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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)