There's been a lot of discussion lately about money. From my wife and I handling our household finances, to people who can't afford to pay their mortgages, to the US government tossing around numbers normally reserved for astronomers, the word "dollar" appears over and over again. Have you ever stopped to consider just what money is, what it represents, and why it's useful?
Go into your wallet and pull out a dollar bill, go ahead, I'll wait. What is it? Well, it's a piece of paper (actually made from cloth) with a picture inked on it, along with a serial number. True enough, but what IS it? It's a unit of value. It represents a unit of value given to you in exchange for something you provided to someone else. In my case, it's a unit of value given to me by my employer in return for my time and expertise in programming computers. It's a token of some value I gave my employer. I, in turn, will give that dollar to someone else in return for something he or she provides and which I value, perhaps a can of soda in the store in the lobby.
This all happens for a number of intertwined reasons. First, my personal need for computer programming services is rather small. I rarely do any computer work for myself, but my employer DOES need such services and is willing to pay me to perform them. Second, it's more important to me to have money to spend than to have the free time I'd have if I were not employed. This is summed up in a humorous sign I saw once that said "Working here has gotten me accustomed to certain luxuries in life, like eating and living indoors." Thirdly, I can use the money to purchase some other product or service I need or want.
Money makes a complex economy possible. Let's explore that for a moment. The first type of economy was barter, you had a basket of fruit you didn't need but you needed a goat, I had a goat I didn't need but needes some fruit, we trade, and we're both better off than we were. Or maybe you have a basket of fruit and need a new plow, I have a goat and need some fruit, and a third person has some a plow and needs a goat. It's easy to see that, the more people you add to the cycle the harder it is to keep track of. Anyone who's tried to figure out a three or four-way baseball trade can see how quickly it gets difficult, so now enters the concept of money. Rather than figure out who has to give who fruit, plow or goat to whom, we assign a monetary value to each of those. If someone wants a goat they give me some token of value for it, I in turn can use that token to buy some apples. Money actually simplifies the economy.
Money requires the people using it to offer value for value. I exchange something of value (to someone else) for money, and I in turn use that money to buy something of value. The person I purchased what I wanted from made the exact same exchange, he exchanged something of value (at least to me) for money. It's a classic win-win situation at every level. Theoretically, it IS a cycle. My employers pays me for my services, which are of value to them. That money may have come from a bank who paid for work done. The bank got it as interest on a mortgage. The mortgage payment was made by an auto mechanic. That mechanic got the money by fixing someone's car. The person whose car was fixed works for a company that delivers home heating oil. That company got the money to pay their employer from me, when I paid for my oil delivery. At each step money, and value, was exchanged. Both parties freely entered into an agreement to provide some product or service for a mutually agreed upon sum of money.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. Money can be stolen. If someone steals my money, they've taken it from me without returning any value to me. They have, in fact, broken the cycle of exchange. They've not only taken from me without providing me any value, they will now use that money to purchase something of value without themselves having provided any value in return.
In an ideal world, running an ideal economy, such a thing would never be allowed to happen. While we don't live in an ideal world, for much of the history of this type of economy we attempted to discourage such behavior by making the punishment for such transgressions of good order severe. Only very few people would attempt to steal because the risk of punishment outweighed the possible value to be gained, so the total affect of such behavior was fairly small. A large economy is robust enough to withstand moderate amounts of thievery, but there's a tipping point. If too large a percentage of my money is stolen from me, the value of my labor is reduced. I have less money to buy the things I value, and if things get too bad I may just decide not to bother anymore, why work my tail off when I hardly get anything in return for it. Once robbery becomes onerous, the entire economic system falters.
I believe this is where we are now, and I believe this is why our economy is in the straits it's in. I believe that, if we don't reverse this trend, we'll see an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression of the first half of the 20th century look like a mild economic cough.
Don't believe me? Right now, my wife earns about 2/3 what I do in salary. Her entire salary goes to pay our tax burden, Federal and State income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, right down to the tax on every gallon of gasoline we buy. Some portion of that money does return value. The trash is collected, and the presence of carrier battle groups helps me sleep peacefully at night. Still, how much of my tax money goes to fund bridges to nowhere? How much went to subsidize the Chevy Volt, which recently ceased production? How much was paid to farmers NOT to grow wheat? How much was paid to subsidize ethanol fuel, which when burned releases less energy than was used to make it? How much went to bail out companies that by all rights should have failed because they didn't produce a product that was of value to anyone? How much was paid to people who could work but don't, finding it easier to live off the stolen value of others than to provide their own value?
I believe we're very close to the tipping point. I believe the cycle of value has been broken badly enough that a collapse is a very real danger. I believe the way to avert that collapse is to repair the cycle of value, to make sure that, as much as possible, people go back to providing value for money and paying money for value.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
On The Latest Outrage
A video has been making the rounds lately, taken in Afghanistan, showing a group of Marines urinating on some dead Taliban fighters. The outrage was, of course, extreme and has gone all the way up to the Secretaries of State and Defense.
Personally, I'm having a hard time getting worked up over it for a few reasons.
- These are Marines. They don't come to your door to sell you cookies, they are the people we send out to kill our enemies and break their stuff, a job they perform admirably. They are rough, hard men (my own father was a World War II Marine, so I have some personal experience there). They've likely seen some of their friends killed or maimed, they may even have been wounded themselves. They may have just been taking fire from those very Taliban, and when they emerged victorious I believe they're allowed to let off a little steam. They are, after all, still alive despite the efforts of the Tangos. Winston Churchill said that there's nothing move exciting than being shot at and missed, so these Marines live very exciting lives.
- Before you criticize these Marines put yourself in their boots. Look around you right now, what do you see? A computer, a chair, a wastebasket, a phone. These are the things you deal with and encounter every day. Imagine, if you can, being in a position where the sight of a corpse is just as common. Most of us have never seen a dead person outside of a funeral home or hospital. The sight of dead bodies is a common one for combat Marines, seeing one affects them about as much as seeing a trash can affects you. They don't experience the horror that we would. They'd never be able to function if they did.
- Next, back in their boots. You're put into a position where your duty, and your survival, require you to kill another person. That's a terrible and weighty situation, but it must be done. How do you make yourself pull the trigger on someone? You learn to hate them. My father (the aforementioned World War II Marine) carried his hatred of the Japanese to his grave. Letting go of that hatred is something our returning veterans must learn to do in order to function back here in civilized America, but when they're in combat they need that hatred. Still, hatred is caustic, you can't allow it to build up and still retain your sanity, therefore it must be released. Personally, I think pissing on the corpse of someone who was recently trying to kill you is a pretty tame method of releasing some hatred. Others have done far worse, as the records of atrocities committed by soldiers throughout history shows. They didn't dismember them, rape their wives and murder their children.
- It's not as if our own dead were treated with compassion and respect by our enemies. I remember the pictures of decapitated and burned bodies hanging from a bridge. Let us also not forget that this war started with terrorists flying jets into buildings and people having to make the horrible choice of jumping hundreds of feet to their death or burning to death. Pardon me if I find it hard to want our enemies treated with compassion.
- Spare me the statement that this will only make our enemies hate us more. They already hate us enough to commit suicide by flying airplanes into buildings. They already hate us enough to strap on explosives and blow themselves up in hopes of killing us. They already hate us enough to murder us indiscriminately, men, women and children. It's hard to imagine them hating us more than they already do, and honestly I don't care if they do. I don't want our enemies to love us, I want them to fear us.
Having said that, I'm not saying that what they did wasn't wrong. They dishonored themselves, their nation, and the Marine Corps. They need to be punished, but that punishment shouldn't be the equivalent of a felony conviction (which is what a less-than-honorable discharge is). Marine officers and NCOs can be VERY creative at finding ways to punish Marines who misbehave, so I think their immediate superiors should be given free rein to make an example of them. There is absolutely no need for the Secretaries of State or Defense to be involved. Who knows, the miscreants may even become better Marines as a result.
Personally, I'm having a hard time getting worked up over it for a few reasons.
- These are Marines. They don't come to your door to sell you cookies, they are the people we send out to kill our enemies and break their stuff, a job they perform admirably. They are rough, hard men (my own father was a World War II Marine, so I have some personal experience there). They've likely seen some of their friends killed or maimed, they may even have been wounded themselves. They may have just been taking fire from those very Taliban, and when they emerged victorious I believe they're allowed to let off a little steam. They are, after all, still alive despite the efforts of the Tangos. Winston Churchill said that there's nothing move exciting than being shot at and missed, so these Marines live very exciting lives.
- Before you criticize these Marines put yourself in their boots. Look around you right now, what do you see? A computer, a chair, a wastebasket, a phone. These are the things you deal with and encounter every day. Imagine, if you can, being in a position where the sight of a corpse is just as common. Most of us have never seen a dead person outside of a funeral home or hospital. The sight of dead bodies is a common one for combat Marines, seeing one affects them about as much as seeing a trash can affects you. They don't experience the horror that we would. They'd never be able to function if they did.
- Next, back in their boots. You're put into a position where your duty, and your survival, require you to kill another person. That's a terrible and weighty situation, but it must be done. How do you make yourself pull the trigger on someone? You learn to hate them. My father (the aforementioned World War II Marine) carried his hatred of the Japanese to his grave. Letting go of that hatred is something our returning veterans must learn to do in order to function back here in civilized America, but when they're in combat they need that hatred. Still, hatred is caustic, you can't allow it to build up and still retain your sanity, therefore it must be released. Personally, I think pissing on the corpse of someone who was recently trying to kill you is a pretty tame method of releasing some hatred. Others have done far worse, as the records of atrocities committed by soldiers throughout history shows. They didn't dismember them, rape their wives and murder their children.
- It's not as if our own dead were treated with compassion and respect by our enemies. I remember the pictures of decapitated and burned bodies hanging from a bridge. Let us also not forget that this war started with terrorists flying jets into buildings and people having to make the horrible choice of jumping hundreds of feet to their death or burning to death. Pardon me if I find it hard to want our enemies treated with compassion.
- Spare me the statement that this will only make our enemies hate us more. They already hate us enough to commit suicide by flying airplanes into buildings. They already hate us enough to strap on explosives and blow themselves up in hopes of killing us. They already hate us enough to murder us indiscriminately, men, women and children. It's hard to imagine them hating us more than they already do, and honestly I don't care if they do. I don't want our enemies to love us, I want them to fear us.
Having said that, I'm not saying that what they did wasn't wrong. They dishonored themselves, their nation, and the Marine Corps. They need to be punished, but that punishment shouldn't be the equivalent of a felony conviction (which is what a less-than-honorable discharge is). Marine officers and NCOs can be VERY creative at finding ways to punish Marines who misbehave, so I think their immediate superiors should be given free rein to make an example of them. There is absolutely no need for the Secretaries of State or Defense to be involved. Who knows, the miscreants may even become better Marines as a result.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Socialists are Stupid, Crazy, or Evil
Yes, those are harsh words in the title. I'm not being ironic. I'm not exaggerating to make a point. I mean what I wrote quite sincerely and perfectly literally, and I can back up my assertion with historical facts.
First, I need to offer my view of history. I view history not as a boring collection of names, places and dates, but as a laboratory where ideas are tried and from which the results of those ideas can be analyzed. If a social idea is proposed, it's wise to look back at history and see where similar ideas have been tried in the past (they almost ALWAYS have been tried) and see what the results were. Those results can often be counter-intuitive.
Far from being workers paradises, Socialist nations have to build walls around themselves in order to keep their own people from fleeing to other places. Socialist governments have killed more people, their own citizens, in the 20th century than all the wars we fought during that time. An estimated 12 million people were killed by the Nazis (National Socialist Party), 20 million by Stalin in the Soviet Union, 50 million by Mao and his successors in China, and more untold millions in Cambodia, Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, etc. With such a horrific track record, how can anyone see Socialism as a viable philosophy? Well, I've identified a few different types of people who embrace this failed idea:
1) Some people are completely unaware of the results of prior attempts to bring about Socialist societies. It looks good on paper, it looks FAIR. They never take a look back in history to other places where it's been attempted to see how they worked out. They never see the abject misery and outright horror brought about by Socialism. It looks good in theory, so it must work in practice, right? Well, as they say, in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is. These are the people who insist that Cuba is a wonderful place to live, despite the remains of rafts on the beaches of Florida or the untold numbers of Cubans who didn't survive that trip. For those who would claim that some of these people are merely ignorant and not stupid, I'd offer that the evidence is freely available and totally conclusive. If you're old enough to vote or order a glass of wine in a restaurant and haven't availed yourself of that evidence you're only ignorant because you're too stupid to become educated. I repeat, stupid.
2) Some people actually DO see the history of Socialism's failure, but they conclude that it simply has never been attempted properly. They think the problem is with the implementation, not with the underlying philosophy. They completely mis-understand human nature, that such a society can't work. People will always look out for their own interests, they'll always take the path of least resistance, and they won't labor for that which doesn't provide benefit. These believers will tell you it WOULD work if only the RIGHT people were given the job of making it happen. (Kevin at The Smallest Minority refers to this concept as "Do it Again, Only Harder!") Just because it's failed every other time it's been tried doesn't mean it'll fail this time, right? Albert Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Crazy.
3) This next group of Socialism's supporters is vile. They see the human wreckage left behind by prior attempts. They see that the vast majority of people living in a Socialist society exist in a state of misery, and that many people will be labeled as "enemies of the state" and incarcerated or outright murdered. They also note that for the elite, the higher ups, the party aparatchiks.life is pretty good. Instead of being one of the many miserable ones, they expect to be among the few well-off ones. Instead of being murdered, they expect to carry out the ordered the murder at least, or at best to be the one who does the ordering. Down that road lies the worst excesses of depravity. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
4) Then there are the people who believe humans just haven't evolved far enough to be good Socialists, but that we will. They believe that human nature is progressing to a state where everyone will naturally work to the best of his ability and give the produce of their labor to those with the greatest need. They believe, in that Utopian society, that no one will be lazy, no one will be greedy, no one will do less work than they can or take more than they need. Perhaps there are some people with this viewpoint who are willing to sit back and let nature take its course in human evolution, believing that eventually we'll reach that higher plane of existence, but I've never met such a person (who I would classify as stupid). Most such true believers in Socialism are more than willing to hasten the process of evolution by eliminating people who don't wish to be Socialists. Oh, they would never come out and admit that they'd like to see guillotines set up in the town square. They use such innocuous terms as "re-education" or "the greater good" or "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs". Whatever euphemism they choose, the result is the same, the gulag, the concentration camp, the killing field. The truly disgusting thing is that these people can act with clear consciences, they're trying to bring about Heaven on Earth, and if a few people have to experience a living Hell to do so, well, that's just the price you pay.
I've never met a Socialist (or Communist) who didn't fit one of these categories, and I expect I never will. This is why I have such a passionate hatred for Socialism. It's a philosophy that belongs in the trash bin of history, but because there's a steady supply of people who are either stupid, crazy or evil it keeps being put forth as a viable system of government. It's the job of the intelligent, sane and good to keep defeating it every time it reappears.
First, I need to offer my view of history. I view history not as a boring collection of names, places and dates, but as a laboratory where ideas are tried and from which the results of those ideas can be analyzed. If a social idea is proposed, it's wise to look back at history and see where similar ideas have been tried in the past (they almost ALWAYS have been tried) and see what the results were. Those results can often be counter-intuitive.
Far from being workers paradises, Socialist nations have to build walls around themselves in order to keep their own people from fleeing to other places. Socialist governments have killed more people, their own citizens, in the 20th century than all the wars we fought during that time. An estimated 12 million people were killed by the Nazis (National Socialist Party), 20 million by Stalin in the Soviet Union, 50 million by Mao and his successors in China, and more untold millions in Cambodia, Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, etc. With such a horrific track record, how can anyone see Socialism as a viable philosophy? Well, I've identified a few different types of people who embrace this failed idea:
1) Some people are completely unaware of the results of prior attempts to bring about Socialist societies. It looks good on paper, it looks FAIR. They never take a look back in history to other places where it's been attempted to see how they worked out. They never see the abject misery and outright horror brought about by Socialism. It looks good in theory, so it must work in practice, right? Well, as they say, in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is. These are the people who insist that Cuba is a wonderful place to live, despite the remains of rafts on the beaches of Florida or the untold numbers of Cubans who didn't survive that trip. For those who would claim that some of these people are merely ignorant and not stupid, I'd offer that the evidence is freely available and totally conclusive. If you're old enough to vote or order a glass of wine in a restaurant and haven't availed yourself of that evidence you're only ignorant because you're too stupid to become educated. I repeat, stupid.
2) Some people actually DO see the history of Socialism's failure, but they conclude that it simply has never been attempted properly. They think the problem is with the implementation, not with the underlying philosophy. They completely mis-understand human nature, that such a society can't work. People will always look out for their own interests, they'll always take the path of least resistance, and they won't labor for that which doesn't provide benefit. These believers will tell you it WOULD work if only the RIGHT people were given the job of making it happen. (Kevin at The Smallest Minority refers to this concept as "Do it Again, Only Harder!") Just because it's failed every other time it's been tried doesn't mean it'll fail this time, right? Albert Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Crazy.
3) This next group of Socialism's supporters is vile. They see the human wreckage left behind by prior attempts. They see that the vast majority of people living in a Socialist society exist in a state of misery, and that many people will be labeled as "enemies of the state" and incarcerated or outright murdered. They also note that for the elite, the higher ups, the party aparatchiks.life is pretty good. Instead of being one of the many miserable ones, they expect to be among the few well-off ones. Instead of being murdered, they expect to carry out the ordered the murder at least, or at best to be the one who does the ordering. Down that road lies the worst excesses of depravity. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
4) Then there are the people who believe humans just haven't evolved far enough to be good Socialists, but that we will. They believe that human nature is progressing to a state where everyone will naturally work to the best of his ability and give the produce of their labor to those with the greatest need. They believe, in that Utopian society, that no one will be lazy, no one will be greedy, no one will do less work than they can or take more than they need. Perhaps there are some people with this viewpoint who are willing to sit back and let nature take its course in human evolution, believing that eventually we'll reach that higher plane of existence, but I've never met such a person (who I would classify as stupid). Most such true believers in Socialism are more than willing to hasten the process of evolution by eliminating people who don't wish to be Socialists. Oh, they would never come out and admit that they'd like to see guillotines set up in the town square. They use such innocuous terms as "re-education" or "the greater good" or "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs". Whatever euphemism they choose, the result is the same, the gulag, the concentration camp, the killing field. The truly disgusting thing is that these people can act with clear consciences, they're trying to bring about Heaven on Earth, and if a few people have to experience a living Hell to do so, well, that's just the price you pay.
I've never met a Socialist (or Communist) who didn't fit one of these categories, and I expect I never will. This is why I have such a passionate hatred for Socialism. It's a philosophy that belongs in the trash bin of history, but because there's a steady supply of people who are either stupid, crazy or evil it keeps being put forth as a viable system of government. It's the job of the intelligent, sane and good to keep defeating it every time it reappears.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Atlas Shrugged - Part I
My wife and I saw the movie "Atlas Shrugged - Part I", the weekend it opened. I thought I'd offer a review.
I need to make a couple points first. I've read the book twice in the last few years. It's a sometimes difficult book to read, Ms. Rand seriously needed an editor. I'm also not a big fan of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, I believe it's another of those concepts that looks better on paper than it works in reality, just like Socialism, Communism, and Utopianism. Still, I think she has some valid points to make.
Since I'm sure a few of my loyal readers haven't read the book, let me offer a synopsis. Atlas Shrugged (the book) takes place in the indeterminate future, the movie is actually set in 2016. The United States, along with the rest of the world, is in the throes of a recession. There are a few companies that are still profitable, chief among these are Taggart Transcontinental (the largest railroad in the nation. The CEO is James Taggart but the company is really run by the Operating Vice President, his sister Dagney.), Wyatt Oil (an oil company drilling previously untapped reserves in Colorado, operated by Ellis Wyatt) and Rearden Steel (a steel company in Pennsylvania, which is successful mostly because the company owns its own iron and coal mines, so it's not at the mercy of any other company to supply the raw materials it needs. The company is run by Henry "Hank" Rearden, who has also developed a new metal that's cheaper and stronger than steel.). These successful companies attract, in Rand's words, moochers and looters, meaning those people who believe they have a right to the fruits of success because they need them, and those who will just take those fruits, respectively. The government, supported by the less-competent executives of less-successful companies, passes legislation to take from the successful companies because it isn't fair that some companies are successful while others aren't. In the background, numerous successful people are just disappearing, quitting their jobs or abandoning their companies, never to be heard from again. People repeatedly ask "Who is John Galt."
The critics have been nearly universal in their hatred of the movie. Many of their criticisms stem from the attempt to bring a book about the future that was written in 1957 to the screen. Ayn Rand didn't anticipate extensive air travel, computers, cell phones, or a whole host of other technological marvels that are everyday tools of the people sitting in the theaters fifty years later. There was some attempt to explain or incorporate those technologies into the movie, and I thought they were mostly effective. As an example, very near the beginning of the movie we overhear a news report stating that, due to turmoil in the Middle East, gasoline has reached $37.50 per gallon, meaning that it's just too expensive to drive or fly, so trains were the most cost effective method of travelling long distances.
So, on to the review. I liked it. I didn't LOVE it, but I liked it. I thought the acting could have been better, but the characters were fairly convincing, or at least instantly recognizable from the characters in the book. There were some things left out, which given my aforementioned belief that Ms Rand needed the services of a good editor is a good thing. There were places where a LITTLE more detail would have gone well to explain things to a person, like my wife, who's never read the book, but all in all I think the movie did a good job.
Better acting might have elevated a decent movie to a good one. The reason for this is two-fold, one is the budget, and the other is that the vast majority of Hollywood actors wouldn't have touched this movie with a ten foot pole. Still, I would have loved to have seen, say, Gary Sinise as Hank Rearden. I honestly don't know what current actress could have played Dagney Taggart though. Few actresses can combine youth and beauty with the hard-as-nails (nails made of Rearden Metal no less) toughness her character requires. Taylor Schilling did about as good a job as anyone could have and probably better than most Hollywood A-list actresses would have. (Maybe there's a discussion of the current crop of young actresses in a future blog post?)
All in all it's a movie that's worth seeing, and I hope they make enough money on it to go forward with parts two and three. While, as I said above, I have some problems with Objectivism, I think the warnings about the impact of certain policies is one that needs to be voiced.
I need to make a couple points first. I've read the book twice in the last few years. It's a sometimes difficult book to read, Ms. Rand seriously needed an editor. I'm also not a big fan of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, I believe it's another of those concepts that looks better on paper than it works in reality, just like Socialism, Communism, and Utopianism. Still, I think she has some valid points to make.
Since I'm sure a few of my loyal readers haven't read the book, let me offer a synopsis. Atlas Shrugged (the book) takes place in the indeterminate future, the movie is actually set in 2016. The United States, along with the rest of the world, is in the throes of a recession. There are a few companies that are still profitable, chief among these are Taggart Transcontinental (the largest railroad in the nation. The CEO is James Taggart but the company is really run by the Operating Vice President, his sister Dagney.), Wyatt Oil (an oil company drilling previously untapped reserves in Colorado, operated by Ellis Wyatt) and Rearden Steel (a steel company in Pennsylvania, which is successful mostly because the company owns its own iron and coal mines, so it's not at the mercy of any other company to supply the raw materials it needs. The company is run by Henry "Hank" Rearden, who has also developed a new metal that's cheaper and stronger than steel.). These successful companies attract, in Rand's words, moochers and looters, meaning those people who believe they have a right to the fruits of success because they need them, and those who will just take those fruits, respectively. The government, supported by the less-competent executives of less-successful companies, passes legislation to take from the successful companies because it isn't fair that some companies are successful while others aren't. In the background, numerous successful people are just disappearing, quitting their jobs or abandoning their companies, never to be heard from again. People repeatedly ask "Who is John Galt."
The critics have been nearly universal in their hatred of the movie. Many of their criticisms stem from the attempt to bring a book about the future that was written in 1957 to the screen. Ayn Rand didn't anticipate extensive air travel, computers, cell phones, or a whole host of other technological marvels that are everyday tools of the people sitting in the theaters fifty years later. There was some attempt to explain or incorporate those technologies into the movie, and I thought they were mostly effective. As an example, very near the beginning of the movie we overhear a news report stating that, due to turmoil in the Middle East, gasoline has reached $37.50 per gallon, meaning that it's just too expensive to drive or fly, so trains were the most cost effective method of travelling long distances.
So, on to the review. I liked it. I didn't LOVE it, but I liked it. I thought the acting could have been better, but the characters were fairly convincing, or at least instantly recognizable from the characters in the book. There were some things left out, which given my aforementioned belief that Ms Rand needed the services of a good editor is a good thing. There were places where a LITTLE more detail would have gone well to explain things to a person, like my wife, who's never read the book, but all in all I think the movie did a good job.
Better acting might have elevated a decent movie to a good one. The reason for this is two-fold, one is the budget, and the other is that the vast majority of Hollywood actors wouldn't have touched this movie with a ten foot pole. Still, I would have loved to have seen, say, Gary Sinise as Hank Rearden. I honestly don't know what current actress could have played Dagney Taggart though. Few actresses can combine youth and beauty with the hard-as-nails (nails made of Rearden Metal no less) toughness her character requires. Taylor Schilling did about as good a job as anyone could have and probably better than most Hollywood A-list actresses would have. (Maybe there's a discussion of the current crop of young actresses in a future blog post?)
All in all it's a movie that's worth seeing, and I hope they make enough money on it to go forward with parts two and three. While, as I said above, I have some problems with Objectivism, I think the warnings about the impact of certain policies is one that needs to be voiced.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Communal Guilt
There's a video making its way around the Internet called "Dear Woman" by a group of human males calling themselves "Conscious Men". I won't link to it, but you'll find it if you want to. I'll admit that I haven't watched the entire video, doing so requires a stronger stomach than I possess, but the upshot of the video is a couple of (alleged) men apologizing to women for all the mean and nasty things done to women by men throughout history.
The whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with a former girlfriend (herself a Women's Studies major), where she asked me if I ever felt guilty for the fact that men rape women. I told her, most emphatically, that I do not feel guilty, because I personally have never raped a woman. I've never hit a woman. I have, to the best of my ability, attempted to treat women with the respect they deserve. I would, in fact, intervene to defend any woman I saw undergoing such an attack.
The thing that sticks in my craw about this is the concept of communal guilt, the idea that an individual belonging to a group is to blame for all the misdeeds of any other individual member of that same group. Therefore all men should feel guilty for the crime of rape committed by other men. This despite the fact that most men are not rapists. All Christians are responsible for the Crusades, despite the fact that the last Crusade ended hundreds of years before anyone currently alive was born. All whites should feel guilty about slavery, despite the fact that no one currently alive either owned, or was, a slave and that indeed for most of us our ancestors weren't even in the United States when slavery was abolished (personally, three of my four grandparents came to this country fifty years after the Civil War, the fourth grew up in North Dakota and her ancestors fought on the Union side).
I accept no guilt for actions I personally did not perform. I do not apologize for the actions of others. No one has the right to apologize on my behalf. I reserve the right to apologize for my own, and only my own, misdeeds.
The whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with a former girlfriend (herself a Women's Studies major), where she asked me if I ever felt guilty for the fact that men rape women. I told her, most emphatically, that I do not feel guilty, because I personally have never raped a woman. I've never hit a woman. I have, to the best of my ability, attempted to treat women with the respect they deserve. I would, in fact, intervene to defend any woman I saw undergoing such an attack.
The thing that sticks in my craw about this is the concept of communal guilt, the idea that an individual belonging to a group is to blame for all the misdeeds of any other individual member of that same group. Therefore all men should feel guilty for the crime of rape committed by other men. This despite the fact that most men are not rapists. All Christians are responsible for the Crusades, despite the fact that the last Crusade ended hundreds of years before anyone currently alive was born. All whites should feel guilty about slavery, despite the fact that no one currently alive either owned, or was, a slave and that indeed for most of us our ancestors weren't even in the United States when slavery was abolished (personally, three of my four grandparents came to this country fifty years after the Civil War, the fourth grew up in North Dakota and her ancestors fought on the Union side).
I accept no guilt for actions I personally did not perform. I do not apologize for the actions of others. No one has the right to apologize on my behalf. I reserve the right to apologize for my own, and only my own, misdeeds.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
My Favorite Movies
Here are some of my favorites movies, in no particular order (well, except for the first):
Secondhand Lions - Probably my favorite movie of all time, and vastly under-rated. Two old men (played by Michael Caine and Robert Duvall, how can it NOT be great?) have their niece's son (Haley Joel Osment) dropped off on them for a while. At first the men don't like the boy and the feeling is mutual, but they grow on each other. The boy brings a new life, and reason for living, to the old men, the men help the boy grow up to be a fine man. The plot revolves around the men's life story, a story that has obviously grown better with time and telling but still contains essential truths. The best line in the movie (spoken by Hub, Duvall's character): "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in. "
Dead Poet's Society - English teacher John Keating (Robin Williams) at an exclusive all-boys school instills a love of poetry and life into his charges, often going against the grain of the establishment. We learn about Mr. Keating's personality when he has one of the students read the introduction to the poetry textbook which claims that you can determine the quality of a poem by plotting (literally, on an X-Y axis) the technical perfection of the poem against the importance of the poem's objective. Mr Keating responds with one word, "Excrement", and has the boys tear the introduction from their textbooks. My favorite quote: "We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for."
The Sand Pebbles - A China sailor named Jake Holman (Steve McQueen) befriends a missionary English teacher named Shirley Eckert (a very, very young Candice Bergen) in China during the Boxer Rebellion. Holman is more comfortable around his engines than his fellow sailors who consider him bad luck. As their friendship grows, so do the tensions between the American navy and the Chinese Nationalists. My favorite scene happens when Jake and Shirley meet on a ferry, Shirley starts talking to Jake (probably because they're the only two English speakers on the boat) and Jake tells her "Maybe you don't know, but nice white girls don't talk to China sailors."
The Longest Day - I don't think you could pack more star power into one movie with a shoehorn. John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Henry Fonda, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, the cast reads as a Who's Who of Hollywood in 1962. It's arguably the greatest war movie ever made, about (inarguably) the greatest military achievement ever, the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. At the turning point on Omaha Beach Brigadier General Norman Cota (Robert Mitchum) tells his men "Only two types of people are gonna stay on this beach, those who are already dead and those that are gonna die. Now get off your butts."
Contact - A hard headed astronomer (Jodi Foster), in charge of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) has contact with an alien life-form. The problem is that she has no proof beyond her own experience of it, a level of proof she's repeatedly rejected in the past when dealing with people of faith. Best quote (spoken by the alien): "You're an interesting species. An interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other. "
Unforgiven - An aging gunslinger (Clint Eastwood) who spends his days mourning his wife and trying to raise his two children gets a chance to make some money by killing a cowboy who cut up a prostitute's face. He and his friend (Morgan Freeman) deal with the morality of their mission and the demons that haunt their own pasts. Best line: " I ain't like that no more. I ain't the same, Ned. Claudia, she straightened me up, cleared me of drinkin' whiskey and all. Just 'cause we're goin' on this killing, that don't mean I'm gonna go back to bein' the way I was. I just need the money, get a new start for them youngsters."
Gran Torino - Another Clint Eastwood movie. A retired auto worker, Korean War vet, and widower has a family of Chinese immigrants move in next door. Despite his prejudices, he finds that they have a lot in common. He takes a young man under his wing, teaches him how to fix things, helps him get a job, and helps steer him away from a local gang. Along the way he's battling his own demons. One of my favorite lines (at least of those that don't contain profanity)" "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
Iron Man - Yeah, I know, it's a comic-book movie. It's also about a unique superhero. He wasn't born a superhero like Superman, he didn't become on by accident like Spiderman, he became one via his own effort and genius. Here's a story of a man with few redeeming qualities who has his eyes forceably opened to what he'd previously ignored and decides to do something about it. Favorite line: "Well, Ms. Brown. It's an imperfect world, but it's the only one we got. I guarantee you the day weapons are no longer needed to keep the peace, I'll start making bricks and beams for baby hospitals."
Zulu - Based on the story of a British regiment at Rourke's Drift in Natal, the story revolves around two Lieutenants, Chard of the Engineers who is only in the area to build a bridge, and Bromhead (played by Michael Caine) who's from a military family (he refers to his grandfather as "The General"). They lead a 140 man force against 4,000 Zulu warriors who are attacking their outpost. Despite the enormous odds, they are determined to follow their orders to stand fast. It's a story of courage, determination, and sheer guts. As an aside, seven Victoria's Crosses (Britain's highest military honor for bravery) were awarded, the most ever awarded in one action to one regiment. Just one of many great lines: "A prayer's as good as bayonet on a day like this."
The Princess Bride - A sick boy gets a visit from his grandfather, who reads him a book that he read to the boy's father when he was sick. The story revolves around the beautiful Princess Buttercup, her farmboy true love Wesley, and the evil Prince Humperdink who's determined to have Buttercup for his bride. There are probably more great one-liners in this movie than any other I've ever seen, but my favorite has got to be "Life IS pain Princess. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something."
Star Wars (Original Trilogy) - A rag-tag group of rebels takes on the evil Empire. It takes place in a galaxy far far away, or does it? Action abounds, Harrison Ford's Han Solo hits just the right mix of scoundrel and boyish charm, and all in the days when special effects were done with models. See the original theatrical releases, not the "updated" ones. If Han shoots first you've got the right one. Don't waste your time with the three pre-quels. Favorite line: "Do. Or do not. There is no try."
300 - 300 Spartans and a few hundred other Greek warriors meet thousands of Persians at Thermopylae. They know they can't win, but they hope to buy enough time to organize a defense. It's classic good vs evil, Western civilization against barbarism. Just one of many great lines: "The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and before this battle was over, even a god-king can bleed."
Open Range - Aging free-grazer Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) and his hired cowhand Charley Waite (Kevin Costner) meet up with rancher Denton Baxter and his crooked Sheriff. One of their friends is killed, another wounded, and the two free-grazers decide to even the score. This movie contains one of the best Western gunfights ever filmed. One of many great lines, spoken by Charley Waite: "Well you may not know this, but there's things that gnaw at a man worse than dying."
Feel free to comment on these movies, or any others!
Secondhand Lions - Probably my favorite movie of all time, and vastly under-rated. Two old men (played by Michael Caine and Robert Duvall, how can it NOT be great?) have their niece's son (Haley Joel Osment) dropped off on them for a while. At first the men don't like the boy and the feeling is mutual, but they grow on each other. The boy brings a new life, and reason for living, to the old men, the men help the boy grow up to be a fine man. The plot revolves around the men's life story, a story that has obviously grown better with time and telling but still contains essential truths. The best line in the movie (spoken by Hub, Duvall's character): "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in. "
Dead Poet's Society - English teacher John Keating (Robin Williams) at an exclusive all-boys school instills a love of poetry and life into his charges, often going against the grain of the establishment. We learn about Mr. Keating's personality when he has one of the students read the introduction to the poetry textbook which claims that you can determine the quality of a poem by plotting (literally, on an X-Y axis) the technical perfection of the poem against the importance of the poem's objective. Mr Keating responds with one word, "Excrement", and has the boys tear the introduction from their textbooks. My favorite quote: "We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for."
The Sand Pebbles - A China sailor named Jake Holman (Steve McQueen) befriends a missionary English teacher named Shirley Eckert (a very, very young Candice Bergen) in China during the Boxer Rebellion. Holman is more comfortable around his engines than his fellow sailors who consider him bad luck. As their friendship grows, so do the tensions between the American navy and the Chinese Nationalists. My favorite scene happens when Jake and Shirley meet on a ferry, Shirley starts talking to Jake (probably because they're the only two English speakers on the boat) and Jake tells her "Maybe you don't know, but nice white girls don't talk to China sailors."
The Longest Day - I don't think you could pack more star power into one movie with a shoehorn. John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Henry Fonda, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, the cast reads as a Who's Who of Hollywood in 1962. It's arguably the greatest war movie ever made, about (inarguably) the greatest military achievement ever, the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. At the turning point on Omaha Beach Brigadier General Norman Cota (Robert Mitchum) tells his men "Only two types of people are gonna stay on this beach, those who are already dead and those that are gonna die. Now get off your butts."
Contact - A hard headed astronomer (Jodi Foster), in charge of the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) has contact with an alien life-form. The problem is that she has no proof beyond her own experience of it, a level of proof she's repeatedly rejected in the past when dealing with people of faith. Best quote (spoken by the alien): "You're an interesting species. An interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable, is each other. "
Unforgiven - An aging gunslinger (Clint Eastwood) who spends his days mourning his wife and trying to raise his two children gets a chance to make some money by killing a cowboy who cut up a prostitute's face. He and his friend (Morgan Freeman) deal with the morality of their mission and the demons that haunt their own pasts. Best line: " I ain't like that no more. I ain't the same, Ned. Claudia, she straightened me up, cleared me of drinkin' whiskey and all. Just 'cause we're goin' on this killing, that don't mean I'm gonna go back to bein' the way I was. I just need the money, get a new start for them youngsters."
Gran Torino - Another Clint Eastwood movie. A retired auto worker, Korean War vet, and widower has a family of Chinese immigrants move in next door. Despite his prejudices, he finds that they have a lot in common. He takes a young man under his wing, teaches him how to fix things, helps him get a job, and helps steer him away from a local gang. Along the way he's battling his own demons. One of my favorite lines (at least of those that don't contain profanity)" "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
Iron Man - Yeah, I know, it's a comic-book movie. It's also about a unique superhero. He wasn't born a superhero like Superman, he didn't become on by accident like Spiderman, he became one via his own effort and genius. Here's a story of a man with few redeeming qualities who has his eyes forceably opened to what he'd previously ignored and decides to do something about it. Favorite line: "Well, Ms. Brown. It's an imperfect world, but it's the only one we got. I guarantee you the day weapons are no longer needed to keep the peace, I'll start making bricks and beams for baby hospitals."
Zulu - Based on the story of a British regiment at Rourke's Drift in Natal, the story revolves around two Lieutenants, Chard of the Engineers who is only in the area to build a bridge, and Bromhead (played by Michael Caine) who's from a military family (he refers to his grandfather as "The General"). They lead a 140 man force against 4,000 Zulu warriors who are attacking their outpost. Despite the enormous odds, they are determined to follow their orders to stand fast. It's a story of courage, determination, and sheer guts. As an aside, seven Victoria's Crosses (Britain's highest military honor for bravery) were awarded, the most ever awarded in one action to one regiment. Just one of many great lines: "A prayer's as good as bayonet on a day like this."
The Princess Bride - A sick boy gets a visit from his grandfather, who reads him a book that he read to the boy's father when he was sick. The story revolves around the beautiful Princess Buttercup, her farmboy true love Wesley, and the evil Prince Humperdink who's determined to have Buttercup for his bride. There are probably more great one-liners in this movie than any other I've ever seen, but my favorite has got to be "Life IS pain Princess. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something."
Star Wars (Original Trilogy) - A rag-tag group of rebels takes on the evil Empire. It takes place in a galaxy far far away, or does it? Action abounds, Harrison Ford's Han Solo hits just the right mix of scoundrel and boyish charm, and all in the days when special effects were done with models. See the original theatrical releases, not the "updated" ones. If Han shoots first you've got the right one. Don't waste your time with the three pre-quels. Favorite line: "Do. Or do not. There is no try."
300 - 300 Spartans and a few hundred other Greek warriors meet thousands of Persians at Thermopylae. They know they can't win, but they hope to buy enough time to organize a defense. It's classic good vs evil, Western civilization against barbarism. Just one of many great lines: "The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and before this battle was over, even a god-king can bleed."
Open Range - Aging free-grazer Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) and his hired cowhand Charley Waite (Kevin Costner) meet up with rancher Denton Baxter and his crooked Sheriff. One of their friends is killed, another wounded, and the two free-grazers decide to even the score. This movie contains one of the best Western gunfights ever filmed. One of many great lines, spoken by Charley Waite: "Well you may not know this, but there's things that gnaw at a man worse than dying."
Feel free to comment on these movies, or any others!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Rules and Safety
There's been a lot in the news lately about the changes to TSA practices, including full-body scanners and invasive pat-downs. All this is, of course, a direct result of the 9/11 attacks on our nation. We have, as Pogo said, redoubled our efforts after having lost sight of our goals.
The problem on 9/11 wasn't that terrorists got box-cutters onto planes. The problem was that we were operating under a given set of assumptions and the terrorists found a way around those assumptions to accomplish their goals. Up until 9/11 everyone had a set of assumptions about hijackings: Comply with them, you'll fly someplace you don't want to go, land safely, then the hijackers will make demands which may or not be met, the hijackers will make threats that may or not be carried out, actions will be taken against the hijackers which may or may not result in the hijackers being killed or captured, and eventually it's likely everyone will live to go home to their families and put it all behind them.
All that changed on 9/11. We now know a successful hijacking is a death sentence. We hardened cockpit doors and, more importantly, we hardened our resolve not to comply with hijackers. I've only flown a hand full of times since 9/11, but every time I've boarded an aircraft since then I've decided that if something bad happens I'm getting involved. I've made the choice between me possibly being killed and everyone on the plane (including my wife) almost certainly being killed. I'm not going to sit there hoping there's an Air Marshall in first-class. I made that decision despite the TSA's insistence on removing from me anything that could outwardly be used as a weapon.
So we now have a new set of assumptions. We scan shoes. We frisk passengers. We produce pornographic images of teenagers. We allow children, CHILDREN, to be groped by strangers in a manner that would get them lynched if they weren't wearing badges (because apparently no pedophile would even THINK of applying for a job with the TSA). We can't bring nail-clippers, pen-knives, or bottles of liquid on board. All this for a false sense of security.
The terrorists are watching all this. They'll find the hole, the crease, the seam they can exploit. They'll make their plans and carry out their attack. If their attack is unsuccessful it won't be the TSA that'll stop it, it'll either be vigilant and courageous passengers on the plane, or it'll be plain old dumb luck.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Public Service
In comments on my previous post, buddy Larry asks the following:
"Chris Christie is walking the walk. Cutting and reducing the government, fighting the special interests, and helping NJ. How do we identify others who will follow through?"
Now I don't pretend to be a big fan of Governor Christie, but he's about the closest thing to a Libertarian leaning Conservative New Jersey would elect. Still, I think he understands the nature of public service and of holding public office.
To understand what I mean requires a trip back into history. Up until the 20th century people didn't consider politics a career. Most elected officials had successful careers outside of politics, and most served with the intention of returning to those careers after their term was over. They looked at elected office much as modern people look at jury duty, a temporary, unpleasant, but necessary duty incurred by a citizen which allowed our society to function as intended. In addition, political office was a part-time job. You went to Washington DC for a few months a year, did your civic duty, then went home until it was time to go back or until some emergency prompted a special session. You were first a farmer, lawyer, or whatever occupation you followed first and secondarily a Congressman or even President.
Now people study Political Science in school. Congressmen and Senators spend DECADES in office. Some rarely return home to meet with their constituents except when running for re-election. They're more concerned with preserving their own legacies than with representing the people who sent them to Washington in the first place.
So my answer to Larry's question would be, the candidate who will follow through is the one who looks at elected office as a temporary job. He or she probably doesn't particularly WANT the job, but they realize that someone has to do it so it might as well be them. They probably look upon the idea of holding elected office with distaste, again much as we look upon jury duty. On the other hand, a person who wants to hold elected office, who desires deep down to be called "The (insert title) from the great state of (fill in the blank)", who is more concerned with having the title than what they'll do once they get it, should most definitely never be allowed near the levers of power. Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of people holding office now who fit that description.
"Chris Christie is walking the walk. Cutting and reducing the government, fighting the special interests, and helping NJ. How do we identify others who will follow through?"
Now I don't pretend to be a big fan of Governor Christie, but he's about the closest thing to a Libertarian leaning Conservative New Jersey would elect. Still, I think he understands the nature of public service and of holding public office.
To understand what I mean requires a trip back into history. Up until the 20th century people didn't consider politics a career. Most elected officials had successful careers outside of politics, and most served with the intention of returning to those careers after their term was over. They looked at elected office much as modern people look at jury duty, a temporary, unpleasant, but necessary duty incurred by a citizen which allowed our society to function as intended. In addition, political office was a part-time job. You went to Washington DC for a few months a year, did your civic duty, then went home until it was time to go back or until some emergency prompted a special session. You were first a farmer, lawyer, or whatever occupation you followed first and secondarily a Congressman or even President.
Now people study Political Science in school. Congressmen and Senators spend DECADES in office. Some rarely return home to meet with their constituents except when running for re-election. They're more concerned with preserving their own legacies than with representing the people who sent them to Washington in the first place.
So my answer to Larry's question would be, the candidate who will follow through is the one who looks at elected office as a temporary job. He or she probably doesn't particularly WANT the job, but they realize that someone has to do it so it might as well be them. They probably look upon the idea of holding elected office with distaste, again much as we look upon jury duty. On the other hand, a person who wants to hold elected office, who desires deep down to be called "The (insert title) from the great state of (fill in the blank)", who is more concerned with having the title than what they'll do once they get it, should most definitely never be allowed near the levers of power. Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of people holding office now who fit that description.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Authority
Throughout history people who rule others have had different claimed sources of their authority. Sometimes it's just whoever happens to be stronger, whoever can defend his rule against others who would rule. Sometimes rulers claim that their authority comes from God, or they may even claim to be gods themselves. Sometimes the authority to rule is determined by heredity. In Platos's proposed Republic the philosopher-king was authorized to rule because of his wisdom. Sometimes the ruler is chosen by the majority of the people. In most cases, the ruler or rulers have near absolute authority over the people, and the people exist to support the ruling class.
In July, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and company thundered forth with a radical concept, that all men are created equal, that all men, without exception, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That men form governments for the sole purpose of protecting those rights, that a government that fails to protect those rights is not valid and that the people have the right to abolish such a government and form a new one that will protect those rights. That, in short, the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
This radical idea turned the political world on its head. No longer could the ruling class do whatever it pleased, no longer were the people powerless in the face of political might. On the contrary, the ruling class existed and continued to exist at the sufferance of the people. They could be replaced any time the people found them not doing the job they were selected for, namely the protection of the rights of the people.
Under such a political system, the ultimate authority rests with the people. The people choose to delegate some of their authority to a group they choose, thereby freeing themselves from the need to protect their own rights individually. My choice of the word "delegate" was intentional. If I delegate someone to act on my behalf, they do so under my direction and at my pleasure. If I ever decide, for any reason, to replace my delegated spokesman I may do so. He may object, but the final decision is mine and mine alone.
We've forgotten that we are the ones with ultimate authority. We have elected officials who look upon the electorate not as employers, but as sources of income. They see their job not as serving the people they represent, but as telling those people whatever they need to in order to be elected, then once in place they do whatever will increase their power despite the promises made to their constituents. Those same constituents accept their representatives lies with a shrug and with the statement "All politicians lie and break their campaign promises." When the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992 (not only within the lifetimes of most of my readers, but within their adulthoods), states that Congress could not vote itself a change in pay unless an election of the House of Representatives (which is elected in its entirety every two years) had occured since the last such change and they get around it by voting themselves an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment every year, AND the Supreme Court upholds that travesty, it makes me wonder what it would take to send the populace to Washington armed with torches and pitchforks. Such a situation would have had our Founding Fathers reaching for the tar, feathers and rails, not to mention ropes.
We need to reclaim our birthright as Americans. We need to remind our elected officials that they serve at our pleasure and sufference. That they act in our names and for our best interests or they will not act at all. That we are not ruled, we are represented. That they are public servants, not public masters. That they need to employ themselves at our business or they will find themselves among the unemployed.
That's the difference between a citizen and a subject, between a master and a serf, between a free, sovereign individual and a second-class person.
In July, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and company thundered forth with a radical concept, that all men are created equal, that all men, without exception, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That men form governments for the sole purpose of protecting those rights, that a government that fails to protect those rights is not valid and that the people have the right to abolish such a government and form a new one that will protect those rights. That, in short, the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.
This radical idea turned the political world on its head. No longer could the ruling class do whatever it pleased, no longer were the people powerless in the face of political might. On the contrary, the ruling class existed and continued to exist at the sufferance of the people. They could be replaced any time the people found them not doing the job they were selected for, namely the protection of the rights of the people.
Under such a political system, the ultimate authority rests with the people. The people choose to delegate some of their authority to a group they choose, thereby freeing themselves from the need to protect their own rights individually. My choice of the word "delegate" was intentional. If I delegate someone to act on my behalf, they do so under my direction and at my pleasure. If I ever decide, for any reason, to replace my delegated spokesman I may do so. He may object, but the final decision is mine and mine alone.
We've forgotten that we are the ones with ultimate authority. We have elected officials who look upon the electorate not as employers, but as sources of income. They see their job not as serving the people they represent, but as telling those people whatever they need to in order to be elected, then once in place they do whatever will increase their power despite the promises made to their constituents. Those same constituents accept their representatives lies with a shrug and with the statement "All politicians lie and break their campaign promises." When the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992 (not only within the lifetimes of most of my readers, but within their adulthoods), states that Congress could not vote itself a change in pay unless an election of the House of Representatives (which is elected in its entirety every two years) had occured since the last such change and they get around it by voting themselves an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment every year, AND the Supreme Court upholds that travesty, it makes me wonder what it would take to send the populace to Washington armed with torches and pitchforks. Such a situation would have had our Founding Fathers reaching for the tar, feathers and rails, not to mention ropes.
We need to reclaim our birthright as Americans. We need to remind our elected officials that they serve at our pleasure and sufference. That they act in our names and for our best interests or they will not act at all. That we are not ruled, we are represented. That they are public servants, not public masters. That they need to employ themselves at our business or they will find themselves among the unemployed.
That's the difference between a citizen and a subject, between a master and a serf, between a free, sovereign individual and a second-class person.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Work Ethic
The other day my wife and I ate in a restaurant we frequent, it's near the theater we likewise frequent, so when we go to a movie we often have a meal there before or after. There's one waitress there who's our favorite, her name is Julie. She has that uncanny ability to be out of the way when we don't need her for anything, but as soon as we want something she's right there to find out what it is. She's efficient and helpful but at the same time unobtrusive. A glass is seldom empty for long before she's there to find out if we want another, but she doesn't constantly interrupt our meal to see if everything's alright. Honestly, if I were to open a restaurant of my own I'd do my best to hire her away from her current employer. And yes, I've complimented her to her manager and I always tip her well, good work ought to be rewarded.
This is a young lady working in what many would consider a menial occupation, but who does it well. She has the one thing it's almost impossible to teach, a work ethic. There was a time when work ethic was common. My grandfather, an immigrant from Norway, started working at the local ship yard cleaning the bathrooms. He used to say the work was dirty but the money was clean. By the time he died he was a foreman at that very same ship yard.
Nearly every day I encounter people begging for money. I encountered those same people when unemployment was low, when anyone who wanted a job and was physically and mentally capable of holding one was employed. If pointed out that if they could stand on a street corner, in the rain, asking people for change they could stand behind a counter in a fast-food joint asking people if they wanted fries with their meal, they'd reply that such a job was beneath them. I've also encountered people with menial jobs, like emptying trash cans in my office, who did a lousy job of it, all the while complaining about how badly their job sucked. Honestly, if you can't (or more likely won't) do a good job of emptying trash cans, how is anyone going to entrust you with a better, more responsible (and better paying) job? If you are faithful with a little you will be entrusted with more, but if you are unfaithful with a little even what you have will be taken from you.
I don't know Julie's personal story. Maybe, like so many waiters and waitresses, she's an aspiring actress or musician. Maybe she's working as a waitress while she goes to school. Perhaps she doesn't intend to work as a waitress forever, but it's only a temporary job until she gets something better. Regardless, if she brings the same ability, attention, and (if I can use the phrase once more) work ethic to whatever else she does I suspect she'll be successful.
This is a young lady working in what many would consider a menial occupation, but who does it well. She has the one thing it's almost impossible to teach, a work ethic. There was a time when work ethic was common. My grandfather, an immigrant from Norway, started working at the local ship yard cleaning the bathrooms. He used to say the work was dirty but the money was clean. By the time he died he was a foreman at that very same ship yard.
Nearly every day I encounter people begging for money. I encountered those same people when unemployment was low, when anyone who wanted a job and was physically and mentally capable of holding one was employed. If pointed out that if they could stand on a street corner, in the rain, asking people for change they could stand behind a counter in a fast-food joint asking people if they wanted fries with their meal, they'd reply that such a job was beneath them. I've also encountered people with menial jobs, like emptying trash cans in my office, who did a lousy job of it, all the while complaining about how badly their job sucked. Honestly, if you can't (or more likely won't) do a good job of emptying trash cans, how is anyone going to entrust you with a better, more responsible (and better paying) job? If you are faithful with a little you will be entrusted with more, but if you are unfaithful with a little even what you have will be taken from you.
I don't know Julie's personal story. Maybe, like so many waiters and waitresses, she's an aspiring actress or musician. Maybe she's working as a waitress while she goes to school. Perhaps she doesn't intend to work as a waitress forever, but it's only a temporary job until she gets something better. Regardless, if she brings the same ability, attention, and (if I can use the phrase once more) work ethic to whatever else she does I suspect she'll be successful.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Gambling, Risks, and Bail Outs
Whenever I get together with my in-laws the guys wind up playing poker. It's strictly a fun game with no money involved. We divide up the chips, and if someone runs low someone who has more will give him some. At the end of the game the chips all go back into the box, and we really can't tell who did well and who did poorly. I find that in these games I am much more likely to stay in a hand I shouldn't, or I'll ride a hand much longer than I should just in case something good happens. I'm not above chasing an inside straight. Every once in a while I pull a hand out of the trash, but mostly I end up donating my chips to one of my in-laws. It's all in fun, I've got nothing to lose.
On the few occasions I've played poker for money I play very differently. I'm much quicker to fold a bad hand, or even a fair hand if people are raising. There have been times I've folded hands I would have won had I stayed in, but for the most part if I stay in the hand I either win or come close to doing so (the most expensive poker hand is always the second-best one). In short, when I play for no stakes I don't do well, but when I have a stake in the game I generally come away at the end of the evening with more money than I started with.
Businesses work the same way, they make decisions based upon risk and reward. A poor decision can end up costing a company lots of money and may even cause the company to go out of business, therefore companies spend a lot of time and effort in analyzing risks and weighing them against potential rewards. Successful companies do this well, less successful ones are the ones for whom stock certificates are now collectables instead of having value as a share in the now non-existant company. This system mostly works.
The balance gets thrown off when a company is deemed "too big to fail". Those companies are just playing for chips, if they win they reap the rewards, if they fail they get bailed out at taxpayer expense, so they'll take much bigger risks than they otherwise might. If there's no consequence for failure there's no sense expending the effort to analyze the risks, just try it and see what happens.
The funny things is, just as in my poker example above, paying more attention to the risk/reward balance leads to more success, not less. If a company is truly too big to be allowed to fail it's also too big to be permitted to risk such failure, and the only way to ensure they don't fail is to maintain failure as a possibility. I know, that seems counter-intuitive, but removing potential failure from the possible outcomes makes ultimate failure that much more likely.
So let's stop bailing out companies. Let's let them go bankrupt, they (or whoever buys up their assets) will come back stronger and better afterward. The alternative is a nation full of unsuccessful companies supported by taxpayer money.
On the few occasions I've played poker for money I play very differently. I'm much quicker to fold a bad hand, or even a fair hand if people are raising. There have been times I've folded hands I would have won had I stayed in, but for the most part if I stay in the hand I either win or come close to doing so (the most expensive poker hand is always the second-best one). In short, when I play for no stakes I don't do well, but when I have a stake in the game I generally come away at the end of the evening with more money than I started with.
Businesses work the same way, they make decisions based upon risk and reward. A poor decision can end up costing a company lots of money and may even cause the company to go out of business, therefore companies spend a lot of time and effort in analyzing risks and weighing them against potential rewards. Successful companies do this well, less successful ones are the ones for whom stock certificates are now collectables instead of having value as a share in the now non-existant company. This system mostly works.
The balance gets thrown off when a company is deemed "too big to fail". Those companies are just playing for chips, if they win they reap the rewards, if they fail they get bailed out at taxpayer expense, so they'll take much bigger risks than they otherwise might. If there's no consequence for failure there's no sense expending the effort to analyze the risks, just try it and see what happens.
The funny things is, just as in my poker example above, paying more attention to the risk/reward balance leads to more success, not less. If a company is truly too big to be allowed to fail it's also too big to be permitted to risk such failure, and the only way to ensure they don't fail is to maintain failure as a possibility. I know, that seems counter-intuitive, but removing potential failure from the possible outcomes makes ultimate failure that much more likely.
So let's stop bailing out companies. Let's let them go bankrupt, they (or whoever buys up their assets) will come back stronger and better afterward. The alternative is a nation full of unsuccessful companies supported by taxpayer money.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
What Government Is
I'm sometimes asked why I take exception to government controlling, well, just about anything. This question generally comes from people who hold a very different view of what government is than I do, so from their standpoint it's not an unreasonable question. To offer my view of what government is, allow me to quote someone who was much wiser than I could ever hope to be: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” That was the view of the very first person to hold the title of President of the United States, George Washington.
Don't believe me? Let me offer you a scenario: Suppose I decide (with no input from you) that you owe me a sum of money each year, let's say $12,000 for a nice round number. I send you a letter to the effect that you much remit to me $3,000 each quarter, by a date I determine. If you fail to do so I begin collection proceedings against you, taking your savings, your paycheck, or taking over ownership of your home. If you resist I send a group of heavily armed men to your home in the middle of the night, they break in your door, kill your dog if you have one, tie you up, drag you from your home and lock you in a cage until such time as you agree to pay the amount in question, with penalties for late payment. If you resist this intrusion into your home you will be shot and likely killed. If I did such a thing I would be thrown in jail for (at the very least) breaking into your home, assault, and kidnapping if not murder.
Try not paying your property taxes sometime and see what happens.
Government maintains a monopoly on the proactive use of violence to enforce its will. No matter how reasonable the government's request, no matter how eloquently the request is delivered, that request is backed up by the iron fist of force. As far as I'm concerned the fewer aspects of my life government is permitted to bring that force to bear upon, the most comfortable I am.
Don't believe me? Let me offer you a scenario: Suppose I decide (with no input from you) that you owe me a sum of money each year, let's say $12,000 for a nice round number. I send you a letter to the effect that you much remit to me $3,000 each quarter, by a date I determine. If you fail to do so I begin collection proceedings against you, taking your savings, your paycheck, or taking over ownership of your home. If you resist I send a group of heavily armed men to your home in the middle of the night, they break in your door, kill your dog if you have one, tie you up, drag you from your home and lock you in a cage until such time as you agree to pay the amount in question, with penalties for late payment. If you resist this intrusion into your home you will be shot and likely killed. If I did such a thing I would be thrown in jail for (at the very least) breaking into your home, assault, and kidnapping if not murder.
Try not paying your property taxes sometime and see what happens.
Government maintains a monopoly on the proactive use of violence to enforce its will. No matter how reasonable the government's request, no matter how eloquently the request is delivered, that request is backed up by the iron fist of force. As far as I'm concerned the fewer aspects of my life government is permitted to bring that force to bear upon, the most comfortable I am.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Independence Day
Over the weekend I had better things to do than sit in front of a computer, but I had to say something about Independence Day. Here is the full text (with names of signers) of the Declaration of Independence, with my commentary at the end:
*********************
Mark D back.
We're familiar with the ideas enshrined in that document, and with that familiarity we forget just how radical those ideas were at the time. Everyplace else, throughout the world and throughout history, the people existed for the support of the ruling classes and not the other way around. Here is a group of men thundering forth with the concept that All men are created equal! That people have the inviolate right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! That people create governments to protect those rights! That when a government fails to protect those rights it is their right and duty to throw off that government and establish a new one!
At the very end, when the signers pledge their "Lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to the cause of Independence they're not kidding. Had the Revolution failed the best they could hope for is to be hanged. At worst, well, the penalty for Treason at the time was the same as it was in William Wallace's time, watch the end of Braveheart for an idea.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
- For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
- For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
- For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton
North Carolina: William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton
Massachusetts: John Hancock
Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean
New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple
Massachusetts: Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton
*********************
Mark D back.
We're familiar with the ideas enshrined in that document, and with that familiarity we forget just how radical those ideas were at the time. Everyplace else, throughout the world and throughout history, the people existed for the support of the ruling classes and not the other way around. Here is a group of men thundering forth with the concept that All men are created equal! That people have the inviolate right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! That people create governments to protect those rights! That when a government fails to protect those rights it is their right and duty to throw off that government and establish a new one!
At the very end, when the signers pledge their "Lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to the cause of Independence they're not kidding. Had the Revolution failed the best they could hope for is to be hanged. At worst, well, the penalty for Treason at the time was the same as it was in William Wallace's time, watch the end of Braveheart for an idea.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Reflections on my 46th Birthday
Yesterday was my 46th birthday. Birthdays being a good time for looking back over one's life to date, I find that L.P. Hartly was correct when he said "The past is another country, they do things differently there." (As an aside, this quote is often mis-assigned to Jeff Cooper, who titled one of his books "Another Country".)
When I was a kid I had a whole arsenal of toy guns. I had cowboy-type six-shooters, shotguns, a Tommy gun, an M1 rifle, even an M16. Most of them were made in fairly realistic colors, and most of them looked fairly realistic. I don't recall ANY of them having a little red or orange thingy on the muzzle. A cop passing by my yard while my friends and I were playing cowboy, soldier, cops and robbers, etc wouldn't have been alarmed at a bunch a kids running around with guns and apparently shooting one another, that was just what boys did. Thru this type of play we learned that there are good and bad people (note that few kids WANTED to be the Nazi/Robber/Indian) and that if you were a bad person then the good people would hunt you down, that was just what they DID.
From first grade thru third grade we recited the Pledge of Allegience and sang "America" first thing every morning. From fourth thru sixth grades "America" was replaced by "The Star Spangled Banner", a rite of passage that meant you were now among the "big kids". In elementary school (first thru sixth grades) boys had to wear ties and girls had to wear skirts or dresses to school, you couldn't wear jeans (we called them dungarees). In winter the girls could wear pants under their skirts and had to remove the pants when they got to school. On Monday we had Assembly where boys had to wear white shirts and girls white blouses. The class that had the best record of 100% white shirts, blouses and ties got pizza at the end of the year.
When I was about ten my parents gave me a pocketknife for my birthday. It was a "scout" knife, it had a main blade, a penknife blade, a can opener and a screwdriver/bottle opener. The blades were sharp. When (not if) I cut myself with it my mother put a band-aid on it and told me to be more careful next time. I still have a small scar on my left index finger from that knife or one of the others I've owned over the years.
When I was in fifth grade my parents got me a crew-cut. One kid thought that was funny and would squeeze my head every chance he got. I finally had enough of it, turned around, and punched him in the jaw. Later that day my teacher (Mr Santangelo) said "Mark, I heard you punched (whatever his name was)." At my affirmative (I didn't DARE lie to him) he shook my hand and said "Good job". I didn't get suspended, I didn't get detention, the police weren't called, nor was my mother (although she heard about it and approved as well).
I had a Royce Union bicycle, one speed, with a banana seat and sissy-bar. When I first got it it had training wheels, once I learned to ride it (and that took a while since it really was too big for me when I got it) the training wheels came off. I rode it in the driveway and on the front sidewalk at first, as I got older I ranged farther afield on it. I'd sometimes come home scraped up from a fall, and once I fell on my butt trying to pop a wheelie and my wheelie height was more important to me than getting my feet down in time to catch myself. Of course I never wore a helmet. When I got a bit older my brother gave me his Schwinn Varsity ten speed, a fall from which provided me with my only broken bones (both bones in my right arm, just above the wrist) at age 14.
I'd play outside all day, come in dirty (unless I was playing with my Tonka trucks, in which case I'd come in filthy). I had Army-men, G.I. Joes, Tonka trucks, race cars and the aforementioned toy guns.
Each afternoon I'd watch Mr Rogers' Neighborhood. I didn't care much for Sesame Street or Electric Company (besides, I already KNEW my ABCs and how to count, although the guy in the chef's hat falling down the stairs was funny), but I liked Mr Roger's puppet world.
On rainy days my parents and I would play games, Monopoly, Parcheesi, Life. They also taught me to play cards, mostly Rummy 500 and Pinocle. If Mom and Dad were busy I'd play Solitare, with cards, not on a computer. I was probably a teenager when my older brother gave me a Pong game, the first home video game I ever saw.
The only car I remember my Dad owning was a 1968 AMC Rebel station wagon. I remember him working on it in the driveway one time, he couldn't reach whatever he was after at the back of the inline-six-cylinder engine so he stepped over the fender and stood between the fender and engine to get at it. Of course it had no air-conditioning, power windows or power locks. It had seat belts (the kind that went over your lap), but he decided they were in the way so he stuck them under the seat. After my Dad couldn't drive anymore after being disabled at work he gave the Rebel to my brother, who drove it until it was wrecked while parked in front of his house. I later learned that he'd planned to give it to ME on my 18th birthday.
Yes, some things are better now. I'd never consider putting my car into gear unless I and all passengers had their seat-belts fastened (right Sweetie?). I wear a helmet when I ride a bike. I like having more than seven TV channels to choose from.
Still, some things aren't improvements. How many seven-year-olds know the words to the Pledge of Allegience? How many ten-year-olds learn to be careful with knives the hard way, but cutting themselves? How many learn that it's better to be a good person than a bad one because good people will go after bad ones? How many kids today can make their own fun if the TV dies?
The past really is another country, and they really do do things differently there.
When I was a kid I had a whole arsenal of toy guns. I had cowboy-type six-shooters, shotguns, a Tommy gun, an M1 rifle, even an M16. Most of them were made in fairly realistic colors, and most of them looked fairly realistic. I don't recall ANY of them having a little red or orange thingy on the muzzle. A cop passing by my yard while my friends and I were playing cowboy, soldier, cops and robbers, etc wouldn't have been alarmed at a bunch a kids running around with guns and apparently shooting one another, that was just what boys did. Thru this type of play we learned that there are good and bad people (note that few kids WANTED to be the Nazi/Robber/Indian) and that if you were a bad person then the good people would hunt you down, that was just what they DID.
From first grade thru third grade we recited the Pledge of Allegience and sang "America" first thing every morning. From fourth thru sixth grades "America" was replaced by "The Star Spangled Banner", a rite of passage that meant you were now among the "big kids". In elementary school (first thru sixth grades) boys had to wear ties and girls had to wear skirts or dresses to school, you couldn't wear jeans (we called them dungarees). In winter the girls could wear pants under their skirts and had to remove the pants when they got to school. On Monday we had Assembly where boys had to wear white shirts and girls white blouses. The class that had the best record of 100% white shirts, blouses and ties got pizza at the end of the year.
When I was about ten my parents gave me a pocketknife for my birthday. It was a "scout" knife, it had a main blade, a penknife blade, a can opener and a screwdriver/bottle opener. The blades were sharp. When (not if) I cut myself with it my mother put a band-aid on it and told me to be more careful next time. I still have a small scar on my left index finger from that knife or one of the others I've owned over the years.
When I was in fifth grade my parents got me a crew-cut. One kid thought that was funny and would squeeze my head every chance he got. I finally had enough of it, turned around, and punched him in the jaw. Later that day my teacher (Mr Santangelo) said "Mark, I heard you punched (whatever his name was)." At my affirmative (I didn't DARE lie to him) he shook my hand and said "Good job". I didn't get suspended, I didn't get detention, the police weren't called, nor was my mother (although she heard about it and approved as well).
I had a Royce Union bicycle, one speed, with a banana seat and sissy-bar. When I first got it it had training wheels, once I learned to ride it (and that took a while since it really was too big for me when I got it) the training wheels came off. I rode it in the driveway and on the front sidewalk at first, as I got older I ranged farther afield on it. I'd sometimes come home scraped up from a fall, and once I fell on my butt trying to pop a wheelie and my wheelie height was more important to me than getting my feet down in time to catch myself. Of course I never wore a helmet. When I got a bit older my brother gave me his Schwinn Varsity ten speed, a fall from which provided me with my only broken bones (both bones in my right arm, just above the wrist) at age 14.
I'd play outside all day, come in dirty (unless I was playing with my Tonka trucks, in which case I'd come in filthy). I had Army-men, G.I. Joes, Tonka trucks, race cars and the aforementioned toy guns.
Each afternoon I'd watch Mr Rogers' Neighborhood. I didn't care much for Sesame Street or Electric Company (besides, I already KNEW my ABCs and how to count, although the guy in the chef's hat falling down the stairs was funny), but I liked Mr Roger's puppet world.
On rainy days my parents and I would play games, Monopoly, Parcheesi, Life. They also taught me to play cards, mostly Rummy 500 and Pinocle. If Mom and Dad were busy I'd play Solitare, with cards, not on a computer. I was probably a teenager when my older brother gave me a Pong game, the first home video game I ever saw.
The only car I remember my Dad owning was a 1968 AMC Rebel station wagon. I remember him working on it in the driveway one time, he couldn't reach whatever he was after at the back of the inline-six-cylinder engine so he stepped over the fender and stood between the fender and engine to get at it. Of course it had no air-conditioning, power windows or power locks. It had seat belts (the kind that went over your lap), but he decided they were in the way so he stuck them under the seat. After my Dad couldn't drive anymore after being disabled at work he gave the Rebel to my brother, who drove it until it was wrecked while parked in front of his house. I later learned that he'd planned to give it to ME on my 18th birthday.
Yes, some things are better now. I'd never consider putting my car into gear unless I and all passengers had their seat-belts fastened (right Sweetie?). I wear a helmet when I ride a bike. I like having more than seven TV channels to choose from.
Still, some things aren't improvements. How many seven-year-olds know the words to the Pledge of Allegience? How many ten-year-olds learn to be careful with knives the hard way, but cutting themselves? How many learn that it's better to be a good person than a bad one because good people will go after bad ones? How many kids today can make their own fun if the TV dies?
The past really is another country, and they really do do things differently there.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Think Back, and Get Mad
I want you to go on a journey with me, to when you got your first "real" full-time job. You know the one I mean, the one where you worked "on the books", not mowing lawns for your neighbors during the summer. Maybe you were quoted an hourly pay rate, maybe it was an annual salary. Maybe you got paid once a week, once every two weeks, twice a month, or once a month. However it worked, you probably got out your calculator and figured out what your first paycheck would be before you got it, you multiplied your hourly pay by the number of hours you worked, or you divided your annual salary by the number of pay periods per year. Someone probably told you "Don't forget that taxes will be taken out", but you just sort of chalked that up to "miscellaneous", deciding that, yeah, your paycheck would be lower than the actual number you calculated, but not that much.
Then your first paycheck arrived, you tore the envelope open, and said "Holy crap, where did all my (expletive deleted) money go? What the (expletive deleted) is Fed Withholding and why does it cost so much?" Welcome to the wonderful world of tax withholdhing.
By now you've probably just accepted that a bunch of the money you make is taken away from you before you even see it. Deep inside you may even be a little, well, shall we say grateful, that the various government entities allow you to keep as much as they do. (For the record, this is how the government thinks too, any money that stays in your paycheck is considered by the government to be a "tax expenditure". It's as if they're doing you a favor by letting you keep some of the money you work for.) In the first quarter of the calendar year you probably file your tax returns, if you owe money you probably think of that as the taxes you "pay", or if you overpaid all year you think if that as money you "get". If you get a refund you may even think you don't PAY taxes at all. This is, of course, wrong, a refund merely means that you paid more than you should have and the overage is returned to you, without interest of course.
Right now about one-quarter of my paycheck is withheld for Federal taxes. That's Federal income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. One quarter. I work ten hours a week, two hours a DAY, to pay these withholdings. My wife has similar withholdings from her paycheck. That doesn't include state taxes.
Lest you think this is a rant against all taxes, it's not. I like the idea of having carrier battle groups, interstate highways, and Marine divisions, all of which are expensive. I object, however, to money that I work for being given to people who took out mortgages that were too expensive for them to handle, all while I pay my mortgage on three-quarters of my salary.
There's only one reason why we Americans put up with this, because we never see the money we "spend" on taxes. We consider our take-home pay to be our salary. If you want to see a change in our tax structure we need to eliminate withholding. If your paycheck was your actual salary, then every month or quarter the government sent you a bill for your taxes, it wouldn't take long (probably before the next election day) before taxes went down. In my own case, the monthly check I'd have to write for my taxes would be the single biggest check I'd send out all month, it would be considerably larger than my mortgage payment. That will get people's attention.
And maybe, just maybe, the people who's attention was gotten would vote.
Then your first paycheck arrived, you tore the envelope open, and said "Holy crap, where did all my (expletive deleted) money go? What the (expletive deleted) is Fed Withholding and why does it cost so much?" Welcome to the wonderful world of tax withholdhing.
By now you've probably just accepted that a bunch of the money you make is taken away from you before you even see it. Deep inside you may even be a little, well, shall we say grateful, that the various government entities allow you to keep as much as they do. (For the record, this is how the government thinks too, any money that stays in your paycheck is considered by the government to be a "tax expenditure". It's as if they're doing you a favor by letting you keep some of the money you work for.) In the first quarter of the calendar year you probably file your tax returns, if you owe money you probably think of that as the taxes you "pay", or if you overpaid all year you think if that as money you "get". If you get a refund you may even think you don't PAY taxes at all. This is, of course, wrong, a refund merely means that you paid more than you should have and the overage is returned to you, without interest of course.
Right now about one-quarter of my paycheck is withheld for Federal taxes. That's Federal income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicare tax. One quarter. I work ten hours a week, two hours a DAY, to pay these withholdings. My wife has similar withholdings from her paycheck. That doesn't include state taxes.
Lest you think this is a rant against all taxes, it's not. I like the idea of having carrier battle groups, interstate highways, and Marine divisions, all of which are expensive. I object, however, to money that I work for being given to people who took out mortgages that were too expensive for them to handle, all while I pay my mortgage on three-quarters of my salary.
There's only one reason why we Americans put up with this, because we never see the money we "spend" on taxes. We consider our take-home pay to be our salary. If you want to see a change in our tax structure we need to eliminate withholding. If your paycheck was your actual salary, then every month or quarter the government sent you a bill for your taxes, it wouldn't take long (probably before the next election day) before taxes went down. In my own case, the monthly check I'd have to write for my taxes would be the single biggest check I'd send out all month, it would be considerably larger than my mortgage payment. That will get people's attention.
And maybe, just maybe, the people who's attention was gotten would vote.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
A Rite of Spring
Spring is fast approaching, and practitioners of a classic American sport are getting ready for the new season. In some of the warmer parts of the country folks are already engaged in their passtime, while those of us in colder areas are looking ahead to the coming season. Soon you won't be able to go to the local park without seeing Dads teaching their sons the basics of a life-long passion, or on a lazy Sunday afternoon you can turn on the TV and watch the pros go at it.
I am, of course, talking about fishing.
I honestly don't remember the first time I went fishing, but it must have been about 40 years ago (I'm 45 now). I remember my Dad telling me I caught a blowfish and a striped bass using a little bait-casting rig my parents bought me at the local department store (and I still have the rod). When I was in High School my father and I would go surf fishing every other weekend (when the tides were right), and you could always count on my friend George and I being at the local pond going after catfish, carp and sunnies on a summer afternoon.
I am, of course, talking about fishing.
I honestly don't remember the first time I went fishing, but it must have been about 40 years ago (I'm 45 now). I remember my Dad telling me I caught a blowfish and a striped bass using a little bait-casting rig my parents bought me at the local department store (and I still have the rod). When I was in High School my father and I would go surf fishing every other weekend (when the tides were right), and you could always count on my friend George and I being at the local pond going after catfish, carp and sunnies on a summer afternoon.
There are as many reasons for fishing as there are fishermen (or fisherwomen). Some people fish because they enjoy eating a fish that was swimming around an hour or so before it was cooked (and I can tell you from personal experience that no fish tastes better than that). Some enjoy having the latest gadgetry. For me, I enjoy matching wits with an animal that's perfectly suited for his environment. I enjoy reading the water to decide where the fish are likely to be and what they're likely to bite on, then presenting that bait to that place in a manner that won't scare him away. Many times I've come home without catching a fish, but I've never regretted a day spent fishing.
You don't need lots of expensive equipment. My primary freshwater rig is a 30+ year old rod I bought in a department store combined with a reel that my brother gave me that may be older than I am. Last Saturday I seriously considered buying a couple bamboo poles (at $4 each) to let my nephew and nieces use during our annual family vacation. The fish doesn't care what's on your end of the line.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Putting it in Perspective
Congress is preparing to pass a $787 Billion stimulus package. That's $787,000,000,000. That's a mind-blowingly big number, so I put on my nerd hat, crunched some numbers, and tried to put it into perspective. You don't need to thank me.
- If you spent a dollar a second it would take you 24,956 years to spend that much money.
- At an estimated population of 303,824,640 people in the US, the cost comes to $2,590 for every person in the nation.
- Let's say you convert the cost of the stimulus package to pennies. You then wrap those pennies and lay them end-to-end. Your line of penny wrappers would go around the Earth 2,494 times.
- That string of penny wrappers would reach from the earth to the moon and back 130 times.
- If you laid those penny wrappers in a straight line, it would take LIGHT a bit over five and a half minutes to travel that far.
Our grandchildren will have reason to hate us.
- If you spent a dollar a second it would take you 24,956 years to spend that much money.
- At an estimated population of 303,824,640 people in the US, the cost comes to $2,590 for every person in the nation.
- Let's say you convert the cost of the stimulus package to pennies. You then wrap those pennies and lay them end-to-end. Your line of penny wrappers would go around the Earth 2,494 times.
- That string of penny wrappers would reach from the earth to the moon and back 130 times.
- If you laid those penny wrappers in a straight line, it would take LIGHT a bit over five and a half minutes to travel that far.
Our grandchildren will have reason to hate us.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Power-Shifting a Paradigm*
Had I been asked a few weeks ago how I feel about books, I'd have said I love them. I buy them constantly, and I'm seldom not in the process of reading a book. I have four book-cases jammed to capacity with books, many of the shelves are two-deep in books, and there are enough stacks of books around to upset my wife. It seemed to me that my love of books is well established.
Then we bought a Kindle.
If you're not familiar with the Kindle, it's Amazon's e-book reader. I never thought I'd embrace this technology. Every e-book reader I'd seen (and I admit I hadn't looked at one in a few years) was lacking, the text was poor, the screen was small, and I found the display led to eye fatigue (and this from someone who makes his living sitting in front of a computer screen all day). Plus, I reasoned, the Kindle was expensive. Upon speaking to a number of people (including cyber-buddy MorningGlory) I found that most of my objections, except the price, were unfounded. A lady I saw reading one on the train let me see the display, and I found that the text to be very readable. When Oprah announced a discount my wife and I decided to buy one.
Having now used it for a couple of months I can say I love it. I can change the font size to suit lighting or other conditions (larger fonts are more convenient on a bumpy train ride for instance, or at night when my eyes are tired). The battery needs to be recharged about once a week.
I also learned I didn't so much love books as love reading, and the Kindle is the perfect device for people who love to read. For instance, I bought a two-CD set of classic books from the Western Canon for $30, those two CDs contain almost eight hundred books. Available books range from free for public domain downloads to about ten dollars for current best-sellers. (And yes, I could have downloaded the 800 books on those two CDs for free, but my time is worth something too.)
So the man who resisted getting a cell phone until pay phones became rare, the man who refuses to buy a PDA because a paper calendar and note pad does the same thing cheaper and with no battery worries, the man who predicted twenty years ago that CDs were a passing fad, has embraced a new technology. Which brings me to another point about me. I'm not opposed to new technologies, but they have to actually be better than the low-tech devices they replace. Digital cameras, for instance, are better for most applications than film cameras. Battery-powered watches are better than wind-up (I still prefer a watch with hands as opposed to digital, but that's just my preference). The Kindle is the size and weight of a thin paperback but will hold hundreds of books and display them in in a font size that doesn't make my eyes water.
So, accompanied by much grinding of gears, I embrace a new device.
* For the non-gear-heads out there, "power shifting" is a method of shifting a manual transmission without lifting your foot from the accelerator. It's a good way to get extra acceleration, it's also a good way to break your transmission. If you try it, don't blame me for damage done.
Then we bought a Kindle.
If you're not familiar with the Kindle, it's Amazon's e-book reader. I never thought I'd embrace this technology. Every e-book reader I'd seen (and I admit I hadn't looked at one in a few years) was lacking, the text was poor, the screen was small, and I found the display led to eye fatigue (and this from someone who makes his living sitting in front of a computer screen all day). Plus, I reasoned, the Kindle was expensive. Upon speaking to a number of people (including cyber-buddy MorningGlory) I found that most of my objections, except the price, were unfounded. A lady I saw reading one on the train let me see the display, and I found that the text to be very readable. When Oprah announced a discount my wife and I decided to buy one.
Having now used it for a couple of months I can say I love it. I can change the font size to suit lighting or other conditions (larger fonts are more convenient on a bumpy train ride for instance, or at night when my eyes are tired). The battery needs to be recharged about once a week.
I also learned I didn't so much love books as love reading, and the Kindle is the perfect device for people who love to read. For instance, I bought a two-CD set of classic books from the Western Canon for $30, those two CDs contain almost eight hundred books. Available books range from free for public domain downloads to about ten dollars for current best-sellers. (And yes, I could have downloaded the 800 books on those two CDs for free, but my time is worth something too.)
So the man who resisted getting a cell phone until pay phones became rare, the man who refuses to buy a PDA because a paper calendar and note pad does the same thing cheaper and with no battery worries, the man who predicted twenty years ago that CDs were a passing fad, has embraced a new technology. Which brings me to another point about me. I'm not opposed to new technologies, but they have to actually be better than the low-tech devices they replace. Digital cameras, for instance, are better for most applications than film cameras. Battery-powered watches are better than wind-up (I still prefer a watch with hands as opposed to digital, but that's just my preference). The Kindle is the size and weight of a thin paperback but will hold hundreds of books and display them in in a font size that doesn't make my eyes water.
So, accompanied by much grinding of gears, I embrace a new device.
* For the non-gear-heads out there, "power shifting" is a method of shifting a manual transmission without lifting your foot from the accelerator. It's a good way to get extra acceleration, it's also a good way to break your transmission. If you try it, don't blame me for damage done.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Vote Mark D in 2012
OK, I've decided to annouce my candidacy for the office of President of the United States for the 2012 election. I offer my platform for your consideration.
I believe that America is the greatest nation in the world not because of our government, but because of our people. I believe that the government exists to serve the people (and not, I may add, in the same manner as a bull serves a cow). I believe that the function of government is to protect the rights of the citizens, those rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that our Constitution creates a government that can do just that, but that the government has trangressed that Constitution and needs to be corrected.
Therefore, if elected, my first order of business will be to reform the executive branch, of which I will be the head. Each department head in the executive branch will provide me with the following: 1) a brief description of the duties and responsibilities of that department, and 2) a copy of the pertinent sections of the Constitution authorizing that department to perform those tasks. Mass resignations will be accepted in place of either of these items, failure to provide both to my satisfaction shall result in mass firings and (if I can manage it) public floggings. Any department heads who reference the "commerce clause" had BETTER be dealing with interstate highways or something similar. Don't test me on that.
Next, we will work on reforming the Legislative branch. I can't do this directly, but I can do so using two tools, the veto and public opinion. My first order of business will be elimination of expenditures added to bills which have nothing to do with the bill, we know this as pork barrel spending or simply as pork. I will veto any bill containing pork, regardless of the merit of the bill. This will be totally non-partisan. For example if the original bill is for tax reform that I would otherwise sign, but there's pork included, I'll veto it whether the pork provides for a wind farm to be built in Wisconsin (which I would disapprove of) or if it provides for a wall across our southern border to keep out illegal aliens (which I would approve of). Give me the expenditures as seperate bills which I can judge on their own merits. Finally, should Congress override my veto of a pork containing bill I'll call a press conference the very next day and explain to the American people that their Congress approved these expenses, apparently believing that their pet projects are more important than letting the taxpayers keep the money they work for. I will then name each and every member of Congress who voted to override the veto. I suspect a great many promising legislative careers will come to an abrupt end at the next election cycle.
I want America to take a page from her own Marine Corps, I want her to be no better friend and no worse enemy. First, America will no longer be part of the United Nations, an organization which serves only to undermine American sovereignty and give comfort to our enemies. If the UN wishes to maintain its offices in New York City they may do so, by paying fair market value for the property in question. Otherwise, they may leave, the choice is theirs. Next, I will re-evaluate our international alliances. These will be modified as appropriate, our allies should enhance American interests, not detract from them. Our remaining allies will find America a worthwhile friend, quick to assist them militarily, economically, or with humanitarian aid. Everyone else can pound sand. Oh, an earthquake just flattened your capital city and you need food, medical supplies and facilities, power and water? Well, we'll be happy to send a carrier group there to provide all those things, the fee will be one billion dollars per day, plus expenses.
Lastly, I want hostile nations or groups to think twice before they mess with us. I mean that. Much of the trouble we have today with terrorism is because we lacked the intestinal fortitude to flatten Tehran when they took Americans hostage under the Carter administration. You take Americans hostage? You have 48 hours to set them free unharmed or there will be a large hole where your capital used to be. This is non-negotiable, there will be no extensions, this will be your only warning.
So vote for me, we'll make America what it's intended to be.
I'm Mark D and I approve this message.
I believe that America is the greatest nation in the world not because of our government, but because of our people. I believe that the government exists to serve the people (and not, I may add, in the same manner as a bull serves a cow). I believe that the function of government is to protect the rights of the citizens, those rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that our Constitution creates a government that can do just that, but that the government has trangressed that Constitution and needs to be corrected.
Therefore, if elected, my first order of business will be to reform the executive branch, of which I will be the head. Each department head in the executive branch will provide me with the following: 1) a brief description of the duties and responsibilities of that department, and 2) a copy of the pertinent sections of the Constitution authorizing that department to perform those tasks. Mass resignations will be accepted in place of either of these items, failure to provide both to my satisfaction shall result in mass firings and (if I can manage it) public floggings. Any department heads who reference the "commerce clause" had BETTER be dealing with interstate highways or something similar. Don't test me on that.
Next, we will work on reforming the Legislative branch. I can't do this directly, but I can do so using two tools, the veto and public opinion. My first order of business will be elimination of expenditures added to bills which have nothing to do with the bill, we know this as pork barrel spending or simply as pork. I will veto any bill containing pork, regardless of the merit of the bill. This will be totally non-partisan. For example if the original bill is for tax reform that I would otherwise sign, but there's pork included, I'll veto it whether the pork provides for a wind farm to be built in Wisconsin (which I would disapprove of) or if it provides for a wall across our southern border to keep out illegal aliens (which I would approve of). Give me the expenditures as seperate bills which I can judge on their own merits. Finally, should Congress override my veto of a pork containing bill I'll call a press conference the very next day and explain to the American people that their Congress approved these expenses, apparently believing that their pet projects are more important than letting the taxpayers keep the money they work for. I will then name each and every member of Congress who voted to override the veto. I suspect a great many promising legislative careers will come to an abrupt end at the next election cycle.
I want America to take a page from her own Marine Corps, I want her to be no better friend and no worse enemy. First, America will no longer be part of the United Nations, an organization which serves only to undermine American sovereignty and give comfort to our enemies. If the UN wishes to maintain its offices in New York City they may do so, by paying fair market value for the property in question. Otherwise, they may leave, the choice is theirs. Next, I will re-evaluate our international alliances. These will be modified as appropriate, our allies should enhance American interests, not detract from them. Our remaining allies will find America a worthwhile friend, quick to assist them militarily, economically, or with humanitarian aid. Everyone else can pound sand. Oh, an earthquake just flattened your capital city and you need food, medical supplies and facilities, power and water? Well, we'll be happy to send a carrier group there to provide all those things, the fee will be one billion dollars per day, plus expenses.
Lastly, I want hostile nations or groups to think twice before they mess with us. I mean that. Much of the trouble we have today with terrorism is because we lacked the intestinal fortitude to flatten Tehran when they took Americans hostage under the Carter administration. You take Americans hostage? You have 48 hours to set them free unharmed or there will be a large hole where your capital used to be. This is non-negotiable, there will be no extensions, this will be your only warning.
So vote for me, we'll make America what it's intended to be.
I'm Mark D and I approve this message.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Profits and Taxes
During last night's Presidential debate Senator Obama made mention of record profits by Exxon Mobil, profits that he wishes to tax. The implication is that those profits go to people who are already obscenely rich, so they can afford to lose a bit. Let's take a closer look at that.
Exxon Mobil (I'll abbreviate it as EM from now on) is a publicly traded company, meaning that anyone who can afford to buy stock in it can do so. Stockholders get dividends on their stock, corporate profits translate into a certain amount of money for each share of stock owned, so those profits are divided up among all the stockholders.
Yes, lots of wealthy people own EM stock. Who else does? Well, for one thing I probably do. I have IRAs, 401Ks and Mutual Funds, and of those funds don't have some shares of a company that posted record profits last year I want to speak to the fund manager and find out why.
Most companies, and I assume EM is no exception, have employee stock purchase programs where employees of the company can purchase stock, often with some matching funds provided by the company. This stock can form the basis of a retirement plan or personal investment package. Yes, the CEO will hold stock, but so will a chemist in the research department, an administrative assistant in Human Resources, or a mid-level manager in Accounts Payable. Let's take that last person as our example, let's say her name is Susan. She's been working for the company now for ten years and has been buying stock every paycheck since then. Her quarterly dividends checks have been growing larger as her stock portfolio has increased. She is, in point of fact, solidly middle class, with a job, a mortgage and a car payment. For the last seven years, since she gave birth to her son, she's been putting those dividend checks into a college savings account. Those are the profits Senator Obama wants to take away.
Unlike the government EM can't just print more money or force people under authority of law to pay higher taxes. EM won't just accept smaller profits and pay lower dividents, they'll also attempt to increase income and decrease expenses. Since EM is already selling all the petroleum products it can produce, increasing income is problematic, so they'll probably end up reducing expenses.
If I can simplify EM's business model, they make money by finding petroleum in the ground, removing it from the ground, refining it into usable products, and selling it to consumers. If profits are reduced perhaps EM will scale back the expense of exploring for new sources of petroleum, which may well cause a shortage years down the road (perhaps around the time Susan's son is preparing to go to college). Perhaps EM will scale back some drilling operations, especially in areas where it's more expensive (and thereby less profitable) to drill, which could cause shortages much sooner and may make Susan long for the gas prices of the summer of 2008. Maybe they'll move their operations overseas, to a nation that doesn't have such an onerous tax structure. Finally, maybe they'll just cut staff, and Susan will become one of many unemployed people who lost their jobs because companies were trying to stay profitable under a heavier tax burden.
So by taxing oil company profits we're reducing middle-class Susan's income by reducing her stock dividends, we're making her find other methods of financing her son's college education, we're potentially forcing her to pay more for gasoline, and we may even be forcing her out of her job. All because a politician sees a sum of money earned by a company for selling a product as a source of government income.
Still want to tax those juicy oil company profits?
Exxon Mobil (I'll abbreviate it as EM from now on) is a publicly traded company, meaning that anyone who can afford to buy stock in it can do so. Stockholders get dividends on their stock, corporate profits translate into a certain amount of money for each share of stock owned, so those profits are divided up among all the stockholders.
Yes, lots of wealthy people own EM stock. Who else does? Well, for one thing I probably do. I have IRAs, 401Ks and Mutual Funds, and of those funds don't have some shares of a company that posted record profits last year I want to speak to the fund manager and find out why.
Most companies, and I assume EM is no exception, have employee stock purchase programs where employees of the company can purchase stock, often with some matching funds provided by the company. This stock can form the basis of a retirement plan or personal investment package. Yes, the CEO will hold stock, but so will a chemist in the research department, an administrative assistant in Human Resources, or a mid-level manager in Accounts Payable. Let's take that last person as our example, let's say her name is Susan. She's been working for the company now for ten years and has been buying stock every paycheck since then. Her quarterly dividends checks have been growing larger as her stock portfolio has increased. She is, in point of fact, solidly middle class, with a job, a mortgage and a car payment. For the last seven years, since she gave birth to her son, she's been putting those dividend checks into a college savings account. Those are the profits Senator Obama wants to take away.
Unlike the government EM can't just print more money or force people under authority of law to pay higher taxes. EM won't just accept smaller profits and pay lower dividents, they'll also attempt to increase income and decrease expenses. Since EM is already selling all the petroleum products it can produce, increasing income is problematic, so they'll probably end up reducing expenses.
If I can simplify EM's business model, they make money by finding petroleum in the ground, removing it from the ground, refining it into usable products, and selling it to consumers. If profits are reduced perhaps EM will scale back the expense of exploring for new sources of petroleum, which may well cause a shortage years down the road (perhaps around the time Susan's son is preparing to go to college). Perhaps EM will scale back some drilling operations, especially in areas where it's more expensive (and thereby less profitable) to drill, which could cause shortages much sooner and may make Susan long for the gas prices of the summer of 2008. Maybe they'll move their operations overseas, to a nation that doesn't have such an onerous tax structure. Finally, maybe they'll just cut staff, and Susan will become one of many unemployed people who lost their jobs because companies were trying to stay profitable under a heavier tax burden.
So by taxing oil company profits we're reducing middle-class Susan's income by reducing her stock dividends, we're making her find other methods of financing her son's college education, we're potentially forcing her to pay more for gasoline, and we may even be forcing her out of her job. All because a politician sees a sum of money earned by a company for selling a product as a source of government income.
Still want to tax those juicy oil company profits?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)