storm Aftermath
I've spent the last couple days working in an emergency call center for victims of the recent ice storm. People are calling in to report damage and needs, and we are collecting the information. I've received lots of calls from folks in need of assistance, and it breaks my heart to hear their stories. Crews are working around the clock to restore power and clear roads, but there are still some people stranded.
What sickens me is the volume of calls coming in that sound something like this:
"When I lost power, I had to throw out the food in my fridge. When am I going to get reimbursed for that?"
Or....
"I had to get a chainsaw and spend 4 hours clearing the road. Who's gonna pay for my time?"
They don't ask if they will get paid, or if there is some way they can help others. Just an open palm and a sense of entitlement. This does not include anyone in genuine need, I understand that some people need help and they should get it. But hey, sometimes bad stuff happens. Just move on and be thankful you're not homeless, and quit asking for someone else to cover every penny you'd rather spend on beer or cable TV.
This is related to a town-hall meeting Obama had in Ft. Myers the other day. Some guy in the audience was complaining because unemployment doesn't pay 100% of his usual salary, and he wanted Obama to fix it. When did we become a nation of slobs, where so much of our energy goes to seeking a redress of grievances, or someone to blame for our sorrow?
Do we really want to be vassals of the state, dependent on them for everything? What happened to individual drive and determination? I submit to you that this is precisely what the Democrats want. Rahm Emanuel said this crisis is a terrible thing to waste. I can see the glitter in his eyes at the thought of rendering us all to the level of dependency this deadbeat in Florida so proudly embodies.
What sickens me is the volume of calls coming in that sound something like this:
"When I lost power, I had to throw out the food in my fridge. When am I going to get reimbursed for that?"
Or....
"I had to get a chainsaw and spend 4 hours clearing the road. Who's gonna pay for my time?"
They don't ask if they will get paid, or if there is some way they can help others. Just an open palm and a sense of entitlement. This does not include anyone in genuine need, I understand that some people need help and they should get it. But hey, sometimes bad stuff happens. Just move on and be thankful you're not homeless, and quit asking for someone else to cover every penny you'd rather spend on beer or cable TV.
This is related to a town-hall meeting Obama had in Ft. Myers the other day. Some guy in the audience was complaining because unemployment doesn't pay 100% of his usual salary, and he wanted Obama to fix it. When did we become a nation of slobs, where so much of our energy goes to seeking a redress of grievances, or someone to blame for our sorrow?
Do we really want to be vassals of the state, dependent on them for everything? What happened to individual drive and determination? I submit to you that this is precisely what the Democrats want. Rahm Emanuel said this crisis is a terrible thing to waste. I can see the glitter in his eyes at the thought of rendering us all to the level of dependency this deadbeat in Florida so proudly embodies.
04 February 2009
Distorting the American Dream
It amazes me when I see that our nation seems uninterested as to the reason for corruption in our government. I have spoken with many of my peers, from all walks of life, and lately we all seem to be a bit turned off by the ongoing circus up in Washington. No one likes to see our "For the people" government more concerned with being re-elected than accurately representing us. That was, at one time, the purpose of having a Senate and such: to represent the people. I'm sure we can all remember times when we have looked with disgust upon our State, local, or Federal government for the level of corruption therein.
In recent months, there has been little actual investigation into the corruption surrounding our new President, as pointed out by Falkenhayn in his last post. Also, the steam-rolling new stimulus bill continues on its path, unchecked in its disastrous rhythm. There is more "pork" in that bill than in the entire state of Alabama. When one examines the nature of all the earmarks, which I would point out were not supposed to exist by promise of Obama in the first place, it doesn't take long to see that they are "payoffs." Corruption, it seems, is a very lucrative practice. Most of us are not surprised, and most of the people I talk with can see through this like we all saw through O.J. Simpson--it doesn't take a genius.
What bothers me most is the greed in all of this. Behind all of the motivations of all the little government entities and committees, behind all the financial gymnastics, and under all the smiles and press conferences--there is greed. You take a look at the current financial "crisis", and you can call greed the culprit. Take the current economy for instance. We all know that giving American jobs away, whether to illegal immigrants inside our border or foreigners across an ocean, is not a practice that ensures our economic strength. Companies have been greedy, and they found a way to make some quick cash. Quality went down the drain, but someone got rich today. And now we are enjoying the fruits of decades of selfish behavior. This is just one example, but I can assure you that greed has been a cause of many of the problems we now face as a nation. Somewhere along the line, people started believing that getting rich was the American Dream realized. This is simply not true. Getting rich may be the dream of many people in America, but that was hardly the sum of the dream of those who came here in search of freedom. The opportunity for success certainly has its place in American history, but to for a nation to forsake itself in the name of riches is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. Let's not go on believing that having a fat bank account is what it means to be an American.
In recent months, there has been little actual investigation into the corruption surrounding our new President, as pointed out by Falkenhayn in his last post. Also, the steam-rolling new stimulus bill continues on its path, unchecked in its disastrous rhythm. There is more "pork" in that bill than in the entire state of Alabama. When one examines the nature of all the earmarks, which I would point out were not supposed to exist by promise of Obama in the first place, it doesn't take long to see that they are "payoffs." Corruption, it seems, is a very lucrative practice. Most of us are not surprised, and most of the people I talk with can see through this like we all saw through O.J. Simpson--it doesn't take a genius.
What bothers me most is the greed in all of this. Behind all of the motivations of all the little government entities and committees, behind all the financial gymnastics, and under all the smiles and press conferences--there is greed. You take a look at the current financial "crisis", and you can call greed the culprit. Take the current economy for instance. We all know that giving American jobs away, whether to illegal immigrants inside our border or foreigners across an ocean, is not a practice that ensures our economic strength. Companies have been greedy, and they found a way to make some quick cash. Quality went down the drain, but someone got rich today. And now we are enjoying the fruits of decades of selfish behavior. This is just one example, but I can assure you that greed has been a cause of many of the problems we now face as a nation. Somewhere along the line, people started believing that getting rich was the American Dream realized. This is simply not true. Getting rich may be the dream of many people in America, but that was hardly the sum of the dream of those who came here in search of freedom. The opportunity for success certainly has its place in American history, but to for a nation to forsake itself in the name of riches is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. Let's not go on believing that having a fat bank account is what it means to be an American.
03 February 2009
Blagojevich: Guilty Scapegoat
Sure, Blagojevich deserved to be impeached. He was a rotten, corrupt politician based on the evidence presented. You don't have to trust me, the Illinois Congress and the FBI decided that. I think it's beyond doubt that he had nefarious intentions, not just with Obama's vacant Senate seat, but with other campaign functions as well.
However, I contend that Blagojevich is not unique, and that he is conveniently being used as a dumping ground by his own party. Perhaps, if they project on to him every conceivable vice and act of corruption, then they will look white as snow in comparison. Or, since he started to sink anyway, why not load him up and send him to the depths, neatly cutting all ties that we should believe never existed in the first place.
What Blagojevich did was despicable, but I think it is a window into a world that remains hidden, rather than some isolated incident which is unrelated to the other machinations of government.
Ask anyone who has ever tried to win a business contract in New Orleans or New York about all the pocket lining and padding that goes on behind the scenes. Or all the compliance with under-the-table union money that must be passed out before they can do anything in "their city." And Chicago has not been a stranger to these happenings. It has long been a place of rampant corruption.
Perhaps Blago's pitfall was that he was trying to cut deals without including other politicians, and they won't stand for that. More likely, it's that he was trying to sell a Senate seat that once belonged to Barack Obama, and in order to keep Obama clean, Blagojevich had to go.
David Axelrod (Obama aide and spokesperson) told the press, before the fecal matter hit the fan, that of course Obama was consulting with Blagojevich on who his replacement would be. That's what a caring guy Obama is! Then, two weeks later, Axelrod goes out and says that never, at any point, did Obama have any discussions with Blagojevich. Obama had an internal, closed door investigation of his staff to see if there was any wrong doing by any of his people. Amazingly, they declared themselves clear!
Barack helped structure Blagojevich's campaign for Governor. David Axelrod, now advisor to Obama, used to be an advisor to Blagojevich. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's new Chief of Staff, used to work for Blagojevich. Tony Rezko was a fundraiser for both men. There are all kinds of connections. And even if there weren't, are we supposed to believe that Obama never spoke to Blagojevich on the minor and completely inconsequential matter of who would inhereit his Senate seat? Right.
My point is not that Obama is up to his neck in this, though he may well be. The point is that Blagojevich is being crucified in the hope that he will absorb all the elements of corruption in the public's mind. Like a sponge, he will soak up all the bad stuff, and everyone else can go along their merry way. I don't buy it, and you shouldn't either.
However, I contend that Blagojevich is not unique, and that he is conveniently being used as a dumping ground by his own party. Perhaps, if they project on to him every conceivable vice and act of corruption, then they will look white as snow in comparison. Or, since he started to sink anyway, why not load him up and send him to the depths, neatly cutting all ties that we should believe never existed in the first place.
What Blagojevich did was despicable, but I think it is a window into a world that remains hidden, rather than some isolated incident which is unrelated to the other machinations of government.
Ask anyone who has ever tried to win a business contract in New Orleans or New York about all the pocket lining and padding that goes on behind the scenes. Or all the compliance with under-the-table union money that must be passed out before they can do anything in "their city." And Chicago has not been a stranger to these happenings. It has long been a place of rampant corruption.
Perhaps Blago's pitfall was that he was trying to cut deals without including other politicians, and they won't stand for that. More likely, it's that he was trying to sell a Senate seat that once belonged to Barack Obama, and in order to keep Obama clean, Blagojevich had to go.
David Axelrod (Obama aide and spokesperson) told the press, before the fecal matter hit the fan, that of course Obama was consulting with Blagojevich on who his replacement would be. That's what a caring guy Obama is! Then, two weeks later, Axelrod goes out and says that never, at any point, did Obama have any discussions with Blagojevich. Obama had an internal, closed door investigation of his staff to see if there was any wrong doing by any of his people. Amazingly, they declared themselves clear!
Barack helped structure Blagojevich's campaign for Governor. David Axelrod, now advisor to Obama, used to be an advisor to Blagojevich. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's new Chief of Staff, used to work for Blagojevich. Tony Rezko was a fundraiser for both men. There are all kinds of connections. And even if there weren't, are we supposed to believe that Obama never spoke to Blagojevich on the minor and completely inconsequential matter of who would inhereit his Senate seat? Right.
My point is not that Obama is up to his neck in this, though he may well be. The point is that Blagojevich is being crucified in the hope that he will absorb all the elements of corruption in the public's mind. Like a sponge, he will soak up all the bad stuff, and everyone else can go along their merry way. I don't buy it, and you shouldn't either.
02 February 2009
Igorant Electorate
I think we are standing on the brink of something terrible, based on the election that just took place. My fear/anger/frustration lies much less with the man that got elected than with the people who voted for him. He was just being himself, while it was the millions who voted that handed us this debacle.
How can I say that, when his Presidency is just a couple weeks old? Because the debacle is the manner in which he was elected (or should I say, selected) and this portends much harm for the United States. Obama genuinely seems like a good father and a stand up guy. I'd love to buy him a beer or shoot some hoops together. But we've got a sitting President who got elected because he talks pretty, has a nice smile, and is a minority.
Deny it all you want, but his election was based solely on emotional decisions and reactions, and this is the central problem. We have an ignorant electorate. So many people my age have no understanding of history, economics, or civics. And I don't claim to be an expert, but I know a great deal more than most of you Obama supporters. Even the ones who are well versed in the above subjects must have willingly suspended understanding and discernment in order to make cast such a vote.
It is the process by which millions of Americans arrived at that decision that irks me, not the recipient of their loyalty, devotion, and adoration. A simple proof is in the reaction of any Obama supporter I have yet questioned. Raise one objection, a single criticism, and you get a truckload of emotion-based, spring loaded reaction. It's like they are so wrapped up in the persona they and the media created that he must be perfect and flawless. Nothing less is tolerated. I can't even have a 10 second discussion of his economic policies and the theory behind them before said supporter says something like, "Why can't we all just come together? Why do you have to be divisive?"
That's scary. No questioning of the Almighty Obama is allowed. Zero. Complete fealty or you will be cast out. What does this mean? It means that the sacred opportunity and freedom to vote for our leaders has been hijacked by emotion and ignorance. Rush Limbaugh says often that most people's historical reference begins with the day they were born. I tend to agree. There doesn't seem to be a sense among young people that voting is anything special, that having this awesome freedom and privilege is anything out of the ordinary in human history.
Sad, really sad. What's worse, the underlying developments that brought us to this point are even farther from their grasp. Even if they understood that America was really a special, unique place, I doubt whether they could say why or how.
If you don't even know how this country was founded, and what the framework of the rest of human history is, how can you even begin to question Obama when he says that gov't is the only way to save us? What reference do you have to question the notion that other private citizens ought to have more of their income confiscated by the gov't and given back to you in the form of some program?
When Obama says we have to make college more affordable, and all he offers is more Federal loans, the people that voted for him cheer without even realizing that this proposal does nothing to the actual price of tuition, it simply puts more control in the hands of the gov't to decide what special subgroup gets money and what doesn't. In fact, they never even give thought to the actual mechanics. All that matters is that Obama said college needs to be cheaper, and their loyalty is won.
Can we see the danger is this blind acceptance of symbolism and personality? Outright lies are not questioned, such as the idea that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. That is factually incorrect. One day it may be the worst, but it's not yet. GDP rose 1.8% for all of 2008. The last thing I'm claiming is that we are on solid footing. I am trying to demonstrate the lack of investigation into anything this man says, and the lack of knowledge behind it.
The sooner we can get off this emotional train and actually think for ourselves, the better. But I am afraid for us after seeing this election take place right before my eyes. It was a very successful marketing campaign. I suppose that's all it takes to win/buy some people's votes these days.
How can I say that, when his Presidency is just a couple weeks old? Because the debacle is the manner in which he was elected (or should I say, selected) and this portends much harm for the United States. Obama genuinely seems like a good father and a stand up guy. I'd love to buy him a beer or shoot some hoops together. But we've got a sitting President who got elected because he talks pretty, has a nice smile, and is a minority.
Deny it all you want, but his election was based solely on emotional decisions and reactions, and this is the central problem. We have an ignorant electorate. So many people my age have no understanding of history, economics, or civics. And I don't claim to be an expert, but I know a great deal more than most of you Obama supporters. Even the ones who are well versed in the above subjects must have willingly suspended understanding and discernment in order to make cast such a vote.
It is the process by which millions of Americans arrived at that decision that irks me, not the recipient of their loyalty, devotion, and adoration. A simple proof is in the reaction of any Obama supporter I have yet questioned. Raise one objection, a single criticism, and you get a truckload of emotion-based, spring loaded reaction. It's like they are so wrapped up in the persona they and the media created that he must be perfect and flawless. Nothing less is tolerated. I can't even have a 10 second discussion of his economic policies and the theory behind them before said supporter says something like, "Why can't we all just come together? Why do you have to be divisive?"
That's scary. No questioning of the Almighty Obama is allowed. Zero. Complete fealty or you will be cast out. What does this mean? It means that the sacred opportunity and freedom to vote for our leaders has been hijacked by emotion and ignorance. Rush Limbaugh says often that most people's historical reference begins with the day they were born. I tend to agree. There doesn't seem to be a sense among young people that voting is anything special, that having this awesome freedom and privilege is anything out of the ordinary in human history.
Sad, really sad. What's worse, the underlying developments that brought us to this point are even farther from their grasp. Even if they understood that America was really a special, unique place, I doubt whether they could say why or how.
If you don't even know how this country was founded, and what the framework of the rest of human history is, how can you even begin to question Obama when he says that gov't is the only way to save us? What reference do you have to question the notion that other private citizens ought to have more of their income confiscated by the gov't and given back to you in the form of some program?
When Obama says we have to make college more affordable, and all he offers is more Federal loans, the people that voted for him cheer without even realizing that this proposal does nothing to the actual price of tuition, it simply puts more control in the hands of the gov't to decide what special subgroup gets money and what doesn't. In fact, they never even give thought to the actual mechanics. All that matters is that Obama said college needs to be cheaper, and their loyalty is won.
Can we see the danger is this blind acceptance of symbolism and personality? Outright lies are not questioned, such as the idea that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. That is factually incorrect. One day it may be the worst, but it's not yet. GDP rose 1.8% for all of 2008. The last thing I'm claiming is that we are on solid footing. I am trying to demonstrate the lack of investigation into anything this man says, and the lack of knowledge behind it.
The sooner we can get off this emotional train and actually think for ourselves, the better. But I am afraid for us after seeing this election take place right before my eyes. It was a very successful marketing campaign. I suppose that's all it takes to win/buy some people's votes these days.
30 January 2009
The Morbidly Obese Stimulus Bill
In case you didn't know, here's a breakdown of just some of the money being spent in this bill, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:
- $1 Billion for Amtrak, the gov't railway system that hasn't turned a profit in over 40 years. Way to reward incompetence.
- $2 Billion for child-care subsidies
- $400 Million for global warming research, and another $2.4 billion for carbon capture demonstrations projects.
-$650 million for digital-TV conversion coupons. I thought this was about jobs, not sitting at home watching Wheel of Fortune.
- $252 Billion is for income-transfer payments. Aka - paying people for not working. That oughta get them pouring out of the woodwork looking for jobs.
This is just a few examples, and your blood should be boiling by now. For those of you who voted for Obama, please tell me how any of this will create jobs? He's up there selling this as the greatest job creating mechanism known to man, our only hope for the future, and it's filled with this junk.
If you think it's going to be all about the New Deal and creating work, think about this:
- $30 billion, or less than 5% of the total, is going to bridges and highway construction.
- Only $90 billion, or around 12 cents of every dollar, can even claim to be stimulating to the economy.
I could go on and on. Wasn't it Obama who told us that the days of pork-barrel spending and typical Washington politics were over? Are you people pleased with your selection? I'm not always a fan of either-or statements, but by virtue of the promises that are coming out of his own mouth, Obama is either a total liar or a complete fool who doesn't even know what's in the bill.
The Smithsonian Museum is going to get $150 million. Is the Smithsonian going to sprout new jobs for all of us? The central point is not whether you think any of these things are good, but whether they will accomplish the stated purpose of the bill - creating jobs.
They will not. There is no way that $30 billion for COBRA will create jobs. So, the question remains, if it's not about jobs, which it clearly isn't, then what is it about? We ought to be asking ourselves that question. Who benefits from all this?
I say it's nothing more than buying votes and trying to get as many people as possible on the gov't payroll. The democrats want all Americans sucking on the collective teat that they will then control. I hope that picture is disgusting. And yes, I'm furious, because I saw this coming. Please, remember this in 2010 when we vote for representatives. You are being sold a bill of crap and being told you should like it. If you enjoy that kind of treatment, then congratulations for getting exactly what you wanted.
- $1 Billion for Amtrak, the gov't railway system that hasn't turned a profit in over 40 years. Way to reward incompetence.
- $2 Billion for child-care subsidies
- $400 Million for global warming research, and another $2.4 billion for carbon capture demonstrations projects.
-$650 million for digital-TV conversion coupons. I thought this was about jobs, not sitting at home watching Wheel of Fortune.
- $252 Billion is for income-transfer payments. Aka - paying people for not working. That oughta get them pouring out of the woodwork looking for jobs.
This is just a few examples, and your blood should be boiling by now. For those of you who voted for Obama, please tell me how any of this will create jobs? He's up there selling this as the greatest job creating mechanism known to man, our only hope for the future, and it's filled with this junk.
If you think it's going to be all about the New Deal and creating work, think about this:
- $30 billion, or less than 5% of the total, is going to bridges and highway construction.
- Only $90 billion, or around 12 cents of every dollar, can even claim to be stimulating to the economy.
I could go on and on. Wasn't it Obama who told us that the days of pork-barrel spending and typical Washington politics were over? Are you people pleased with your selection? I'm not always a fan of either-or statements, but by virtue of the promises that are coming out of his own mouth, Obama is either a total liar or a complete fool who doesn't even know what's in the bill.
The Smithsonian Museum is going to get $150 million. Is the Smithsonian going to sprout new jobs for all of us? The central point is not whether you think any of these things are good, but whether they will accomplish the stated purpose of the bill - creating jobs.
They will not. There is no way that $30 billion for COBRA will create jobs. So, the question remains, if it's not about jobs, which it clearly isn't, then what is it about? We ought to be asking ourselves that question. Who benefits from all this?
I say it's nothing more than buying votes and trying to get as many people as possible on the gov't payroll. The democrats want all Americans sucking on the collective teat that they will then control. I hope that picture is disgusting. And yes, I'm furious, because I saw this coming. Please, remember this in 2010 when we vote for representatives. You are being sold a bill of crap and being told you should like it. If you enjoy that kind of treatment, then congratulations for getting exactly what you wanted.
Affirmative Action: Myth or Reality?
Ohhh...that title is sure to get a reaction. I know that the words used in this post are explosive, and my intention is not to insult or belittle. My purpose is to lift up and give momentum. So stay with me, please.
For purposes of brevity, I won't go into all the details or statistics (though I can provide them if you like) behind this little thesis, but there seems to be a large amount of evidence indicating the futility and even harmfulness of affirmative action programs. The studies I've read have taken place in countries all over the world, so this is not simply an American issue.
Let's start with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regarded as the hallmark of AA and the beginning of a new dawn where we could begin the long, uphill battle toward equality in America. I submit to you that the language in this Act specifically sought to end any type judgements based on race. It's purpose was to stop putting people in categories and designing policies around these abstractions. Instead, those who wrote it wanted each person to be valued for what they were individually.
The problem is not whether or not we agree on my statement. It's the fact that we never even talk about that statement. AA is supposed to be accepted, as if it were something that always existed, or something that cannot be questioned. We never even discuss if it was intended by the people who set these wheels in motion.
AA policies usually start out as temporary measures structured to bring balance, to make amends for some wrongdoing in the past. By definition this is not possible, since we are not dealing with the flesh and blood individuals between whom the actions took place. We are dealing with abstract sections of society.
Boil it down to simplest terms. Can I, with any hope of actually succeeding, bring balance to my marriage by going back and recording every wrong or perceived wrong that my wife has committed against me, and then imposing some action to redress it? How would I ever make progress? Moreover, how would our relationship ever grow? You may sigh if you like, but AA is nothing more than that.
Let's say we're going to account for the inequality of whites as CEO's of companies, and we make a black man a CEO. Ok, but that's just one. If equality is the goal, then we need an exact number of every white CEO that ever was, and then we must have the same number of black CEO's. One won't do. But then, what if a man was half-black, or two-thirds black? Must we then find someone who is one-third black to make a whole one? It would never end.
If the phrase "whole one" is offensive to you, then think about the very idea of making human beings into categories and numbers to be equalized. Acting as if the highest achievement a group can make is some sort of mathematical parity with another group based upon a wholly subjective, external judgement system is ultimately degrading.
And if fairness is the goal, how do we judge that? Should a wealthy black man get admitted to college over the son of a poor, white farmer? Would that be equality? It's not fair to society to lower entrance exams on police academies simply to add numbers of females. That only makes us all less safe, including the female officer. The arrogance and elitism inherent in the assumption of being worthy to make these kinds of judgements is sickening. Besides, investing the power to "equalize" society in a select group automatically bestows upon them a level of power that makes a mockery of the orginal ideal.
A brilliant man once told me that in life, you can only turn on light. Walk into a dark room, and there is no switch to turn off darkness. Light is the only way to dispel the shadows. In other words, unselfishness itself is not a virtue. That is only the absence of greed, in theory anyway. Charity is the virtue being sought, so that it is giving to another person and meeting their needs, not merely abstaining from want that is the action. Clear as mud?
The studies show that AA programs never reach their goal, they can't. But they make great speeches for politicians acting as the pied piper.
For purposes of brevity, I won't go into all the details or statistics (though I can provide them if you like) behind this little thesis, but there seems to be a large amount of evidence indicating the futility and even harmfulness of affirmative action programs. The studies I've read have taken place in countries all over the world, so this is not simply an American issue.
Let's start with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, regarded as the hallmark of AA and the beginning of a new dawn where we could begin the long, uphill battle toward equality in America. I submit to you that the language in this Act specifically sought to end any type judgements based on race. It's purpose was to stop putting people in categories and designing policies around these abstractions. Instead, those who wrote it wanted each person to be valued for what they were individually.
The problem is not whether or not we agree on my statement. It's the fact that we never even talk about that statement. AA is supposed to be accepted, as if it were something that always existed, or something that cannot be questioned. We never even discuss if it was intended by the people who set these wheels in motion.
AA policies usually start out as temporary measures structured to bring balance, to make amends for some wrongdoing in the past. By definition this is not possible, since we are not dealing with the flesh and blood individuals between whom the actions took place. We are dealing with abstract sections of society.
Boil it down to simplest terms. Can I, with any hope of actually succeeding, bring balance to my marriage by going back and recording every wrong or perceived wrong that my wife has committed against me, and then imposing some action to redress it? How would I ever make progress? Moreover, how would our relationship ever grow? You may sigh if you like, but AA is nothing more than that.
Let's say we're going to account for the inequality of whites as CEO's of companies, and we make a black man a CEO. Ok, but that's just one. If equality is the goal, then we need an exact number of every white CEO that ever was, and then we must have the same number of black CEO's. One won't do. But then, what if a man was half-black, or two-thirds black? Must we then find someone who is one-third black to make a whole one? It would never end.
If the phrase "whole one" is offensive to you, then think about the very idea of making human beings into categories and numbers to be equalized. Acting as if the highest achievement a group can make is some sort of mathematical parity with another group based upon a wholly subjective, external judgement system is ultimately degrading.
And if fairness is the goal, how do we judge that? Should a wealthy black man get admitted to college over the son of a poor, white farmer? Would that be equality? It's not fair to society to lower entrance exams on police academies simply to add numbers of females. That only makes us all less safe, including the female officer. The arrogance and elitism inherent in the assumption of being worthy to make these kinds of judgements is sickening. Besides, investing the power to "equalize" society in a select group automatically bestows upon them a level of power that makes a mockery of the orginal ideal.
A brilliant man once told me that in life, you can only turn on light. Walk into a dark room, and there is no switch to turn off darkness. Light is the only way to dispel the shadows. In other words, unselfishness itself is not a virtue. That is only the absence of greed, in theory anyway. Charity is the virtue being sought, so that it is giving to another person and meeting their needs, not merely abstaining from want that is the action. Clear as mud?
The studies show that AA programs never reach their goal, they can't. But they make great speeches for politicians acting as the pied piper.
Price Controls
During the summer of '08, back when gas prices were peaking and Exxon was making evil profits (the same profits that have somehow kept them out of the Bailout Boondoggle, interestingly enough) I heard my boss remark that we needed to go back to the 1970's and institute price controls again. It simply wasn't fair, he said, that they should charge that much for gasoline. Let's examine price controls and how they work, and what the evidence is.
Price controls are attractive at first glance. Ceilings are instituted to help some portion of the population that is seen as victims, who struggle to meet rising prices of a given product. Floors are put in place to make sure that a group of producers (farmers, for example) get a "fair" price for their goods.
Economists are generally opposed to price controls, because they distort the allocation of resources. Placing a ceiling on wheat, for example, below where the market price currently stands, will cause a shortage. At the lower price, producers will not make as much wheat, but demand will increase because wheat got cheaper. The result is a shortage in the market. Remember the gas lines in the 1970's? That was a shortage. Other effects can be even more damaging.
Take the line itself. Gas was served on a first come, first serve basis. Economically, the true cost of gas now included the gas itself and the time spent waiting. I'll wager that if price controls were not present and there were no lines, the true cost would have been lower. The cost will reach equilibrium, and it can't be arbitrarily controlled.
Quality deterioration is a frequent effect. If a landlord is forced to rent units below the market price, he will not idly accept the redution in profit. He will cut costs. Maintenance on the building will go down. During WWII in the U.S., due to price controls, more fat was included in hamburger meat, candy bars got smaller, and so on. The market will react, and it is arrogant to think the gov't can "control" it. Because price controls distort the market, other mechanisms like these will form.
But this was supposed to help the public, right? Take another example. Let's say a clothing manufacturer has a low-priced product with a small profit margin, and a high-priced product with a high profit margin. If the gov't sets up a price ceiling and creates a shortage, the clothing maker is likely to discontinue to low-profit line. The public now only has the choice of the higher priced clothes. This also happened during WWII, and the gov't then tried to force the manufacturers to keep making the cheaper clothing even though gov't policies clearly made it a bad business decision.
Let's step back even further. I'll take an idea from economist Thomas Sowell. Beach front housing is attractive, and expensive. Demand exceeds supply, and the price reflects that. It is therefore "unfair", because beachfront property goes disproportionally to those who can afford it. Let's say the gov't sets all beach front property at $100 per acre. Not one extra foot of sandy beach has been created. There is no more supply of the commodity. The allocation used to be controlled by prices, but now something else must control it. There is not enough space for every person who desires the ocean to live on the beach, so the gov't must decide who gets what space, since they assumed the role of controlling it.
Is this more fair? There will still be a limited number of people who can enjoy the beach, but now it is decided by a select group of people, with absolutely no bias, no tendency for corruption, and infinite knowledge on the matter they now pretend to control. Would you prefer this to letting millions of individual decisions, based upon each person's preferences, judgement, knowledge allocate the resource? Which gives more power to a few, and which to the many? Which allows for more freedom?
When I used to sell Volkswagens, we had a diesel model of the Jetta. It got 45 mpg. During the gas crunch of 2005, demand skyrocketed. We couldn't keep them in stock. We started raising prices, and the public threw a fit. The MSRP was supposed to be a magic ceiling! Why, how could we sleep at night after "gouging" people? Gouging is a term used by people when supply and demand do not go in their favor.
If gas were $.10 per gallon, and they bargained for a discount on a Jetta, that wouldn't be gouging the dealer, would it? On the contrary, they think that since supply far outpaces demand, that the price should drop. It works the same way in reverse.
The problem lies in a misunderstanding of prices. They are not a final reality, they merely convey what lies beneath. Knowing how prices work is crucial to understanding the rest of economics.
Price controls are attractive at first glance. Ceilings are instituted to help some portion of the population that is seen as victims, who struggle to meet rising prices of a given product. Floors are put in place to make sure that a group of producers (farmers, for example) get a "fair" price for their goods.
Economists are generally opposed to price controls, because they distort the allocation of resources. Placing a ceiling on wheat, for example, below where the market price currently stands, will cause a shortage. At the lower price, producers will not make as much wheat, but demand will increase because wheat got cheaper. The result is a shortage in the market. Remember the gas lines in the 1970's? That was a shortage. Other effects can be even more damaging.
Take the line itself. Gas was served on a first come, first serve basis. Economically, the true cost of gas now included the gas itself and the time spent waiting. I'll wager that if price controls were not present and there were no lines, the true cost would have been lower. The cost will reach equilibrium, and it can't be arbitrarily controlled.
Quality deterioration is a frequent effect. If a landlord is forced to rent units below the market price, he will not idly accept the redution in profit. He will cut costs. Maintenance on the building will go down. During WWII in the U.S., due to price controls, more fat was included in hamburger meat, candy bars got smaller, and so on. The market will react, and it is arrogant to think the gov't can "control" it. Because price controls distort the market, other mechanisms like these will form.
But this was supposed to help the public, right? Take another example. Let's say a clothing manufacturer has a low-priced product with a small profit margin, and a high-priced product with a high profit margin. If the gov't sets up a price ceiling and creates a shortage, the clothing maker is likely to discontinue to low-profit line. The public now only has the choice of the higher priced clothes. This also happened during WWII, and the gov't then tried to force the manufacturers to keep making the cheaper clothing even though gov't policies clearly made it a bad business decision.
Let's step back even further. I'll take an idea from economist Thomas Sowell. Beach front housing is attractive, and expensive. Demand exceeds supply, and the price reflects that. It is therefore "unfair", because beachfront property goes disproportionally to those who can afford it. Let's say the gov't sets all beach front property at $100 per acre. Not one extra foot of sandy beach has been created. There is no more supply of the commodity. The allocation used to be controlled by prices, but now something else must control it. There is not enough space for every person who desires the ocean to live on the beach, so the gov't must decide who gets what space, since they assumed the role of controlling it.
Is this more fair? There will still be a limited number of people who can enjoy the beach, but now it is decided by a select group of people, with absolutely no bias, no tendency for corruption, and infinite knowledge on the matter they now pretend to control. Would you prefer this to letting millions of individual decisions, based upon each person's preferences, judgement, knowledge allocate the resource? Which gives more power to a few, and which to the many? Which allows for more freedom?
When I used to sell Volkswagens, we had a diesel model of the Jetta. It got 45 mpg. During the gas crunch of 2005, demand skyrocketed. We couldn't keep them in stock. We started raising prices, and the public threw a fit. The MSRP was supposed to be a magic ceiling! Why, how could we sleep at night after "gouging" people? Gouging is a term used by people when supply and demand do not go in their favor.
If gas were $.10 per gallon, and they bargained for a discount on a Jetta, that wouldn't be gouging the dealer, would it? On the contrary, they think that since supply far outpaces demand, that the price should drop. It works the same way in reverse.
The problem lies in a misunderstanding of prices. They are not a final reality, they merely convey what lies beneath. Knowing how prices work is crucial to understanding the rest of economics.
Watermelon Communism
My Aunt Jeri sent out an interesting email today about Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. He lived through the communist days and is an outspoken proponent of free economic systems. He views the "green" movement as largely a clever disguise for collectivism, efforts to curtail freedom and put more power in the hands of a few. An interesting thought, and one that deserves discussion.
My wife and I just spent a few months living in the People's Republic of California. They were actually considering a law that would let the state have control over your thermostat. So, if they thought you were running the A/C too high in the summertime, and this would cause "excessive" damage to the environment via power consumption, rate of turnover on the unit, and so on, they could turn it down for you. For you. You, a commoner, are too stupid to decide these things yourself.
Almost every strategy by environmentalists to save the earth involves large portions of our decision making capability being handed over to them. Leave aside the idea that global warming and it's cousins are based on junk science and hysteria, and just contemplate the arrogance of a group of self-appointed earth guardians telling the rest of us how to live. Follow the trail, it always ends up with more power and money in the hands of these folks.
Al Gore champions the idea of purchasing "carbon credits." This does nothing to change the size of his house, he doesn't change his habits or consumption by purchasing them, and there is no more surface area on the earth after his purchase than before. But money does flow in a certain direction as a result. The UN and other groups want to fine countries for pollution, and while the idea of punishment as a disincentive for a given act has validity, the tastes like a con to me. Especially when one considers the whole idea of global warming.
Even with little things like fluourescent light bulbs, it's all about appearing to care for the environment than really doing any good. I used to work in environmental recycling and disposal. These new bulbs have mercury powder in them, they ARE NOT good for the environment. If one breaks, you better get some breathing apparatus on before sweeping. If you suffer a cut from the glass, call 911 immediately. The powder getting into your bloodstream is potentially very lethal.
Plus, what do we do with lightbulbs when they burn out? They end up in the trash, and then go to landfills. Do you want mercury seeping into groundwater for the next 100 years? And trust me, it's not cheap to properly dispose of these things. My clients spent a lot of money doing it, because they had to. This type of short-sighted rush to save the planet stuff needs to stop.
But it won't, not as long as the snake oil salesmen behind this continue to profit from it. There was some global warming conference on a pacific island a while back. All the attendees had to fly jets to get there, pumping out obscene amounts of carbon all the way there and back. Gasp! The absurdity of this is astounding.
This is all about control. The more they can control your life and decision making processes, the better for them. Freedom and individual liberty are the most stubborn obstacles to those who envision themselves as rulers of the human race. Make no mistake, they will ride any vehicle to get there. Just look at the pressure exerted on anyone who tries to stand in their way.
My wife and I just spent a few months living in the People's Republic of California. They were actually considering a law that would let the state have control over your thermostat. So, if they thought you were running the A/C too high in the summertime, and this would cause "excessive" damage to the environment via power consumption, rate of turnover on the unit, and so on, they could turn it down for you. For you. You, a commoner, are too stupid to decide these things yourself.
Almost every strategy by environmentalists to save the earth involves large portions of our decision making capability being handed over to them. Leave aside the idea that global warming and it's cousins are based on junk science and hysteria, and just contemplate the arrogance of a group of self-appointed earth guardians telling the rest of us how to live. Follow the trail, it always ends up with more power and money in the hands of these folks.
Al Gore champions the idea of purchasing "carbon credits." This does nothing to change the size of his house, he doesn't change his habits or consumption by purchasing them, and there is no more surface area on the earth after his purchase than before. But money does flow in a certain direction as a result. The UN and other groups want to fine countries for pollution, and while the idea of punishment as a disincentive for a given act has validity, the tastes like a con to me. Especially when one considers the whole idea of global warming.
Even with little things like fluourescent light bulbs, it's all about appearing to care for the environment than really doing any good. I used to work in environmental recycling and disposal. These new bulbs have mercury powder in them, they ARE NOT good for the environment. If one breaks, you better get some breathing apparatus on before sweeping. If you suffer a cut from the glass, call 911 immediately. The powder getting into your bloodstream is potentially very lethal.
Plus, what do we do with lightbulbs when they burn out? They end up in the trash, and then go to landfills. Do you want mercury seeping into groundwater for the next 100 years? And trust me, it's not cheap to properly dispose of these things. My clients spent a lot of money doing it, because they had to. This type of short-sighted rush to save the planet stuff needs to stop.
But it won't, not as long as the snake oil salesmen behind this continue to profit from it. There was some global warming conference on a pacific island a while back. All the attendees had to fly jets to get there, pumping out obscene amounts of carbon all the way there and back. Gasp! The absurdity of this is astounding.
This is all about control. The more they can control your life and decision making processes, the better for them. Freedom and individual liberty are the most stubborn obstacles to those who envision themselves as rulers of the human race. Make no mistake, they will ride any vehicle to get there. Just look at the pressure exerted on anyone who tries to stand in their way.
29 January 2009
Opening Rant
Well, I've been thinking about starting a blog for a long time, and I'm finally so bored at work that it actually happened. A conspicuous title, I know. The central impetus for this project is that my dear wife, Scotti, for all her patience and good will, can only listen to me talk about politics and history for a limited amount of time.
My hope is that this forum of thoughts will stimulate more thoughts in each of you. And vice versa. I'm sure every blog says that, and though I mean it, the flip side is that this one is mine. So, we will talk about what's on my mind. At least, I will talk about what's on my mind and perhaps some other folks will stop in and add some comments to make things more interesting.
I read some survey the other day where 26% of High School seniors thought Abraham Lincoln was the first U.S. President. And I've heard about the clips Jay Leno plays on his show, where they take a camera and ask people on the street simple questions on civics or geography, stuff we should all know, such as naming a state through which the Mississippi flows. The answers are hilarious and frightening.
My first question is, "If these folks, who we can assume are old enough to vote, are lacking in this kind of basic framework of understanding regarding the world around them, how can they have a prayer of actually questioning a line that the media or politicians feed them?"
Let's get to work.
My hope is that this forum of thoughts will stimulate more thoughts in each of you. And vice versa. I'm sure every blog says that, and though I mean it, the flip side is that this one is mine. So, we will talk about what's on my mind. At least, I will talk about what's on my mind and perhaps some other folks will stop in and add some comments to make things more interesting.
I read some survey the other day where 26% of High School seniors thought Abraham Lincoln was the first U.S. President. And I've heard about the clips Jay Leno plays on his show, where they take a camera and ask people on the street simple questions on civics or geography, stuff we should all know, such as naming a state through which the Mississippi flows. The answers are hilarious and frightening.
My first question is, "If these folks, who we can assume are old enough to vote, are lacking in this kind of basic framework of understanding regarding the world around them, how can they have a prayer of actually questioning a line that the media or politicians feed them?"
Let's get to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)