When the minimum wage is increased it forces upward ALL wages above due to wage compression. When we increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 (approximately a 40% increase!), that increases the wage of those at the bottom from $7.25 to $10.10. What about someone making $8? Or $9? Or $10? The law would require that they ALL be raised to at least $10.10. But is that enough for someone previously making $8, $9 or $10? Logically, of course not! Thing is, the compression doesn't stop there. ALL wages above the NEW minimum wage are also affected!
For example, what about someone with 5 years experience and making $10.10 before the minimum wage increase? Is ANY company going to leave their wage there so that they make the same as someone just hired at $10.10? Of course not. Their wage must be increased too. Let's say their wage is increased from $10.10 to $12.50 ... ie, a smaller increase of 'only' 24%. That seems more fair, eh? But what about someone with 8 years experience who was making $12? Now someone less qualified/experienced is making $12.50, 50 cents more than they do. What do you do about that? Raise their wage also to something like $14.40 ... ie, 'only' a 20% increase. Now, what about a person who'd been making $14 before the minimum wage was increased? Can't leave them making less than someone now making $14.40, right? And so on ... with EVERY wage above the new minimum wage.
So, we can see that when the minimum wage is increased, it's NOT just the wages at/near the bottom that get increased. It forces employers to increase the wage of most(!) hourly workers.
Let's examine the resulting impact on employers. If they're forced to give NEARLY ALL hourly workers an average increase of, say 20% (remember it's a 40% increase just for those at the bottom), That's a VERY non-trivial hit to a company's bottom line. It's a historical statistical(!) fact that minimum wage increases hurts employment. Companies either slow their hiring or fire people in order to stay profitable. Would we rather they go bankrupt and have everyone lose their job?
Even President Obama's own CBO understands these economic factors. These consequences are discussed in a new National Review article that references that CBO report.
All of the analysis above is not only common sense when one considers the larger implications but historical facts verify it. We can't keep doing these things and expect different results especially when common sense tells us it's nuts. We've got to think with more common sense and a longer view of things or we're going to allow our federal and state governments to ruin our economy. We can't keep letting those knuckleheads do all our thinking for us!
Showing posts with label Government-General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government-General. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Thursday, January 30, 2014
The End Justifies The Means: The Words "Lie" Or "Failed" Aren't In Their Dictionary. It's All Just 'Relative' After All.
Politicians are increasingly living in a world where everything is 'relative'. It's convenient because it allows them to avoid the inconvenience of being wrong about ... or accountable for ... anything they say or do. In that world there's no such thing as a 'lie' because behind whatever they actually lied about is some moral or other superior relativistic notion.
In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?
Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?
Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.
It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?
How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).
Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.
Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.
In their bizzaro world there's no such thing as "lie", "failed", "truth", "wrong", or "fact (historical or otherwise)". How convenient, huh?
Politicians in both major parties are increasingly inclined to think and talk in relative terms but there's an essence about it that is fundamental to progressive thinking. Theory often trumps human nature, historical facts, and honest data analysis. It trumps reality. To progressives among our political elite, their claimed superior end justifies whatever becomes screwed up getting there. And justifies it to such an extent that even debate about problems and failures is irrelevant. As if we can't learn from mistakes? As if fixing whatever got screwed up has no value ... especially if fixing it requires undoing it?
Engaging in debate before taking a vote on a progressive bill requires defending one's position which is very difficult when common sense and/or even actual history are against one. Which explains why congressional progressives keep doing end-runs around any process that requires honest debate. End runs around the constitution become not only necessary but justifiable. The end justifies the means after all.
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, routinely keeps Republican proposals from even reaching the senate floor for debate because defending his position against them using logic and common sense would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Besides, debate would expose the negatives contained in a progressive's bill; would expose the lack of common sense or even wisdom. Which is why over a hundred jobs bills from the House sit in his in-basket rather than being advanced in the legislative process for consideration or debate. Which is why Democrats feel justified in claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans never proposed health care reform. Not doing it their way = blocking them. Whatever happened to compromise? Those Republican bills never got to debate; therefore, they never existed ... in Harry Reid's mind. Therefore, he has a convenient (but completely false) rationalization (everything's relative, remember) for his claims that Republicans haven't done anything about health care, jobs or anything else he's of a mind to criticize them about.
It explains why it has become unnecessary for Harry Reid's senate to even consider some legislation. He can hide behind claiming untruthfully(!) that Republicans are blocking him (not doing it his way = blocking him) and then let President Obama implement what progressives want via executive order. Honest debate is an inconvenient thing that would get in the way of the progressive vision for America. So they use chicanery (to circumvent the constitution and its processes) and thuggery (to bully Republicans) to avoid an honest debate and make Republicans look like the bad guys when honest analysis proves the opposite. It's congress' progressive political elites who are the bullies. Who appointed them the deciders of what's right or wrong? Who appointed them deciders of what parts of the constitution should be ignored or what legislation should even be debated?
How many Americans even understand the constitutional process that's being hijacked by progressives? The House or Senate passes a bill and sends it to the other body. That other body either passes it too, modifies it and sends it back to the originating body for signing or both sides make their own proposals that are debated in conference that produces a compromise which both sign. That's messy though. It takes time and effort. Oh, and one must defend one's position/proposals logically(!) in debate. When what one proposes is based on relativistic and theoretical arguments that completely ignore things like human nature and historical fact, common sense and logic go out the window. The proposal becomes indefensible in debate so debate must be avoided at all costs. After all, the end justifies the means (including throwing away the constitution).
Why isn't congress debating major issues/legislation? Because both sides, especially progressives, are becoming averse to honest debate or for that matter honesty in general. It's too hard to get your way when your way fails against common sense and/or true(!) facts.
Here's an article by Victor Davis Hanson that adds further analysis to this. As I said, one can find Republican attitudes and thinking that are similar in some ways but it's clearly more fundamental to the thinking of progressive political elites.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Progressives Probably Can't Connect The Dots Between Over-Protective Parents And Over-Protective Government. Government = Our Helmet For Life!
Interesting story about crash helmets for crawlers and toddlers. It's kinda funny to read about the fairly liberal Today Show talking about that as bad for kids because they'll become risk averse and be less likely to succeed at things that have potential for being rough, physical and risky.
An over-protective government does the same thing to people's psyche folks! Too much protection robs people of the opportunity to grow to their maximum ability. Dependency creates a "I prefer safety and comfort" over doing anything that might be difficult, require real sacrifice and at which they might actually fail.
Progressives want to create an over-protective government. That might feel good to lots of people (both the provider and the recipient) but it robs the dependent ones of the opportunity to experience real things in life because it inherently encourages them not to take risks. Life can be exhilarating in both good and bad ways. Thing is, we LEARN IMPORTANT THINGS FROM BAD EXPERIENCES! We become more resilient and less likely to repeat what caused it. We become better survivors!!! Living in the government's protective bubble does the opposite of encouraging people to become survivors and experience all they can in life.
Yes, crawlers can bang their heads into things and there are probably statistics 'out there' that can show some number of crawlers hurt themselves seriously. But a far worse problem is that keeping a helmet on them doesn't teach them what to avoid in the future when they have no helmet. The only solution then will be helmets for life sold in all sizes from one minute old to the latest possible age.
Same for government. Progressives think we need government to protect us throughout our lives so we don't experience any of the vagaries of life. Under their plan, government becomes our helmet for life. Problem is, we'll never actually get to experience life that way! How boring and unfulfilling is that? Hello! Earth to Progressives!
An over-protective government does the same thing to people's psyche folks! Too much protection robs people of the opportunity to grow to their maximum ability. Dependency creates a "I prefer safety and comfort" over doing anything that might be difficult, require real sacrifice and at which they might actually fail.
Progressives want to create an over-protective government. That might feel good to lots of people (both the provider and the recipient) but it robs the dependent ones of the opportunity to experience real things in life because it inherently encourages them not to take risks. Life can be exhilarating in both good and bad ways. Thing is, we LEARN IMPORTANT THINGS FROM BAD EXPERIENCES! We become more resilient and less likely to repeat what caused it. We become better survivors!!! Living in the government's protective bubble does the opposite of encouraging people to become survivors and experience all they can in life.
Yes, crawlers can bang their heads into things and there are probably statistics 'out there' that can show some number of crawlers hurt themselves seriously. But a far worse problem is that keeping a helmet on them doesn't teach them what to avoid in the future when they have no helmet. The only solution then will be helmets for life sold in all sizes from one minute old to the latest possible age.
Same for government. Progressives think we need government to protect us throughout our lives so we don't experience any of the vagaries of life. Under their plan, government becomes our helmet for life. Problem is, we'll never actually get to experience life that way! How boring and unfulfilling is that? Hello! Earth to Progressives!
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
A Welfare State At What Cost?
Here's a link that's very relevant to the root cause of all the red ink we have nationally and I'll introduce it with a quote from it: "Democrats are in charge of 35 of the 40 chambers in states
with the 20 largest deficits, including control of both the Senate and
House in 17 of these 20 states". There's no way to interpret this than the more Democrat-controlled the state is the greater the debt problems are. This illustrates a major flaw in their welfare state type governance.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/03/democraticcontrolled_legislatu.php
The article examines data before and after the last election and compares the relationship before and after the 2008 election, ie before and after the economic collapse. The only difference is that after the 2008 election the states that went more Republican are on firmer gound today and those still controlled by Democrats are still in as much trouble as before.
Republican policies, including Bush's(!), did not cause their debt troubles. (Whatever Bush did that you disagree with affected states more or less equally so this big difference between states is not his doing.) Guess which party's policies did cause these debt problems? Hello!?!? Guess which party's policies are getting states out of trouble that were in trouble after the 2008 elections? Hello!?!?
By the way, very liberal, highly progressive MSNBC just published an article describing which states still have big debt problems. Why do you suppose it is that they didn't mention the above correlation? Do you think they would have if the data showed it was Republican states in the biggest trouble? ;-) Here's their article:
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10126535-nevada-illinois-among-states-that-cant-pay-their-bills
As I said in a recent post below, you can't make up stuff that's more laughable than this. Trouble is, the joke's on the citizens of those states and, unfortunately, on the rest of us whose state leadership have been more fiscally responsible because we will continue paying a price for bad governance in troubled states until they get their budgets balanced.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/03/democraticcontrolled_legislatu.php
The article examines data before and after the last election and compares the relationship before and after the 2008 election, ie before and after the economic collapse. The only difference is that after the 2008 election the states that went more Republican are on firmer gound today and those still controlled by Democrats are still in as much trouble as before.
Republican policies, including Bush's(!), did not cause their debt troubles. (Whatever Bush did that you disagree with affected states more or less equally so this big difference between states is not his doing.) Guess which party's policies did cause these debt problems? Hello!?!? Guess which party's policies are getting states out of trouble that were in trouble after the 2008 elections? Hello!?!?
By the way, very liberal, highly progressive MSNBC just published an article describing which states still have big debt problems. Why do you suppose it is that they didn't mention the above correlation? Do you think they would have if the data showed it was Republican states in the biggest trouble? ;-) Here's their article:
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10126535-nevada-illinois-among-states-that-cant-pay-their-bills
As I said in a recent post below, you can't make up stuff that's more laughable than this. Trouble is, the joke's on the citizens of those states and, unfortunately, on the rest of us whose state leadership have been more fiscally responsible because we will continue paying a price for bad governance in troubled states until they get their budgets balanced.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Hypocrisy And Unfairness Of the Media And Liberals
Isn't it interesting how The Media and liberals have been spinning these "Occupy ..." protests? Their amazing contortions trying to portray these as rational, reasonably well-behaved, possessing legitimate concerns, etc are completely laughable are they not?
Remember how they jumped all over very, VERY mild issues in the TEA Party protests and went out of their way to discredit them and talk endlessly about the most minor things? I guess the TEA Party goals of lower taxes, less spending and less debt WERE complete nonsense, eh? Yeah, those goals are complete nonsense ... we have no need for that at all do we? But the "Occupy ..." folks are completely rational, well-behaved and even noble. Huh? The TEA Party goals weren't anything needing actual attention when the groups started up and those still don't need attention, huh? Totally irrational for sure.
TEA Party protesters all pretty much behaved legally and respectfully of people and property (always cleaning up after themselves, including that very large protest on the national mall last year!). How does that compare with these Occupy protests?
By the way, have you noticed The Media investigations into who is financing these Occupy protests? If you'll check into it you'll find it's a who's who of leading progressive groups/organizations/people. have you heard the hate expressed by the leadership of the unions supporting them?
You want to know what anarchy and anarchists look like? Keep an eye on the Occupy protests and learn. How much property damage is resulting from this? How many arrests have there been? How many business have been hurt, including small and medium businesses that had nothing to do with our economic problems? How can city leaders condone and even support this?
C'mon folks! Can you rationally claim, much less believe, that the TEA Party protesters and their goals were less legitimate, less focused. less clear, and that those protesters were worse behaved? I mean, really!!!
Got an important question for you. Which is the truly "angry mob", the label that congressional democratic leaders tagged onto TEA Party protesters?
Remember how they jumped all over very, VERY mild issues in the TEA Party protests and went out of their way to discredit them and talk endlessly about the most minor things? I guess the TEA Party goals of lower taxes, less spending and less debt WERE complete nonsense, eh? Yeah, those goals are complete nonsense ... we have no need for that at all do we? But the "Occupy ..." folks are completely rational, well-behaved and even noble. Huh? The TEA Party goals weren't anything needing actual attention when the groups started up and those still don't need attention, huh? Totally irrational for sure.
TEA Party protesters all pretty much behaved legally and respectfully of people and property (always cleaning up after themselves, including that very large protest on the national mall last year!). How does that compare with these Occupy protests?
By the way, have you noticed The Media investigations into who is financing these Occupy protests? If you'll check into it you'll find it's a who's who of leading progressive groups/organizations/people. have you heard the hate expressed by the leadership of the unions supporting them?
You want to know what anarchy and anarchists look like? Keep an eye on the Occupy protests and learn. How much property damage is resulting from this? How many arrests have there been? How many business have been hurt, including small and medium businesses that had nothing to do with our economic problems? How can city leaders condone and even support this?
C'mon folks! Can you rationally claim, much less believe, that the TEA Party protesters and their goals were less legitimate, less focused. less clear, and that those protesters were worse behaved? I mean, really!!!
Got an important question for you. Which is the truly "angry mob", the label that congressional democratic leaders tagged onto TEA Party protesters?
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
It's Hypocritical For Democrats To Denounce Republicans For Wall Street Connections
Bernie Madoff was active in the NASD (securities industry regulatory(!) organization) and served as chairman of the board and on the board of governors of the NASD. All the while he was perpetrating one of the biggest Wall Street frauds of all times. Oh, and he's a Democrat.
Now we hear that MF Global has filed for bankruptcy and that millions of dollars have mysteriously gone missing there. Jon Corzine runs that. He once ran Goldman Sachs before becoming a US Senator and then NJ governor. There don't appear to be any charges against him so far but this is fishy at best. Another Wall Street insider. Oh, and he's a Democrat too.
So much for the Democratic myth that only Republicans are associated with the immoral, unprincipled and illegal things going on in Wall Street. Someone ought to ask the Occupy Wall Street protesters what they think of this.
I think it's time we all took a deep breath and stopped the nonsense partisan rock-throwing. There's plenty of blame to go around. One thing is abundandantly clear. Democrats are on pretty thin ice trying to claim it's only Republicans who are criminally involved in Wall Street excesses.
So if neither party has clean hands, whom do we get to bring sanity and principles to Wall Street? How rational is it to expect it'll get fixed any time soon?
Now we hear that MF Global has filed for bankruptcy and that millions of dollars have mysteriously gone missing there. Jon Corzine runs that. He once ran Goldman Sachs before becoming a US Senator and then NJ governor. There don't appear to be any charges against him so far but this is fishy at best. Another Wall Street insider. Oh, and he's a Democrat too.
So much for the Democratic myth that only Republicans are associated with the immoral, unprincipled and illegal things going on in Wall Street. Someone ought to ask the Occupy Wall Street protesters what they think of this.
I think it's time we all took a deep breath and stopped the nonsense partisan rock-throwing. There's plenty of blame to go around. One thing is abundandantly clear. Democrats are on pretty thin ice trying to claim it's only Republicans who are criminally involved in Wall Street excesses.
So if neither party has clean hands, whom do we get to bring sanity and principles to Wall Street? How rational is it to expect it'll get fixed any time soon?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The TOTAL ABSURDITY Of What Many Try To Pass Off As Acceptable K-12 Education In America
This article which uses John Stossel's "Stupid In America" as a starting point is one of the best I've read about the sorry state of K-12 'education' in America. It gets right to the heart of the matter.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
Here's one of Stossel's commentaries that covers education's problems all pretty well with lots of interviews and examples: http://www.onlineschools.org/education-debate/saturday-night-john-stossels-new-stupid-in-america/. Especially view the video in that article. If this doesn't bring you nearly to tears, perhaps you don't get it yet. This is not only our kids we're messing with, it's their future ... our country's future!!! Doesn't any of that matter?
The following interview with Michelle Rhee, the fired head of DC schools, is heart-breaking to me. How can we excuse the resistance to this woman's commitment and sensible efforts to fix the problem with DC's schools? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Irx9o7DjO8
[While you're at it you may want to check out other of Stossel's articles in his ongoing series of commentaries about how we're "Stupid In America". Here's one search that will help you do that: http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=stossel+stupid+in+america. All them basically attest to how poorly our schools are doing and how stupid our priorities are.]
As for K-12 education in particular, I don't think we have a chance of achieving the quality of education we need to ensure a healthy and productive society in the future unless and until parents wake up to the travesty of government failures running education in America. Based on Stossel's commentaries and investigations I think parents who don't get it or, worse, don't care(!) are the biggest impediments to fixing our truly broken and simply pathetic K-12 education system.
That leads my arguments full circle back to my previous blogs about the problem with men in America. It's well past time that men began caring about this problem and doing something about it. If men across America would get their priorities straight again ... off themselves and on their family, community and living responsibly ... pretty much all that's wrong in and with America would be corrected in very short order.
To men in America I say, GET OVER YOURSELVES ... BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
Here's one of Stossel's commentaries that covers education's problems all pretty well with lots of interviews and examples: http://www.onlineschools.org/education-debate/saturday-night-john-stossels-new-stupid-in-america/. Especially view the video in that article. If this doesn't bring you nearly to tears, perhaps you don't get it yet. This is not only our kids we're messing with, it's their future ... our country's future!!! Doesn't any of that matter?
The following interview with Michelle Rhee, the fired head of DC schools, is heart-breaking to me. How can we excuse the resistance to this woman's commitment and sensible efforts to fix the problem with DC's schools? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Irx9o7DjO8
[While you're at it you may want to check out other of Stossel's articles in his ongoing series of commentaries about how we're "Stupid In America". Here's one search that will help you do that: http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=stossel+stupid+in+america. All them basically attest to how poorly our schools are doing and how stupid our priorities are.]
As for K-12 education in particular, I don't think we have a chance of achieving the quality of education we need to ensure a healthy and productive society in the future unless and until parents wake up to the travesty of government failures running education in America. Based on Stossel's commentaries and investigations I think parents who don't get it or, worse, don't care(!) are the biggest impediments to fixing our truly broken and simply pathetic K-12 education system.
That leads my arguments full circle back to my previous blogs about the problem with men in America. It's well past time that men began caring about this problem and doing something about it. If men across America would get their priorities straight again ... off themselves and on their family, community and living responsibly ... pretty much all that's wrong in and with America would be corrected in very short order.
To men in America I say, GET OVER YOURSELVES ... BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!
Friday, October 28, 2011
American Men: "Deadbeats Or Players". On Human Nature And Choices
In my previous blog I commented on President Obama's lamentation over Americans losing their entrepreneurial and industrious spirit. The sorry state of K-12 education in America is most certainly behind it. The question is how do we fix that? Where can we start that is both 'necessary and sufficient'? That's a high tech term for fixing something that actually fixes a problem and is not overkill. Unfortunately, what government does to 'fix' things is too often neither of those things.
Liberals, especially progressives have been attacking the school environment and the curriculum with lots of experiments that didn't work at all. What they shied away from, naturally for progressives, is personal responsibility at the parent and local school level. Has 30 years of their failed approach taught us anything yet? The one thing we can do for, in fact owe, our kids is to prepare them for real life after K-12 schooling. The one most singularly spectacular failure has been not instilling a sense of personal responsibility in our kids. That must start with the practice of personal responsibility by their parents which has also been spectacularly missing among most of the kids who fail in school.
Where ought we begin in our efforts to address the failure of parents regarding the sorry state of K-12 education? The answer if we're honest is with men in general, dads in particular. While the following article isn't directed at what the behavior of men has done to families in general and K-12 education in particular, the point it makes is relevant equally to the problem with education:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281490/blame-sexual-revolution-br-not-men-mona-charen
The bad things that men are doing politically, socially and relationally are completely in line with human nature. That doesn't make it okay but it's important to understand that's true in order to deal with it effectively. The progressive solution to that is to have the government take over control from families and communities (ie, from responsible men, husbands and fathers). But you have to realize that the only reason they feel the need to do that is because men in families and communities aren't doing the job. The best and correct fix is to get men back on track, not for government to become the father (and mother!) figure.
Progressives deny the problem as I've defined it because that would mean that our Founders were absolutely correct. The Founders' understanding of human (mainly man's) nature is what led them to construct the constitution and through it our government the way they did. For progressives to accept that would mean accepting they've been leading our country down the wrong path all this time. (Of course, the history of progressivism (socialism) throughout the world already teaches us about its inevitable failure but they deny that too and are therefore obliged(!) to make a strong effort to edit that out of K-12 history books/teaching but that's an entire subject for another day.)
American men by and large (and undeniably) have become deadbeats and/or players at living and acting responsibly. The article linked above attests to the fact that women get it. They've tried moving ahead without men but are realizing that's not working out so well either (surprise!). The fix for this must be for men to man up rather than for women, kids and governments to write them off.
Getting men to man up would address the most fundamental root cause of many of America's ills. Poverty for one and that's a pretty big one. Broken/hurting families and divorce for another very big one. A general decline in civil, lawful, principled, and moral behavior for another. There's a reason why 99% of the really, REALLY lame and downright stupid things shown on America's Funniest Home Videos are being done by men. To understand what's wrong with America, one only has to watch that TV program a few times. It's a joke but the joke's on our culture and at its core it's not really funny at all. It's quite sad.
Men need to do a better job living with a sense of dignity, self-respect and responsibility. They need to make better choices. After all, all their bad/undesirable behaviors are nothing more nor less than choices. Narcissism has grown among American men to a culturally (very) destructive extent. They get disrespect from women for a reason: just like the Smith-Barney commercial used to say, they earned it.
Conclusion: When a big majority of men begin putting their girl friends, wives, children, community, and especially godly(!) principles ahead of their own narcissistic desires more of our problems will be substantially resolved than by any other means. There is no singular other 'fix' that'll do so much good so quickly and so cost-effectively. It won't cost the taxpayer anything and it'll work. What's not to like about that?
Liberals, especially progressives have been attacking the school environment and the curriculum with lots of experiments that didn't work at all. What they shied away from, naturally for progressives, is personal responsibility at the parent and local school level. Has 30 years of their failed approach taught us anything yet? The one thing we can do for, in fact owe, our kids is to prepare them for real life after K-12 schooling. The one most singularly spectacular failure has been not instilling a sense of personal responsibility in our kids. That must start with the practice of personal responsibility by their parents which has also been spectacularly missing among most of the kids who fail in school.
Where ought we begin in our efforts to address the failure of parents regarding the sorry state of K-12 education? The answer if we're honest is with men in general, dads in particular. While the following article isn't directed at what the behavior of men has done to families in general and K-12 education in particular, the point it makes is relevant equally to the problem with education:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281490/blame-sexual-revolution-br-not-men-mona-charen
The bad things that men are doing politically, socially and relationally are completely in line with human nature. That doesn't make it okay but it's important to understand that's true in order to deal with it effectively. The progressive solution to that is to have the government take over control from families and communities (ie, from responsible men, husbands and fathers). But you have to realize that the only reason they feel the need to do that is because men in families and communities aren't doing the job. The best and correct fix is to get men back on track, not for government to become the father (and mother!) figure.
Progressives deny the problem as I've defined it because that would mean that our Founders were absolutely correct. The Founders' understanding of human (mainly man's) nature is what led them to construct the constitution and through it our government the way they did. For progressives to accept that would mean accepting they've been leading our country down the wrong path all this time. (Of course, the history of progressivism (socialism) throughout the world already teaches us about its inevitable failure but they deny that too and are therefore obliged(!) to make a strong effort to edit that out of K-12 history books/teaching but that's an entire subject for another day.)
American men by and large (and undeniably) have become deadbeats and/or players at living and acting responsibly. The article linked above attests to the fact that women get it. They've tried moving ahead without men but are realizing that's not working out so well either (surprise!). The fix for this must be for men to man up rather than for women, kids and governments to write them off.
Getting men to man up would address the most fundamental root cause of many of America's ills. Poverty for one and that's a pretty big one. Broken/hurting families and divorce for another very big one. A general decline in civil, lawful, principled, and moral behavior for another. There's a reason why 99% of the really, REALLY lame and downright stupid things shown on America's Funniest Home Videos are being done by men. To understand what's wrong with America, one only has to watch that TV program a few times. It's a joke but the joke's on our culture and at its core it's not really funny at all. It's quite sad.
Men need to do a better job living with a sense of dignity, self-respect and responsibility. They need to make better choices. After all, all their bad/undesirable behaviors are nothing more nor less than choices. Narcissism has grown among American men to a culturally (very) destructive extent. They get disrespect from women for a reason: just like the Smith-Barney commercial used to say, they earned it.
Conclusion: When a big majority of men begin putting their girl friends, wives, children, community, and especially godly(!) principles ahead of their own narcissistic desires more of our problems will be substantially resolved than by any other means. There is no singular other 'fix' that'll do so much good so quickly and so cost-effectively. It won't cost the taxpayer anything and it'll work. What's not to like about that?
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Law Of The Land In Libya: Sharia Law. So Much For The Hope Of Freedom.
If you know anything about Sharia law, you know it's very anti-freedom. 'Arab Spring' government overthrows are moving countries in that direction and that's not a step toward either freedom or peace in that part of the world nor in other parts of the world where the consequences of it are felt. The following quote is from MSNBC today.
"And [Abdul-Jalil, head of NTC, Libya's transition council] laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great."
I have nothing against Muslims or their religion, Islam, but if they're honest they must acknowledge that basing a country's government and legal system on Sharia law creates a legal system that stands in stark opposition to religious, much less individual freedom that's being desired and embraced by most of the non-Muslim world. A telling question is, what are the chances that Christians will enjoy the same peace, safety/security and freedom in these Muslim countries that operate under Sharia law as Muslims are afforded in Christian countries?
"And [Abdul-Jalil, head of NTC, Libya's transition council] laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great."
I have nothing against Muslims or their religion, Islam, but if they're honest they must acknowledge that basing a country's government and legal system on Sharia law creates a legal system that stands in stark opposition to religious, much less individual freedom that's being desired and embraced by most of the non-Muslim world. A telling question is, what are the chances that Christians will enjoy the same peace, safety/security and freedom in these Muslim countries that operate under Sharia law as Muslims are afforded in Christian countries?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Sure It's Immoral But As Long As It's Not Illegal ...
This kinda nonsense could be a poster-child for what's wrong in politics vis a vis public service unions:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44626194/ns/us_news-life/#.TnumkexXviE
My take? Ripping off the regular folks for an undeserved cushy retirement like that is irresponsible, immoral and plain disgusting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44626194/ns/us_news-life/#.TnumkexXviE
My take? Ripping off the regular folks for an undeserved cushy retirement like that is irresponsible, immoral and plain disgusting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)