Philosopher George Santayana once advised, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Unbeknownst to me, I took his advice to heart in my youth. I was in the seventh grade when I developed a great interest in the subject of history. Of course, at that age, I was not aware that the content I found so fascinating had a lesson behind it.
But by the time I graduated from high school, I was reciting the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address in my head, not so much because I found these subjects fascinating, but rather because I understood there was a purpose behind them. They stood for something. They had meaning to me and to the world around me then, and they still do today.
I have come to rely a great deal on history to reinforce my points of view, to give me comfort in uncertain times and to remind me that there is still work to be done.
Anyone who reads my posts can see that I invoke a lot of history in my writing. Consequently, I have been accused by other bloggers of living in the past. Unfortunately, they see only that I write about the past and not that I am trying to apply the past to the present.
The truth is I live very much in the present. I have a great understanding of the issues of the day and I have sound opinions on most of them. I recognize the challenges we are facing today as well as those ahead of us. I see where we have made mistakes and where we continue to make them.
I am much more three-dimensional than my critics give me credit for, because I invoke the past to help me through the present and to prepare me for the future.
But if living in the past means reflecting on what was, then I am guilty as charged, because I do this a lot.
When people today look to the government to solve their problems, I want to tell them, “No, solve your own problems. That’s what our ancestors did.”
To which I am usually rebuked with something like this: “But we live in an entirely different time, with different needs, different issues and in a different culture. Our ancestors did things on their own because they had to in order to survive. We don’t.”
Admittedly, this is a good rebuttal. However, it misses the point entirely. Based on the past, and the history of what has already happened, I am convinced that the human spirit transcends the variables of changing times. Because the Wright Brothers successfully flew the Kitty Hawk when nobody else believed they could; because Henry Ford produced automobiles for the common man when others thought it would put him out of business; because Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, phonograph and motion picture (among many other inventions crucial to the present) when no one said he would; and because President Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union when all seemed lost, I believe that a person facing today’s problems can persevere because of the remarkable buoyancy of the human spirit.
Human strengths and weaknesses tend to be consistently the same regardless of time period, culture, issues or needs. There has been wickedness and righteousness, avarice and charity, foolishness and wisdom, ruthlessness and kindness, corruption and honesty, evil and good, defeat and victory, and tragedy and triumph existing in one form or another throughout the history of human civilizations. These traits don’t change just because the times do.
All that changes are our perceptions and points of view.
And this is precisely why I am so passionate about history. I can see where the good and bad of past human experiences can be applied to the present and in the future. Because of this, I believe we can overcome our personal, individual obstacles just as those before us did. We can rectify our mistakes and move on. We can do what has been done before. We can duplicate the successes and failures of the past. And we can achieve great things today just as great things were achieved yesterday.
I don’t want to end up like my critics, who would dismiss history as only a subject of study, and do not regard it as the object lesson that it is. History is not something merely to read about. It is a skill and a discipline designed to be absorbed because of the lessons within that can be applied to the here and now.
Those who see history as a marker having been passed tend to make decisions based on their perceptions. They fail to see history as a guide for either how to or how not to do something. Instead, they act on perception rather than prescription. Not too much unlike winging a recipe instead of following it to the letter; or estimating the amount of medicine needed as opposed to following the prescription or directions. Winging it might seem like more fun, but more mistakes are bound to be made this way. There’s a reason why prescriptions and directions exist; because of mistakes that were made in the past.
Without more than a little regard for history one is bound to make more mistakes, because precedents would otherwise be ignored. If we don’t learn from our mistakes, then we are liable to repeat them. That is the essence of Santayana’s sage advice and the reason why I try to follow it so religiously.
But just because I use history as a benchmark does not mean I live in the past. There is a big difference between living in the past and being the past. The latter requires that we live in the present and be acutely aware of what’s going on around us. Being the past also means regarding history enough to learn the lessons that are there to teach us.
Being the past means that I try to learn from history, so I can avoid making the same mistakes twice and steer clear of those mistakes that others before me made. Being the past means recognizing that what had once been done before can be done again; that there are parallels to human behavior throughout history, regardless of the changes of time; and that what we do or don’t do today because of what we learn from history can have a profound impact on our future.
Being the past means being a whole, three-dimensional person who understands the relationship between past, present and future. It is unhealthy—and unwise—to be too much one way or another.
Thanks to history and my reverence for it, I have a compass to guide me through life’s murky quagmire. It won’t keep me from making mistakes or poor decisions, but it is there for me to use any time and any where, regardless of whether or not I have the wisdom to use it.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Czars belong in Russia, not Washington
Now that Congress appears well on its way toward approving a $15 billion bailout of the Big Three American automakers—GM, Ford and Chrysler—industry leaders are raising concerns about the amount of government oversight that the legislature is proposing.
A little late, aren’t we?
I mean, shouldn’t the Big Three have thought about this before begging on their hands and knees for cash?
What did they expect? That the federal government would simply give them the money without strings attached? Come on, guys, even the financial institutions bailed out earlier weren’t given the money unconditionally. There will be a sizable amount of oversight within the financial industry, too, as a result of Uncle Sam investing himself into the business.
Such will also be the case with the automobile industry. If Uncle is going to give them money, he is going to invest it and not simply loan it or give it away to charity. The investment is that the government will make more money on the backs of the industries and companies it agrees to bail out because it will retain its leverage over them.
Don’t think for a minute that Congress is going to give the financial power back to those entities that have lost theirs once the crisis is over. No. Expect Uncle Sam to keep his hands wherever he is allowed to grab.
Since the Big Three have seen fit to ultimately sell themselves to the government, then they can expect to remain owned by the government indefinitely. This is simply because there is more money to be gained from ownership and profit-sharing than taxation.
The oversight being considered by Congress will likely include a committee headed by what some are calling a “Car Czar.”
Officially, he or she will be the eyes and ears of Congress in the boardrooms of the Big Three. This “Car Czar” shall be the person that the American auto industry reports to under the terms of its loan agreement with Uncle Sam. Kind of like the enforcer to a bookie or a loan shark.
In reality, the “Car Czar” is going to be yet another in a long line of useless career bureaucrats whose jobs are legitimized and justified by other career bureaucrats.
Frankly, oversight is really just a sugar-coated and water-downed term for “control.” Why else would the head of this oversight be called a “czar” if the purpose was not control?
In Russian, the term “tsar” means Caesar, which is the namesake of ancient Rome’s first Dictator-For-Life. And the Roman Caesars that followed in succession did not maintain their power with oversight. They did it with control. And that is precisely what the U.S. government has in mind for the auto, financial and any other industries that it ends up bailing out of the recession.
Make no mistake about it. We’ve seen the last of free-enterprise capitalism in the financial and automobile industries. These will now become permanent wards of the state, so to speak, forced to produce for the good of the state instead of choosing to produce for the good of the consumer.
All I am waiting for now is a line in front of the Capitol—a line of other industries, corporations, companies, businesses, entities and even local and state governments all waiting with their hands out, trying to get a piece of the bailout pie.
There is just one question on my mind regarding this: How is the United States government going to pay for everyone that has their hands out?
Taxpayer and sovereignty beware.
A little late, aren’t we?
I mean, shouldn’t the Big Three have thought about this before begging on their hands and knees for cash?
What did they expect? That the federal government would simply give them the money without strings attached? Come on, guys, even the financial institutions bailed out earlier weren’t given the money unconditionally. There will be a sizable amount of oversight within the financial industry, too, as a result of Uncle Sam investing himself into the business.
Such will also be the case with the automobile industry. If Uncle is going to give them money, he is going to invest it and not simply loan it or give it away to charity. The investment is that the government will make more money on the backs of the industries and companies it agrees to bail out because it will retain its leverage over them.
Don’t think for a minute that Congress is going to give the financial power back to those entities that have lost theirs once the crisis is over. No. Expect Uncle Sam to keep his hands wherever he is allowed to grab.
Since the Big Three have seen fit to ultimately sell themselves to the government, then they can expect to remain owned by the government indefinitely. This is simply because there is more money to be gained from ownership and profit-sharing than taxation.
The oversight being considered by Congress will likely include a committee headed by what some are calling a “Car Czar.”
Officially, he or she will be the eyes and ears of Congress in the boardrooms of the Big Three. This “Car Czar” shall be the person that the American auto industry reports to under the terms of its loan agreement with Uncle Sam. Kind of like the enforcer to a bookie or a loan shark.
In reality, the “Car Czar” is going to be yet another in a long line of useless career bureaucrats whose jobs are legitimized and justified by other career bureaucrats.
Frankly, oversight is really just a sugar-coated and water-downed term for “control.” Why else would the head of this oversight be called a “czar” if the purpose was not control?
In Russian, the term “tsar” means Caesar, which is the namesake of ancient Rome’s first Dictator-For-Life. And the Roman Caesars that followed in succession did not maintain their power with oversight. They did it with control. And that is precisely what the U.S. government has in mind for the auto, financial and any other industries that it ends up bailing out of the recession.
Make no mistake about it. We’ve seen the last of free-enterprise capitalism in the financial and automobile industries. These will now become permanent wards of the state, so to speak, forced to produce for the good of the state instead of choosing to produce for the good of the consumer.
All I am waiting for now is a line in front of the Capitol—a line of other industries, corporations, companies, businesses, entities and even local and state governments all waiting with their hands out, trying to get a piece of the bailout pie.
There is just one question on my mind regarding this: How is the United States government going to pay for everyone that has their hands out?
Taxpayer and sovereignty beware.
The Juice ain’t loose any more
That the number thirteen is unlucky may be just a superstition to many, but to O.J. Simpson it is reality. Precisely thirteen years after the Hall of Fame professional football player and celebrity was acquitted for the 1994 murders of his ex-wife Nicole Browne Simpson and her lover, Ronald Goldman, he was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to prison. The event that precipitated his adjudication happened to occur also on September 13, 2007. If The Juice doesn’t loathe the number thirteen now, he probably will in nine years when he’s eligible for parole. The whole thing might become eerily ironic if his parole is denied until after his thirteenth year in the cooler.
There are a few ways to look at this irony: either as a coincidence, bad karma, poetic justice or a combination of the three. I think most people are as convinced that Simpson’s conviction and sentence is justice being served as they are of his guilt in the 1994 double murder case.
And what reasonable person would argue with that?
This is a man who beat his ex-wife on multiple occasions, including at least once to a bloody pulp. He also fled from authorities before he could be arrested and booked for the murders. Heck, the blood left all over the crime scene, in and around Simpson’s now-infamous white Ford Bronco, and even at his own house should have been more than enough DNA evidence to implicate him beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, without going over the particulars of the trial and the case as has already been done ad nauseum, we know that legal technicalities and threats of racial backlash ultimately acquitted The Juice and handed him his freedom.
Unfortunately, ineptness within the Los Angeles Police Department overshadowed Simpson’s evident guilt and turned what ought to have been a slam-dunk case of a man with a violent streak finally snapping into a courtroom farce complete with shenanigans that would have embarrassed even the Keystone Cops.
The tragedy in the aftermath of the Simpson acquittal was that the lives of Nicole Browne Simpson and Ronald Goldman became vested in controversy long after their violent deaths instead of being allowed to rest in peace, because the work of justice remained unfinished.
Until now, that is.
Justice has caught up with their killer. The only tragedy now is that O.J. Simpson isn’t going to serve the time he really deserves, in my opinion.
Had this been any other ordinary person committing armed robbery, the sentence would probably have been 25 years to life in prison. But this is O.J. Simpson we are talking about; not Joe Six Pack. He’s being let off rather easy in my opinion because of who and what he is. O.J. Simpson is a black man, whose race has been a factor in far too many injustices in this country and it’s high time, by gosh, to tip the balance in the other direction for a change, right?
Such was the motivation behind his murder acquittal. Let’s be honest about it. There were a lot of minority voices crying foul and inciting others to protest what they perceived to be just another racist lynching. As such, certain voices threatened to duplicate the 1992 race riots that literally set Los Angeles on fire. Because of race, and the threat of revenge, an evident killer was set free.
Frankly, I think this lingered on the minds of the jurists and the judge who handed down the conviction and passed sentence, respectively. They wanted to avoid touching off a powder keg, so they gave O.J. another break.
The other part of this is simply that The Juice is a celebrity, and our culture has been conditioned to put such a person on a pedestal—even with regard to crimes and punishment. We don’t want to be too harsh on him now and appear as though we were being vindictive in our envy, do we?
The bottom line is that O.J. Simpson beat the system once, but he pressed his luck once too many. And this time, as luck would have it, his had run out—with the number thirteen no less. As the old adage goes, “Fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.”
In the thirteen years since his murder acquittal, The Juice obviously hasn’t learned much about second chances, remorse and how to put them to good use. I doubt in his arrogance and narcissism that he has ever cared to. The violence coursing through his veins on the night of June 12, 1994 returned on September 13, 2007. Instead of a knife, he pulled a gun. The men who were robbed ought to thank their lucky stars that they were not added to Simpson’s body count.
But one thing that concerns me is how in the heck O.J. will be able to search for his ex-wife’s killer while sitting in a prison cell? His pursuit of clues on golf courses around the country proved to be an abject failure. I mean, come on, you don’t really think he was looking for his ball in the tall grass, do you?
If O.J. Simpson is really serious about searching tirelessly for his ex-wife’s killer as he proclaimed shortly after his acquittal, then why doesn’t he just procure a mirror from the prison commissary and look into it.
Not only will his search end, but it will also be just beginning.
There are a few ways to look at this irony: either as a coincidence, bad karma, poetic justice or a combination of the three. I think most people are as convinced that Simpson’s conviction and sentence is justice being served as they are of his guilt in the 1994 double murder case.
And what reasonable person would argue with that?
This is a man who beat his ex-wife on multiple occasions, including at least once to a bloody pulp. He also fled from authorities before he could be arrested and booked for the murders. Heck, the blood left all over the crime scene, in and around Simpson’s now-infamous white Ford Bronco, and even at his own house should have been more than enough DNA evidence to implicate him beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, without going over the particulars of the trial and the case as has already been done ad nauseum, we know that legal technicalities and threats of racial backlash ultimately acquitted The Juice and handed him his freedom.
Unfortunately, ineptness within the Los Angeles Police Department overshadowed Simpson’s evident guilt and turned what ought to have been a slam-dunk case of a man with a violent streak finally snapping into a courtroom farce complete with shenanigans that would have embarrassed even the Keystone Cops.
The tragedy in the aftermath of the Simpson acquittal was that the lives of Nicole Browne Simpson and Ronald Goldman became vested in controversy long after their violent deaths instead of being allowed to rest in peace, because the work of justice remained unfinished.
Until now, that is.
Justice has caught up with their killer. The only tragedy now is that O.J. Simpson isn’t going to serve the time he really deserves, in my opinion.
Had this been any other ordinary person committing armed robbery, the sentence would probably have been 25 years to life in prison. But this is O.J. Simpson we are talking about; not Joe Six Pack. He’s being let off rather easy in my opinion because of who and what he is. O.J. Simpson is a black man, whose race has been a factor in far too many injustices in this country and it’s high time, by gosh, to tip the balance in the other direction for a change, right?
Such was the motivation behind his murder acquittal. Let’s be honest about it. There were a lot of minority voices crying foul and inciting others to protest what they perceived to be just another racist lynching. As such, certain voices threatened to duplicate the 1992 race riots that literally set Los Angeles on fire. Because of race, and the threat of revenge, an evident killer was set free.
Frankly, I think this lingered on the minds of the jurists and the judge who handed down the conviction and passed sentence, respectively. They wanted to avoid touching off a powder keg, so they gave O.J. another break.
The other part of this is simply that The Juice is a celebrity, and our culture has been conditioned to put such a person on a pedestal—even with regard to crimes and punishment. We don’t want to be too harsh on him now and appear as though we were being vindictive in our envy, do we?
The bottom line is that O.J. Simpson beat the system once, but he pressed his luck once too many. And this time, as luck would have it, his had run out—with the number thirteen no less. As the old adage goes, “Fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you.”
In the thirteen years since his murder acquittal, The Juice obviously hasn’t learned much about second chances, remorse and how to put them to good use. I doubt in his arrogance and narcissism that he has ever cared to. The violence coursing through his veins on the night of June 12, 1994 returned on September 13, 2007. Instead of a knife, he pulled a gun. The men who were robbed ought to thank their lucky stars that they were not added to Simpson’s body count.
But one thing that concerns me is how in the heck O.J. will be able to search for his ex-wife’s killer while sitting in a prison cell? His pursuit of clues on golf courses around the country proved to be an abject failure. I mean, come on, you don’t really think he was looking for his ball in the tall grass, do you?
If O.J. Simpson is really serious about searching tirelessly for his ex-wife’s killer as he proclaimed shortly after his acquittal, then why doesn’t he just procure a mirror from the prison commissary and look into it.
Not only will his search end, but it will also be just beginning.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Too little, too late
Many of us who opposed Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States did so because we did not want to turn America into a socialist country. Yours truly included.
Unfortunately, our grievances with socialism have been too little, too late. The United States of America has gradually gone all but socialist in its infrastructure and operations since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal came into being 75 years ago.
Today America is a republican democracy in name and presentation only. The dynamics and mechanics of the federal government clearly function as socialism.
Washington, D.C., runs everything that the individual states are capable of and ought to be handling independently. At least that’s how our republican democracy used to and is supposed to work.
Just look at the infrastructure of the federal government today. It dictates policy on every imaginable industry and element of society: From education to health care, insurance to banking, housing to human services, food safety to agriculture, from labor to the environment, consumer protection, and so on. All of these used to be managed by the states. The federal government merely served as the intermediary in disputes.
Not any more.
Now the United States government dictates and enforces everything. And the states, once a collection of independent governments under the same constitutional law of the land, have become subjects to one centralized power. All fifty of them, in fact, stand in line with their hands out, waiting for their stipends—also known as subsidies. Not unlike the lines of people in Moscow waiting to get their daily rations under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.
But this is only half of the story.
The U.S. government has taken another giant step backward toward official socialism by bailing out the financial industry. Our esteemed leaders have said that such action was necessary to avoid collapse and catastrophe. But the consequence has been that now other industries are lining up with their hands out. Heck, even individual states, counties and municipalities have resorted to begging from Uncle Sam to give them money.
If this trend continues, then the federal government will have invested itself into every major American industry and company therein. It will effectively become the majority stakeholder and have the right to make decisions autonomously.
Can you see just how close we are coming to being state-run and state-owned? Dangerously close.
And frankly, the longer this recession lasts, the closer we will continue to get. It may only be a matter of time before the federal government is the end all, be all of American business and industry. If or when that day comes, then we might as well hold a funeral service for free market capitalism and republican democracy and bury them permanently, because there will be no turning back at that point. Once the state has control of the money it will also have all the power.
One thing that is as sure as death and taxes is that once Uncle Sam gets his sticky fingers into something, he never, ever lets go. In fact, he keeps grabbing for more. FDR’s New Deal is a perfect example. President Roosevelt intended his reforms to be only temporary, short-term solutions meant to address immediate problems. Once the economy stabilized and the Depression declared over, then the New Deal programs were supposed to go away and America would return back to normal.
But a great many of the programs established by the New Deal are still in existence today. In fact, they have grown enormously bigger since their inception.
So, I would not expect the fed to simply relinquish control over the industries it bails out when the crisis has passed. Rather, I expect this control to continue and, in fact, metastasize like a cancer.
All of us who have been so vocal against socialism during this last presidential campaign ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We had plenty of chances in the last 75 years to put an end to this procession toward state collectivism. But instead we chose to sit on our thumbs and complain about it.
Consequently, the gradual shift to the left and toward socialism has picked up so much steam that nothing short of an outright revolution can stop it. Now I fear we may be too late to do anything short of declaring open rebellion to halt the final advance.
We know what the Civil War did to this country. God help us if we have given ourselves no other alternative.
Unfortunately, our grievances with socialism have been too little, too late. The United States of America has gradually gone all but socialist in its infrastructure and operations since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal came into being 75 years ago.
Today America is a republican democracy in name and presentation only. The dynamics and mechanics of the federal government clearly function as socialism.
Washington, D.C., runs everything that the individual states are capable of and ought to be handling independently. At least that’s how our republican democracy used to and is supposed to work.
Just look at the infrastructure of the federal government today. It dictates policy on every imaginable industry and element of society: From education to health care, insurance to banking, housing to human services, food safety to agriculture, from labor to the environment, consumer protection, and so on. All of these used to be managed by the states. The federal government merely served as the intermediary in disputes.
Not any more.
Now the United States government dictates and enforces everything. And the states, once a collection of independent governments under the same constitutional law of the land, have become subjects to one centralized power. All fifty of them, in fact, stand in line with their hands out, waiting for their stipends—also known as subsidies. Not unlike the lines of people in Moscow waiting to get their daily rations under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.
But this is only half of the story.
The U.S. government has taken another giant step backward toward official socialism by bailing out the financial industry. Our esteemed leaders have said that such action was necessary to avoid collapse and catastrophe. But the consequence has been that now other industries are lining up with their hands out. Heck, even individual states, counties and municipalities have resorted to begging from Uncle Sam to give them money.
If this trend continues, then the federal government will have invested itself into every major American industry and company therein. It will effectively become the majority stakeholder and have the right to make decisions autonomously.
Can you see just how close we are coming to being state-run and state-owned? Dangerously close.
And frankly, the longer this recession lasts, the closer we will continue to get. It may only be a matter of time before the federal government is the end all, be all of American business and industry. If or when that day comes, then we might as well hold a funeral service for free market capitalism and republican democracy and bury them permanently, because there will be no turning back at that point. Once the state has control of the money it will also have all the power.
One thing that is as sure as death and taxes is that once Uncle Sam gets his sticky fingers into something, he never, ever lets go. In fact, he keeps grabbing for more. FDR’s New Deal is a perfect example. President Roosevelt intended his reforms to be only temporary, short-term solutions meant to address immediate problems. Once the economy stabilized and the Depression declared over, then the New Deal programs were supposed to go away and America would return back to normal.
But a great many of the programs established by the New Deal are still in existence today. In fact, they have grown enormously bigger since their inception.
So, I would not expect the fed to simply relinquish control over the industries it bails out when the crisis has passed. Rather, I expect this control to continue and, in fact, metastasize like a cancer.
All of us who have been so vocal against socialism during this last presidential campaign ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We had plenty of chances in the last 75 years to put an end to this procession toward state collectivism. But instead we chose to sit on our thumbs and complain about it.
Consequently, the gradual shift to the left and toward socialism has picked up so much steam that nothing short of an outright revolution can stop it. Now I fear we may be too late to do anything short of declaring open rebellion to halt the final advance.
We know what the Civil War did to this country. God help us if we have given ourselves no other alternative.
What's wrong with socialism?
Such is the question I’ve heard from many who have jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon. But rather than ponder the question themselves, they ask it assuming that socialism is really not that bad.
If you are one of these people that accept socialism at face value simply because you follow Obama, then you have my deepest sympathies. I would encourage you to consider the question yourself and decide whether or not it is in America's best interests. I advise against taking any one else's word on it.
Now, what is so bad about socialism? That’s like asking, “What’s wrong with stealing?”
Dyed-in-the-wool leftists would disagree with me on this point, but the fundamental concept of collectivism is the same as stealing. You have something that somebody else wants, but doesn’t have, so they take from you—without your permission—in order to get it. Likewise, you may have more money than somebody else, who wants more, so he turns to the government to get it for him. The government, in turn, dips into your pocket—without your permission—to give more money to the guy who has less than you. As a result, you and the other guy now have the same amount of money and either is better or worse off than the other. This is all done in the name of social justice, fairness, and equity.
The socialist creed, after all, is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What this means is that the government takes as much as you are able to produce and distributes amongst everyone else to meet their needs.
In the animal world, socialism can be likened to the lives of ants and the bees, whose work is done for the collective good. But they have no individuality, identity and no uniqueness about them. Their ingenuity is borne not out of inventiveness, but rather out of conformity, assignment and the repetitive toiling therewith. Their strength lay in the unison of their work. As long as each does its job, the unit, the colony, the hive is safe and secure.
By contrast, consider the coyote, a scavenger and a rogue, but one of the most adaptable creatures on earth. A true non-conformist and pure opportunist, the coyote may choose to run with the pack or go into business for himself the way an entrepreneur does. While he lacks the safety and security enjoyed by the ants and the bees, he has freedom to choose his role in life: Either as a member of the pack or as a sole proprietor.
Unlike the toiling ants and bees, the coyote is able to make his own way, seek out opportunity, pursue it and reap its rewards.
Life may be feast or famine for him, but at least he has his freedom.
I believe socialism is bad for America because it is the antithesis of freedom, liberty and opportunity, the foundations upon which our nation was established and subsequently flourished. Collectivism runs counter to concepts of “life, liberty and [especially] the pursuit of happiness,” which form the basis for the fundamental rights of man.
How can we pursue our individual happiness if the government takes away the means with which to launch our endeavors? How can we be truly free if the government takes care of our every need? And how can a person really be alive if they are unable to live life on their own terms?
The answer is not socialism, which, simplified, means public-owned and public-run. The term public, of course, refers to government bureaucracy and not the people.
Not as extreme or militant as communism, socialism still awards ultimate, final authority to the government over all matters public and private.
Under a true socialist system, all organizations are run by the government in some way or another; either owned outright and managed directly or invested and maintained through bureaucratic supervision.
This means that the state is the majority stockholder on the Board of Directors of every business, industry, company or corporation, all charities, institutions, leagues, coalitions and other non-profit organizations that generate money, funds, and revenue. The state then collects this revenue and decides how best to distribute it throughout its infrastructure.
The growth, maintenance, persistence and sustainability of any organization within a socialist system is at the sole discretion of the government; meaning that the freedom to invest and expand is prohibited without government consent.
With regard to individuals, a socialist government is involved in everybody’s lives from womb to tomb. From our child care to elder care, from early education to career preparation, from what you earn to what you are allowed to keep, from investments to retirement, from health care to the basic essentials of human need—food, clothing, shelter—the government is there as your provider. You don’t have to worry about the uncertainty and risk that comes with freedom and opportunity, because your safety and security is more important. Ensuring that you have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof over your head to sleep under takes priority over the yearnings of the human spirit, the human heart. That is the socialist way.
But it is not the American way.
The United States of America did not grow into the wealthiest, most prosperous and arguably the most successful nation in the history of the world because of socialism. It did so because of the partnership forged between republican democracy and free market capitalism.
These two philosophies go together like meat and potatoes.
Both promote individual freedom because they respect the individual by affording him the liberty to govern and support himself, make his own way, to create and build his own legacy, and invest in others.
All of the good that America has done in the world, all of the charity that she has spread to other nations during her relatively young existence has happened because of freedom, liberty and opportunity.
You can't have any of these virtues under the thumb of government ownership and control, because authoritarian rule naturally shuts them out.
How else could an ordinary person go from a miserable failure to an incomparable success without the opportunity to take the risks that liberty and freedom offer? Sure, there’s uncertainty, even danger. But there’s also a light at the end of the tunnel.
The greatest gifts of American liberty are the freedom to pursue one's dreams, to build the life one could have only before imagined, and to be able to regulate oneself rather than rely on government to do it for him.
It is as much about having the opportunity to fail as it is to succeed, to flounder or flourish instead of being dependent upon a government that strives to ensure the security of mediocre subsistence.
Do you know what the difference between a foreign peasant and a poor American is? Opportunity.
In America, the poor don't have to stay poor. If they choose, they can pull themselves out of poverty simply by pursuing a better life. And they can do this because of opportunity; not government. The poor in other countries don't have opportunities to pursue a higher quality of life for themselves and their families. They are forced instead to accept their lots in life, to toil and spin in poverty from cradle to grave. Meanwhile, those in power, those in government rule over them in comparative luxury.
And therein lay the greatest contradiction, the gravest injustice of socialism, or any authoritarian system of government for that matter. While collectivism promotes fairness, sameness and social justice, it also summarily suppresses the masses from reaching the same level of affluence enjoyed by those in power.
Sound familiar?
We fought a revolution against a hierarchal system, because it rewarded people based on their position in government and society instead of on merit. And it punished those who were not so fortunate as to be a member of the nobility.
By comparison, the government leaders of a socialist society are the nobility. Anyone desiring to join their ranks is met by a very subjective process, with the qualifications of membership resting solely at the discretion of those seated firmly in power.
The likelihood of an ordinary working person being accepted into such an exclusive echelon would be about the same as a pauper becoming a prince.
Not a chance.
At least under free market capitalism and a republican democracy we have the chance because we have opportunity and liberty, both of which judge a man by what he does and not by who he is. The odds of an average person becoming a millionaire are probably comparable to those of a pauper becoming a prince…with one notable exception: Opportunity.
Here, at least, in America we have the opportunity to build castles and kingdoms out of nothing, to cultivate and produce abundance from impoverished soil, to become somebody who once was nobody.
If we give up our current political and economic systems in favor of socialism, then we will forfeit our freedom. It’s as simple as that.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security.”
If after all this you still don’t see anything wrong with socialism, then you may indeed deserve what you get.
If you are one of these people that accept socialism at face value simply because you follow Obama, then you have my deepest sympathies. I would encourage you to consider the question yourself and decide whether or not it is in America's best interests. I advise against taking any one else's word on it.
Now, what is so bad about socialism? That’s like asking, “What’s wrong with stealing?”
Dyed-in-the-wool leftists would disagree with me on this point, but the fundamental concept of collectivism is the same as stealing. You have something that somebody else wants, but doesn’t have, so they take from you—without your permission—in order to get it. Likewise, you may have more money than somebody else, who wants more, so he turns to the government to get it for him. The government, in turn, dips into your pocket—without your permission—to give more money to the guy who has less than you. As a result, you and the other guy now have the same amount of money and either is better or worse off than the other. This is all done in the name of social justice, fairness, and equity.
The socialist creed, after all, is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” What this means is that the government takes as much as you are able to produce and distributes amongst everyone else to meet their needs.
In the animal world, socialism can be likened to the lives of ants and the bees, whose work is done for the collective good. But they have no individuality, identity and no uniqueness about them. Their ingenuity is borne not out of inventiveness, but rather out of conformity, assignment and the repetitive toiling therewith. Their strength lay in the unison of their work. As long as each does its job, the unit, the colony, the hive is safe and secure.
By contrast, consider the coyote, a scavenger and a rogue, but one of the most adaptable creatures on earth. A true non-conformist and pure opportunist, the coyote may choose to run with the pack or go into business for himself the way an entrepreneur does. While he lacks the safety and security enjoyed by the ants and the bees, he has freedom to choose his role in life: Either as a member of the pack or as a sole proprietor.
Unlike the toiling ants and bees, the coyote is able to make his own way, seek out opportunity, pursue it and reap its rewards.
Life may be feast or famine for him, but at least he has his freedom.
I believe socialism is bad for America because it is the antithesis of freedom, liberty and opportunity, the foundations upon which our nation was established and subsequently flourished. Collectivism runs counter to concepts of “life, liberty and [especially] the pursuit of happiness,” which form the basis for the fundamental rights of man.
How can we pursue our individual happiness if the government takes away the means with which to launch our endeavors? How can we be truly free if the government takes care of our every need? And how can a person really be alive if they are unable to live life on their own terms?
The answer is not socialism, which, simplified, means public-owned and public-run. The term public, of course, refers to government bureaucracy and not the people.
Not as extreme or militant as communism, socialism still awards ultimate, final authority to the government over all matters public and private.
Under a true socialist system, all organizations are run by the government in some way or another; either owned outright and managed directly or invested and maintained through bureaucratic supervision.
This means that the state is the majority stockholder on the Board of Directors of every business, industry, company or corporation, all charities, institutions, leagues, coalitions and other non-profit organizations that generate money, funds, and revenue. The state then collects this revenue and decides how best to distribute it throughout its infrastructure.
The growth, maintenance, persistence and sustainability of any organization within a socialist system is at the sole discretion of the government; meaning that the freedom to invest and expand is prohibited without government consent.
With regard to individuals, a socialist government is involved in everybody’s lives from womb to tomb. From our child care to elder care, from early education to career preparation, from what you earn to what you are allowed to keep, from investments to retirement, from health care to the basic essentials of human need—food, clothing, shelter—the government is there as your provider. You don’t have to worry about the uncertainty and risk that comes with freedom and opportunity, because your safety and security is more important. Ensuring that you have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof over your head to sleep under takes priority over the yearnings of the human spirit, the human heart. That is the socialist way.
But it is not the American way.
The United States of America did not grow into the wealthiest, most prosperous and arguably the most successful nation in the history of the world because of socialism. It did so because of the partnership forged between republican democracy and free market capitalism.
These two philosophies go together like meat and potatoes.
Both promote individual freedom because they respect the individual by affording him the liberty to govern and support himself, make his own way, to create and build his own legacy, and invest in others.
All of the good that America has done in the world, all of the charity that she has spread to other nations during her relatively young existence has happened because of freedom, liberty and opportunity.
You can't have any of these virtues under the thumb of government ownership and control, because authoritarian rule naturally shuts them out.
How else could an ordinary person go from a miserable failure to an incomparable success without the opportunity to take the risks that liberty and freedom offer? Sure, there’s uncertainty, even danger. But there’s also a light at the end of the tunnel.
The greatest gifts of American liberty are the freedom to pursue one's dreams, to build the life one could have only before imagined, and to be able to regulate oneself rather than rely on government to do it for him.
It is as much about having the opportunity to fail as it is to succeed, to flounder or flourish instead of being dependent upon a government that strives to ensure the security of mediocre subsistence.
Do you know what the difference between a foreign peasant and a poor American is? Opportunity.
In America, the poor don't have to stay poor. If they choose, they can pull themselves out of poverty simply by pursuing a better life. And they can do this because of opportunity; not government. The poor in other countries don't have opportunities to pursue a higher quality of life for themselves and their families. They are forced instead to accept their lots in life, to toil and spin in poverty from cradle to grave. Meanwhile, those in power, those in government rule over them in comparative luxury.
And therein lay the greatest contradiction, the gravest injustice of socialism, or any authoritarian system of government for that matter. While collectivism promotes fairness, sameness and social justice, it also summarily suppresses the masses from reaching the same level of affluence enjoyed by those in power.
Sound familiar?
We fought a revolution against a hierarchal system, because it rewarded people based on their position in government and society instead of on merit. And it punished those who were not so fortunate as to be a member of the nobility.
By comparison, the government leaders of a socialist society are the nobility. Anyone desiring to join their ranks is met by a very subjective process, with the qualifications of membership resting solely at the discretion of those seated firmly in power.
The likelihood of an ordinary working person being accepted into such an exclusive echelon would be about the same as a pauper becoming a prince.
Not a chance.
At least under free market capitalism and a republican democracy we have the chance because we have opportunity and liberty, both of which judge a man by what he does and not by who he is. The odds of an average person becoming a millionaire are probably comparable to those of a pauper becoming a prince…with one notable exception: Opportunity.
Here, at least, in America we have the opportunity to build castles and kingdoms out of nothing, to cultivate and produce abundance from impoverished soil, to become somebody who once was nobody.
If we give up our current political and economic systems in favor of socialism, then we will forfeit our freedom. It’s as simple as that.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither liberty nor security.”
If after all this you still don’t see anything wrong with socialism, then you may indeed deserve what you get.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
You haven’t forgotten, have you?
For some of us, the memory of Sept. 11, 2001 is becoming more distant with each passing year, each passing day. Soon, it may well be regarded as little more than a page in history that can be safely turned.
Sadly, fewer people today care to be reminded of the horrors experienced on that pleasant, otherwise ordinary late summer morning. Due to the natural courses of time, generations and mortality, there were more people six years ago who remembered the terrorist attacks than there were five years ago, four years ago, three, two, one and so forth until, decades later, there will be no one left to personally relate what was seen on the televisions and heard over the radio waves that day, because we the living today will eventually die and cease to exist. And unless we pause to remember those who perished on 9/11/01 at least once a year, the memory of what happened and what was at stake will fade much sooner than you or I will.
A cold, indifferent news media doesn’t see fit to show the images of the terrorist attacks, claiming that it doesn’t want to stir up old vices against Muslims, or remind us of the bitter memories of our losses. And yet, it has no problem showing footage of terror attacks in other countries, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, storming the beaches at Normandy, the assault on Iwo Jima, and various engagements in Vietnam, Korea and the current War on Terror. These images are no less disturbing than those from 9/11/01.
But, alas, the images have been put into storage, never to be reopened again for the benefit of current and succeeding generations.
Out of the shadows of this event have come sinister voices trying to persuade us that what actually happened on 9/11/01 wasn’t really true. Some of these voices are propagating bold-faced lies that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Others claim that the U.S. government—the White House, in particular—was the mastermind behind the carnage. Filmmaker Michael Moore and his controversial film, “Fahrenheit 911” is a perfect example of these sinister voices.
Now, if we eventually forget what we saw, forget what we heard, and forget the experience of Sept. 11, 2001 altogether, imagine what succeeding generations will come to learn about this event if the sinister voices prevail. Do you want your children’s children’s children to believe what you know to be lies?
Don’t think that will ever happen? Think again.
Already, there are sinister voices undermining history by claiming that the Holocaust did not really happen. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already said so. Fortunately, there are still people alive today who lived through that time and can tell us what really happened. But their numbers are shrinking. And once they are gone, who is to stop another Ahmadinejad from making the same claim? Who will be able to refute the lies if we, too, have forgotten the truth?
The surest way to keep the truth alive is to never forget it—and never let it die with us.
Just as the generations before us have done to preserve the truth of the Holocaust, so must we do to keep the truth of Sept. 11, 2001 from passing away into obscurity and leaving it open for interpretation by those who want others to believe a lie.
The memories may be unpleasant, even painful, but we must do this for the sake of future generations who will have no first-hand knowledge of the attacks and what they mean for the survival of the western world.
So, may I please ask, have you forgotten? More to the point, have you chosen to forget? God help us all if you have.
Sadly, fewer people today care to be reminded of the horrors experienced on that pleasant, otherwise ordinary late summer morning. Due to the natural courses of time, generations and mortality, there were more people six years ago who remembered the terrorist attacks than there were five years ago, four years ago, three, two, one and so forth until, decades later, there will be no one left to personally relate what was seen on the televisions and heard over the radio waves that day, because we the living today will eventually die and cease to exist. And unless we pause to remember those who perished on 9/11/01 at least once a year, the memory of what happened and what was at stake will fade much sooner than you or I will.
A cold, indifferent news media doesn’t see fit to show the images of the terrorist attacks, claiming that it doesn’t want to stir up old vices against Muslims, or remind us of the bitter memories of our losses. And yet, it has no problem showing footage of terror attacks in other countries, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, storming the beaches at Normandy, the assault on Iwo Jima, and various engagements in Vietnam, Korea and the current War on Terror. These images are no less disturbing than those from 9/11/01.
But, alas, the images have been put into storage, never to be reopened again for the benefit of current and succeeding generations.
Out of the shadows of this event have come sinister voices trying to persuade us that what actually happened on 9/11/01 wasn’t really true. Some of these voices are propagating bold-faced lies that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Others claim that the U.S. government—the White House, in particular—was the mastermind behind the carnage. Filmmaker Michael Moore and his controversial film, “Fahrenheit 911” is a perfect example of these sinister voices.
Now, if we eventually forget what we saw, forget what we heard, and forget the experience of Sept. 11, 2001 altogether, imagine what succeeding generations will come to learn about this event if the sinister voices prevail. Do you want your children’s children’s children to believe what you know to be lies?
Don’t think that will ever happen? Think again.
Already, there are sinister voices undermining history by claiming that the Holocaust did not really happen. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already said so. Fortunately, there are still people alive today who lived through that time and can tell us what really happened. But their numbers are shrinking. And once they are gone, who is to stop another Ahmadinejad from making the same claim? Who will be able to refute the lies if we, too, have forgotten the truth?
The surest way to keep the truth alive is to never forget it—and never let it die with us.
Just as the generations before us have done to preserve the truth of the Holocaust, so must we do to keep the truth of Sept. 11, 2001 from passing away into obscurity and leaving it open for interpretation by those who want others to believe a lie.
The memories may be unpleasant, even painful, but we must do this for the sake of future generations who will have no first-hand knowledge of the attacks and what they mean for the survival of the western world.
So, may I please ask, have you forgotten? More to the point, have you chosen to forget? God help us all if you have.
Republicans need Doctor Laura, not Doctor Phil
In the aftermath of the November 4 general election results, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was interviewed and asked what the Republican Party ought to do now after losing not only the White House, but both Houses of Congresses by even wider margins to essentially make them irrelevant for the next two years.
The governor mused that his party was in need of a “Dr. Phil moment” to reflect on itself.
But I’ll take this a step further and say that the Republican Party doesn’t need Dr. Phil.
It needs Dr. Laura.
The party’s “Dr. Phil moment” should have come after the disastrous 2006 elections, which awarded both Houses of Congress to the Democrats. That loss and the events that precipitated it should have been a wake-up call to Republicans. But instead of waking up, the party simply turned off the alarm and went back to sleep.
At that point, the party’s conservative base had thrown up its hands and declared, “No more Mr. Nice Guy.” Dr. Phil had his moment, but the advice and warnings from conservatives went unheeded. Proof of this was in the presidential nomination of moderate/liberal republican “rhino” Sen. John McCain.
As such, what the Republicans need and deserve now is not a good cry, but rather a punch in the nose.
The Grand Old Party needs someone to get in its face and tell it like it is. Republicans need a “Dr. Laura moment.” Whether conservative republicans have the gumption to hold their party accountable for its losses and responsible for ignoring them is a question that lingers on my mind.
By and large, conservatives have had a habit in the past of shrinking into their shells and politicking from the closet. The emergence and subsequent boon of conservative talk radio was the only effective antidote for getting the right to come out of its shell and out of the closet, so to speak. Because conservatives finally felt they had a voice in the political arena—and especially through the national media—they were emboldened in 1994 when the Republican Revolution and the “Contract with America” took Congress by storm.
And yet, in spite of the conservative tidal wave that swept the Democrats from power for the first time in four decades, the Republican Party still didn’t get it. Within two election cycles, the number of conservative Republicans in the House and Senate had shrunk significantly and were replaced by more moderate—i.e., liberal—party officials. By the time President George W. Bush had taken office, Congress was being run by neo-conservatives, which is really just a kinder, gentler term for “liberal.”
Now we get why the deficit ballooned under the Bush Administration. It wasn’t merely the “War on Terror,” but rather the liberal spending of moderate, neo-con legislative and executive branches. If either one or both had regarded traditional conservatism that won Washington, D.C., back for the Republicans in 1994, we wouldn’t have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and I doubt the democrats would have regained control of Congress in 2006—not to mention 2008.
Alas, a lot of the same conservatives who were emboldened in 1994 have felt betrayed, cheated, forgotten and ignored by the party that is supposed to support, promote and defend the principles of conservatism. Consequently, some have retreated back into the shadows of their closets or shells. Many more simply refuse to vote for the Republican ticket because they have felt let down again by the GOP, preferring instead to let the opposition prevail and take us down the road to ruin where the party might then see the errors of its ways.
But nothing short of a good, old-fashioned butt-kicking will get the Republican Party back on track toward and back in line with its core conservative principles. The greater challenge will be restoring the trust and confidence that conservative voters once had in the Republican Party. With all that has happened in the past decade, though, this seems so far gone that the only way the party can win its core supporters back is to swallow its pride and seek forgiveness, which won’t come right away. The only antidote to heal wounds as deep as these is time.
As Dr. Laura would probably say, eat your humble pie and do the right thing.
Time will tell if the Republican Party has simply strayed from conservatism or is gone for good.
The governor mused that his party was in need of a “Dr. Phil moment” to reflect on itself.
But I’ll take this a step further and say that the Republican Party doesn’t need Dr. Phil.
It needs Dr. Laura.
The party’s “Dr. Phil moment” should have come after the disastrous 2006 elections, which awarded both Houses of Congress to the Democrats. That loss and the events that precipitated it should have been a wake-up call to Republicans. But instead of waking up, the party simply turned off the alarm and went back to sleep.
At that point, the party’s conservative base had thrown up its hands and declared, “No more Mr. Nice Guy.” Dr. Phil had his moment, but the advice and warnings from conservatives went unheeded. Proof of this was in the presidential nomination of moderate/liberal republican “rhino” Sen. John McCain.
As such, what the Republicans need and deserve now is not a good cry, but rather a punch in the nose.
The Grand Old Party needs someone to get in its face and tell it like it is. Republicans need a “Dr. Laura moment.” Whether conservative republicans have the gumption to hold their party accountable for its losses and responsible for ignoring them is a question that lingers on my mind.
By and large, conservatives have had a habit in the past of shrinking into their shells and politicking from the closet. The emergence and subsequent boon of conservative talk radio was the only effective antidote for getting the right to come out of its shell and out of the closet, so to speak. Because conservatives finally felt they had a voice in the political arena—and especially through the national media—they were emboldened in 1994 when the Republican Revolution and the “Contract with America” took Congress by storm.
And yet, in spite of the conservative tidal wave that swept the Democrats from power for the first time in four decades, the Republican Party still didn’t get it. Within two election cycles, the number of conservative Republicans in the House and Senate had shrunk significantly and were replaced by more moderate—i.e., liberal—party officials. By the time President George W. Bush had taken office, Congress was being run by neo-conservatives, which is really just a kinder, gentler term for “liberal.”
Now we get why the deficit ballooned under the Bush Administration. It wasn’t merely the “War on Terror,” but rather the liberal spending of moderate, neo-con legislative and executive branches. If either one or both had regarded traditional conservatism that won Washington, D.C., back for the Republicans in 1994, we wouldn’t have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and I doubt the democrats would have regained control of Congress in 2006—not to mention 2008.
Alas, a lot of the same conservatives who were emboldened in 1994 have felt betrayed, cheated, forgotten and ignored by the party that is supposed to support, promote and defend the principles of conservatism. Consequently, some have retreated back into the shadows of their closets or shells. Many more simply refuse to vote for the Republican ticket because they have felt let down again by the GOP, preferring instead to let the opposition prevail and take us down the road to ruin where the party might then see the errors of its ways.
But nothing short of a good, old-fashioned butt-kicking will get the Republican Party back on track toward and back in line with its core conservative principles. The greater challenge will be restoring the trust and confidence that conservative voters once had in the Republican Party. With all that has happened in the past decade, though, this seems so far gone that the only way the party can win its core supporters back is to swallow its pride and seek forgiveness, which won’t come right away. The only antidote to heal wounds as deep as these is time.
As Dr. Laura would probably say, eat your humble pie and do the right thing.
Time will tell if the Republican Party has simply strayed from conservatism or is gone for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
