The face of the earth is changing. No, not the geography. The topography remains the same. The change I'm referring to is the cultural change. A seismic shift is occurring in the ethnic and racial populations of this planet unlike any previously seen.
For ions Europe has been a sea dotted with ethnic islands. England was for the English, France for the French, Sweden for the Swedes, etc.. Now migrants are arriving from the Middle East, Africa and Asia at the rate of six thousand a day. There are currently 44 million Muslims living in Europe, and that number is expected to double by 2050. Germany expects 800 thousand migrants to pour into their country by the end of 2015. For the first time in history, Brits are a minority in London. In the past ten years, over one millions Brits have emigrated from England.
Back in the USA it has been estimated that we have at least 11 million illegal immigrants residing within our borders, the overwhelming majority of those being Hispanic. Putting this demographic shift into perspective, when JFK was sworn in as President in January of 1961, the country was 80% Caucasian. Today that number is 65%, and it is predicted that by the middle of this century, Caucasians will be a minority at 45%.
What this changing population landscape means to the world is yet to be determined. But one thing is certain. The world our grandchildren will inhabit in their senior years will be radically different from the one they were born into.
Take a good look around. We are witnessing the end of one era, and the beginning of a new one.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Thursday, October 1, 2015
MOTIVE FOR MASS MURDER?
There has yet been one more mass shooting. This time it happened at Umpqua Community College in Douglas County, Oregon. At latest count, there were 13 dead and 20 wounded.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
GOVERNMENT APPROVED MARRIAGE
Kim Davis, county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple, and as a result, she was thrown in jail for contempt of court. That action ignited a firestorm of protests around the country by people claiming Ms. Davis is being persecuted for exercising her religious beliefs. Rights have been violated, but they weren't those of Ms. Davis.
Her claim is that gay marriage is in opposition to her religious beliefs, and therefore, she refused to issue the marriage licenses on moral grounds.But there is a far more fundimental issue in question. The government, be it federal, state or local, has no right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Such matters are way beyond the purview of government in a free society. It was mere decades ago that in a certain number of states, whites and blacks were not permitted to marry one another. Giving bureaucrats the power to decide which adults can marry is certainly heading down a slippery slope. Setting such a precedent, future government leaders could decide that Jews can't marry Catholics, or Asians can't marry Caucasians, or Italians can't marry Swedes.
The only actions that should be deemed unlawful are those that violate the individual rights of others.In the case of gay marriage, whose rights are being violated? You may be offended, but none of your rights have been violated.
And while there is no provision in our Constitution, this country was built on the priciple of seperation of church and state. You are free to practice your religion, but you can make no laws forcing your religious beliefs on others. Some Christians would debate this point, especially as it pertains to gay marriage. This is, at best, a hypocritical position.What would be the reaction of Christians be if a female county clerk dressed in burka refused to uphold a law because she said it violated Islamic teachings? My guess is there would be utter outrage at such an action, and justifiably so.
If gay marriage laws violated Kim Davis' religious beliefs, then she should have recused herself from the situation rather than deny the rights of two Americans.
Let us ask ourselves two question: Do we really want a government that has the power to tell us who we can and cannot marry? And how does two gays marrying interfere with your Constitutional rights?
Her claim is that gay marriage is in opposition to her religious beliefs, and therefore, she refused to issue the marriage licenses on moral grounds.But there is a far more fundimental issue in question. The government, be it federal, state or local, has no right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Such matters are way beyond the purview of government in a free society. It was mere decades ago that in a certain number of states, whites and blacks were not permitted to marry one another. Giving bureaucrats the power to decide which adults can marry is certainly heading down a slippery slope. Setting such a precedent, future government leaders could decide that Jews can't marry Catholics, or Asians can't marry Caucasians, or Italians can't marry Swedes.
The only actions that should be deemed unlawful are those that violate the individual rights of others.In the case of gay marriage, whose rights are being violated? You may be offended, but none of your rights have been violated.
And while there is no provision in our Constitution, this country was built on the priciple of seperation of church and state. You are free to practice your religion, but you can make no laws forcing your religious beliefs on others. Some Christians would debate this point, especially as it pertains to gay marriage. This is, at best, a hypocritical position.What would be the reaction of Christians be if a female county clerk dressed in burka refused to uphold a law because she said it violated Islamic teachings? My guess is there would be utter outrage at such an action, and justifiably so.
If gay marriage laws violated Kim Davis' religious beliefs, then she should have recused herself from the situation rather than deny the rights of two Americans.
Let us ask ourselves two question: Do we really want a government that has the power to tell us who we can and cannot marry? And how does two gays marrying interfere with your Constitutional rights?
Monday, August 24, 2015
THE SOUND OF CHINA SHATTERING
That ear-splitting thud you heard was the stock market crashing on Wall Street. Since the market's historic high back in April, stocks have lost over two thousand points. Numerous factors have contributed to the downfall, but the one factor most frequently sited is the economic downturn in China, the world's second largest economy after the US. The Chinese stock market has lost billions in value, and the government has devalued their currency as that country falls into a deep recession. These developments have struck fear into the hearts of investors around the world, particularly the US. A multitude of companies, both large and small, depend on China for a signifigant amount of their business, and if the Chinese economy goes into a protracted tailspin, so will the profits of these companies.
Just a few years ago financial experts around the world were predicting that China would overtake the US as the world's largest economy. So what happened? To find out, let us back up a few decades. Under Chairman Mao and the communist revolution, China was nothing more than a large country with a third world economy. There was massive poverty and hunger, the result of a brutal dictatorship and failed economic policies.
With the death of Mao, new leadership took power and immediately overhauled their policies by liberalizing their economy and granting their citizens greater personal freedom. The beginnings of a capitalist economy took root. People were now free to own their own businesses and enjoy the profits. No longer did the communist leaders declare capitalism to be the enemy. Instead, the government encouraged entrepreneurship, causing the economy to soar and poverty and hunger to diminish.
So why is the powerful Chinese economic engine suddenly sputtering and stalling? A couple of years ago I told a friend the Chinese miracle would not continue unabated--could not continue under its current system of government, much less surpass the United States, because it has one fundimental flaw. That flaw is its economic system.
Am I saying there is a flaw in the market system? Not at all. The flaw with China is that its free market isn't free enough. Because it is still a one party system run by communists, the government maintains stringent controls and regulations over the market. In order for a free market system to grow and prosper, freedom must be maximized. Allow me to explain.
Picture a large unfenced backyard. In this yard we have a dog. To keep the dog from running away, it is attached to a long leash. The leash is long enough to permit the dog to roam a large area. But if it goes beyond a certain point, the leash stops the dog in its tracks and prevents it from advancing.
Such is the case wirh the Chinese economy. It is like the dog in the yard. The communist bureaucrats are the leash. Once the economy grows to certain levels, the onerous regulations halt economic expansion in its tracks. It was just a matter of time for those regulations to halt progress, and that time has arrived.
While our own country does not have a totally free market, the level of regulations and restrictions are nowhere near the magnitude of the Chinese.Should our leaders at some point in the future seek to increase the regulatory burden on the marketplace, then we will experience a similiar crash.
What is now required going forward is for our business and political leaders to realize that as long as China remains under Marxist leadership, their ability to be a dynamic economic power will be limited, like that dog on a leash. Further advancement will always be thwarted. That means our own business plans must begin to reflect that reality when dealing with the Chinese.
The lesson to be learned is thas the freer the market, the more prosperous the market.
Just a few years ago financial experts around the world were predicting that China would overtake the US as the world's largest economy. So what happened? To find out, let us back up a few decades. Under Chairman Mao and the communist revolution, China was nothing more than a large country with a third world economy. There was massive poverty and hunger, the result of a brutal dictatorship and failed economic policies.
With the death of Mao, new leadership took power and immediately overhauled their policies by liberalizing their economy and granting their citizens greater personal freedom. The beginnings of a capitalist economy took root. People were now free to own their own businesses and enjoy the profits. No longer did the communist leaders declare capitalism to be the enemy. Instead, the government encouraged entrepreneurship, causing the economy to soar and poverty and hunger to diminish.
So why is the powerful Chinese economic engine suddenly sputtering and stalling? A couple of years ago I told a friend the Chinese miracle would not continue unabated--could not continue under its current system of government, much less surpass the United States, because it has one fundimental flaw. That flaw is its economic system.
Am I saying there is a flaw in the market system? Not at all. The flaw with China is that its free market isn't free enough. Because it is still a one party system run by communists, the government maintains stringent controls and regulations over the market. In order for a free market system to grow and prosper, freedom must be maximized. Allow me to explain.
Picture a large unfenced backyard. In this yard we have a dog. To keep the dog from running away, it is attached to a long leash. The leash is long enough to permit the dog to roam a large area. But if it goes beyond a certain point, the leash stops the dog in its tracks and prevents it from advancing.
Such is the case wirh the Chinese economy. It is like the dog in the yard. The communist bureaucrats are the leash. Once the economy grows to certain levels, the onerous regulations halt economic expansion in its tracks. It was just a matter of time for those regulations to halt progress, and that time has arrived.
While our own country does not have a totally free market, the level of regulations and restrictions are nowhere near the magnitude of the Chinese.Should our leaders at some point in the future seek to increase the regulatory burden on the marketplace, then we will experience a similiar crash.
What is now required going forward is for our business and political leaders to realize that as long as China remains under Marxist leadership, their ability to be a dynamic economic power will be limited, like that dog on a leash. Further advancement will always be thwarted. That means our own business plans must begin to reflect that reality when dealing with the Chinese.
The lesson to be learned is thas the freer the market, the more prosperous the market.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
A FLOOD? OR FOREGIVENESS?
We are told that God possesses three important attributes: He is loving; He is foregiving; He is merciful. It says so in the Bible, and since the Bible is the word of God, it obviously must be true. There are many biblical stories to illustrate these qualities. Let us examine the story of Noah's Ark to check the credibility.
God was upset at the sinful ways of humankind, so as punishment for their sins, He created a flood caused by forty days and forty nights of rain. Prior to the flood, He told Noah, "Make thee an ark of gopher wood." This ark was to be-by current measurements--520 feet, 8 inches long by 86 feet, 9.3 inches wide, and 52 feet high.Noah, as we all know, was also instructed to gather two of every animal and place them on the ark to save them from the impending flood. The ark would then sail for 371 days until the flooding subsided.
The story of the ark brings in to question numerous issues that the Bible fails to address. First is the conundurm of the animals.There were, and still are, millions of species of animal life on earth. How was it possible that Noah could fit two of every species on his ark? There is an additional problem with the "two of every species" demand. What about those animlas unique to North America? Europe? Australia? The islands dotting the Pacific, Atlantic and Caribbean seas? How could Noah have possibly navigated the globe to rescue these animals? And assuming he did collect all these speices, how could he have adequately fed such a diversified diet for a year with the earth covered with water? Then there is the question of how one stores a years worth of food for millions of animals.
Finally, this brings us to the original premise of a loving, foregiving and merciful God. The great flood covered the earth, virtually wiping out all of humankind as punishment for their sinful ways. That means that along with the evil sinners, untold numbers of innocent babies, children, mothers, fathers and grandparents also perished in the flood. Can a six month old infant be a terrible sinner? How about a five year old? God must have thought so because he deliberately drowned them. He apparently cared more about horses and goats and elephants and worms than He did children and the elderly and infirmed.
If any story illustrates the illogical and contradictory nature of Bible stories,surely it is the story of Noah's ark. It paints a picture of a vengeful, unfeeling, merciless God. Somebody needs to get their stories straight.
God was upset at the sinful ways of humankind, so as punishment for their sins, He created a flood caused by forty days and forty nights of rain. Prior to the flood, He told Noah, "Make thee an ark of gopher wood." This ark was to be-by current measurements--520 feet, 8 inches long by 86 feet, 9.3 inches wide, and 52 feet high.Noah, as we all know, was also instructed to gather two of every animal and place them on the ark to save them from the impending flood. The ark would then sail for 371 days until the flooding subsided.
The story of the ark brings in to question numerous issues that the Bible fails to address. First is the conundurm of the animals.There were, and still are, millions of species of animal life on earth. How was it possible that Noah could fit two of every species on his ark? There is an additional problem with the "two of every species" demand. What about those animlas unique to North America? Europe? Australia? The islands dotting the Pacific, Atlantic and Caribbean seas? How could Noah have possibly navigated the globe to rescue these animals? And assuming he did collect all these speices, how could he have adequately fed such a diversified diet for a year with the earth covered with water? Then there is the question of how one stores a years worth of food for millions of animals.
Finally, this brings us to the original premise of a loving, foregiving and merciful God. The great flood covered the earth, virtually wiping out all of humankind as punishment for their sinful ways. That means that along with the evil sinners, untold numbers of innocent babies, children, mothers, fathers and grandparents also perished in the flood. Can a six month old infant be a terrible sinner? How about a five year old? God must have thought so because he deliberately drowned them. He apparently cared more about horses and goats and elephants and worms than He did children and the elderly and infirmed.
If any story illustrates the illogical and contradictory nature of Bible stories,surely it is the story of Noah's ark. It paints a picture of a vengeful, unfeeling, merciless God. Somebody needs to get their stories straight.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
IT'S LONELY AT THE TOP: A BRIEF CRITIQUE OF ADAM & EVE
The Bible tells us that God was lonely, and hungering for companionship, he created the first human--Adam. Because Adam needed a place to live, God then created the Garden of Eden. Eventually God saw that Adam, too, was lonely, so He took a rib from Adam and used it to create the first woman--Eve. Apparently loneliness abounded in the Bible.
The issue of loneliness begs the question: Why was God lonely? Was not Heaven populated by beautiful angels? Why was God unable to find companionship with them?
Accepting the premise that God sought companionship, he created Adam and Eve and placed them in a paradise on earth called the Garden of Eden. Next we have to ask ourselves how this alleviated God's loneliness.He did not interact with Adam and Eve. Instead, He looked down upon them from Heaven like someone observing goldfish in a bowl. Logic would dictate that if God was lonely, he would have kept Adam and Eve with Him in Heaven, where the three of them would have been able to interact and communicate directly, while enjoying the fruits of real companionship. Looking at it from a smaller scale, what would more effectively eliminate loneliness? Goldfish in a bowl? Or a playful and loyal dog?
Like virtually all Bible stories, this one lacks any logic and is burdened with contradictions and paradoxes that can only be attributed to the ancient, superstitious and unscientific minds that created them.
The issue of loneliness begs the question: Why was God lonely? Was not Heaven populated by beautiful angels? Why was God unable to find companionship with them?
Accepting the premise that God sought companionship, he created Adam and Eve and placed them in a paradise on earth called the Garden of Eden. Next we have to ask ourselves how this alleviated God's loneliness.He did not interact with Adam and Eve. Instead, He looked down upon them from Heaven like someone observing goldfish in a bowl. Logic would dictate that if God was lonely, he would have kept Adam and Eve with Him in Heaven, where the three of them would have been able to interact and communicate directly, while enjoying the fruits of real companionship. Looking at it from a smaller scale, what would more effectively eliminate loneliness? Goldfish in a bowl? Or a playful and loyal dog?
Like virtually all Bible stories, this one lacks any logic and is burdened with contradictions and paradoxes that can only be attributed to the ancient, superstitious and unscientific minds that created them.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
THE FALLACY OF PRAYER
What is prayer but the petitioning of God for His devine intervention in human lives. This most often occurs in matters of life and death, when we or a loved on is facing a major health crisis, such as surgery or battling a deadly disease. Sometimes prayer is used in hopes of saving an embattled marriage, a failing business or a financial crisis. The goal is for our pleas to attract God's attention, have Him look upon us with sympathy and mercy, and then use His supreme powers to enact positive change in our lives.
In order to fully understand the fallacy of prayer, we must first accept certain qualities attributed to God. First and foremost is the idea that God is prescient, which is to say He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and that will happen. It is not unlike the lyrics to the Christmas classic,Santa Claus is Coming to Town. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake."
There isn't anything that God does not know, because if He doesn't know it--if he lacks knowledge or foresight--then He cannot be God. He must be all knowing and all seeing. To be anything less means He isn't a supreme being.
Which brings us back to prayer.For the sake of argument, let us create a character named Jack. He is a middle-aged family man who has been critically injured in an automobile accident. He is rushed to surgery, where doctors repair severely damaged organs. The surgeon tells the family that he has done all he can, and that it is now a waiting game to see if Jack survives through the night. "It is in God's hands," the surgeon solemnly declares. In response, the family initiates a prayer vigil. They go to social media and implore friends to pray for Jack. Somehow the idea exist that with enough voices petitioning God, He will be duly impressed, influenced and ultimately spare Jack's life.
Here is where the contradiction lies. As stated earlier, God is omniscient. That means that the very second Jack was conceived in the womb, God, as if viewing a biographical documentary, knows what will happen to Jack every second of every hour of every day of Jack's life. That also means He knows the precise second of Jack's death, where he will die and the cause of death. How does He know all this? Because He is an all-knowing God. And what does that imply? It implies that prayer is a futile exercise. How do we reach such a conclusion? We reach it by the very definition of prayer. I stated at the beginning that prayer is a petitioning of God to change an outcome, to intervene in our lives to circumvent trajedy. In short, the goal of prayer is to change God's mind. But if prayer can change God's mind, it must mean He doesn't know the future. The instant of Jack's birth, God knew that he would have a car accident on that particular day and whether Jack would sirvive or not; therefore prayer is pointless. To suggest that prayer can change God's mind about an outcome means God does not really know for sure what the future holds. And if He doesn't knowwhat the future holds, He cannot be a supreme being.
God either preordains all human events, or He has no clue what will happen. The concept of prayer can mean only two things: 1) It is useless because God has already determined the outcome of a given situation. 2) Prayer can change God's mind, which means He has no more grasp of the future than we sinful mortals.
To reach the latter conclusion is to admit there is no omniscient, infallible Supreme Being.
No doubt there are those who would pray I am wrong.
In order to fully understand the fallacy of prayer, we must first accept certain qualities attributed to God. First and foremost is the idea that God is prescient, which is to say He knows everything that has happened, is happening, and that will happen. It is not unlike the lyrics to the Christmas classic,Santa Claus is Coming to Town. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake."
There isn't anything that God does not know, because if He doesn't know it--if he lacks knowledge or foresight--then He cannot be God. He must be all knowing and all seeing. To be anything less means He isn't a supreme being.
Which brings us back to prayer.For the sake of argument, let us create a character named Jack. He is a middle-aged family man who has been critically injured in an automobile accident. He is rushed to surgery, where doctors repair severely damaged organs. The surgeon tells the family that he has done all he can, and that it is now a waiting game to see if Jack survives through the night. "It is in God's hands," the surgeon solemnly declares. In response, the family initiates a prayer vigil. They go to social media and implore friends to pray for Jack. Somehow the idea exist that with enough voices petitioning God, He will be duly impressed, influenced and ultimately spare Jack's life.
Here is where the contradiction lies. As stated earlier, God is omniscient. That means that the very second Jack was conceived in the womb, God, as if viewing a biographical documentary, knows what will happen to Jack every second of every hour of every day of Jack's life. That also means He knows the precise second of Jack's death, where he will die and the cause of death. How does He know all this? Because He is an all-knowing God. And what does that imply? It implies that prayer is a futile exercise. How do we reach such a conclusion? We reach it by the very definition of prayer. I stated at the beginning that prayer is a petitioning of God to change an outcome, to intervene in our lives to circumvent trajedy. In short, the goal of prayer is to change God's mind. But if prayer can change God's mind, it must mean He doesn't know the future. The instant of Jack's birth, God knew that he would have a car accident on that particular day and whether Jack would sirvive or not; therefore prayer is pointless. To suggest that prayer can change God's mind about an outcome means God does not really know for sure what the future holds. And if He doesn't knowwhat the future holds, He cannot be a supreme being.
God either preordains all human events, or He has no clue what will happen. The concept of prayer can mean only two things: 1) It is useless because God has already determined the outcome of a given situation. 2) Prayer can change God's mind, which means He has no more grasp of the future than we sinful mortals.
To reach the latter conclusion is to admit there is no omniscient, infallible Supreme Being.
No doubt there are those who would pray I am wrong.
Monday, July 6, 2015
TRUMP OR CHUMP?
Controversy continues to swirl like a tornado around Donald Trump's statement regarding illegal Mexican immigrants. What he said has been frequently quoted--and misquoted.But what he didn't say is equally important. Trump did not say all illegals were criminals; nor did he say every illegal is a criminal.
He did say some of the illegals bring in crime and drugs. They are rapists. Is he wrong? Given the fact that millions of illegals have poured across our southern border, it would be statistically impossible that there was not a single criminal among the estimated 30 million illegal immigrants roaming across the US.
According to statistics from Homeland Security, 11 to 15% of all convicts in US prisons are illegals, and 24% of all those convicted of drug related crimes are illegals.
It is a shame people were offended by the Donald's remarks. But it is also a shame that the media chooses to ignore or distort the truth, rather than report it.
He did say some of the illegals bring in crime and drugs. They are rapists. Is he wrong? Given the fact that millions of illegals have poured across our southern border, it would be statistically impossible that there was not a single criminal among the estimated 30 million illegal immigrants roaming across the US.
According to statistics from Homeland Security, 11 to 15% of all convicts in US prisons are illegals, and 24% of all those convicted of drug related crimes are illegals.
It is a shame people were offended by the Donald's remarks. But it is also a shame that the media chooses to ignore or distort the truth, rather than report it.
Friday, June 26, 2015
GAY MARRIAGE AND THE CONSERVATIVE CONTRADICTION
The Supreme Court decision to uphold gay marriage reveals the contradiction within the conservative ideology. The majority of conservatives have long opposed gay marriage. Presidential candidate Scott Walker called the ruling "a grave mistake."
What exactly is the contradiction in the conservative position? The very foundation of their philosophy is oppostion to big government. They, like libertarians, believe in a small, limited government. They, like libertarians, believe that he who governs least governs best; that we need to minimalize government intrusion and control in our lives.
Given those beliefs, one would think conservatives would have welcomed and supported the Supreme Court decision, instead of greeting it with anger and vitriol. Here is where libertarians and conservatives part company.
From the libertarian standpoint, supporting gay marriage was the proper decision based on one simple proposition: It is beyond the purview of government to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. That is not the proper role of government in a free society. Banning gay marriage is a slippery slope. By accepting the premise that the state can decide which adults can marry, it leaves the door open for future leaders to outlaw marraige between Catholics and Lutherans, or Asians and Hispanics, or marraiges where there is a large disparity in ages. Up until the 70's, a number of states banned marriages between blacks and whites. That degree of intrusion is not what a free society is about.
Ask yourself one question: Which one of your individual rights are being denied when two gay people marry? The answer is: none.
You may be offended by the concept, but the freedom of expression, by definition, means someone may say or do something that offends you. But offending someone shouldn't be a crime. Were it a crime, then we would all have spent time behind bars, because who among us hasn't at one time or another said or did something that offended somebody somewhere at some time?
This is the time for conservatives to face this contradiction. You either believe people should be free to live their lives with minimal government interference, as long as they deny no one their individual rights; or you believe that the state should enforce laws that make it a crime to offend someone's sensibilities.
I find that offensive.
What exactly is the contradiction in the conservative position? The very foundation of their philosophy is oppostion to big government. They, like libertarians, believe in a small, limited government. They, like libertarians, believe that he who governs least governs best; that we need to minimalize government intrusion and control in our lives.
Given those beliefs, one would think conservatives would have welcomed and supported the Supreme Court decision, instead of greeting it with anger and vitriol. Here is where libertarians and conservatives part company.
From the libertarian standpoint, supporting gay marriage was the proper decision based on one simple proposition: It is beyond the purview of government to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. That is not the proper role of government in a free society. Banning gay marriage is a slippery slope. By accepting the premise that the state can decide which adults can marry, it leaves the door open for future leaders to outlaw marraige between Catholics and Lutherans, or Asians and Hispanics, or marraiges where there is a large disparity in ages. Up until the 70's, a number of states banned marriages between blacks and whites. That degree of intrusion is not what a free society is about.
Ask yourself one question: Which one of your individual rights are being denied when two gay people marry? The answer is: none.
You may be offended by the concept, but the freedom of expression, by definition, means someone may say or do something that offends you. But offending someone shouldn't be a crime. Were it a crime, then we would all have spent time behind bars, because who among us hasn't at one time or another said or did something that offended somebody somewhere at some time?
This is the time for conservatives to face this contradiction. You either believe people should be free to live their lives with minimal government interference, as long as they deny no one their individual rights; or you believe that the state should enforce laws that make it a crime to offend someone's sensibilities.
I find that offensive.
Friday, June 12, 2015
HAIL TO THE WHAT???
I can't contain myself any longer. I must vent over one of my pet peeves: Treating elected officials like they are royalty.
First, let me state the obvious: We have no royalty in the United States of America. That is, in fact, the very reason there is a United States. Starting in the 1600's, Europeans emigrated to the New World to escape the despotic rule of kings and queens. It is the primary reason our Founding Fathers chose democracy over a monarchy, so that individual rights would trump the whims of royal rulers.
Which brings us to the 21st century. In very subtle ways we still have the tendency to treat politicians like royalty, rather than simply the elected representitives of the citizenry. Allow me to site two examples.
It galls me when I hear a former president, governor or senator still referred to as Mr. President, Governor or Senator, as if the title as been bestowed upon them for life. When Lee Iococca retired from Chrysler, did the media still refer to him as Mr. Chairman? Hell, no. He was Lee, or Mr Iococca.
The second item that offends my sensibilities is the playing of "Hail To The Chief" whenever the President appears at an official function. Again, this is not the king of the US making a grand entrance accompanied by blaring trumpets sounding his arrival to the peasants. He is, in essence, the CEO of our country, an executive like any other, albeit an executive with greater responsibilities and powers. But an executive, nonetheless. Was the late Steve Jobs greeted by official fanfare when he appeared in public? Do we have to rise to our feet whenever Bill Gates makes an entrance?
And what's with the official Presidential seal that ordorns every podium when the president makes a speech? Do we need this "coat of arms" to remind us who he is? Are we to be awestruck by such trappings of power? Do the CEO's of Walmart, General Motors or McDonalds travel around with their own "coat of arms?"
The president--whomever he may be--is elected by the people to run the country much the way a CEO runs a corporation. It is dangerous to treat this office holder with undue reverence, as if some supreme being endowed him with special gifts and priveleges far above those of mere mortals. The bottom line is all politicians are hired help. Sometimes that help is heroic, sometimes it is corrupt, incompetent and immoral. But essentially these are people selected and paid to do a specific job. That is the sum of it.
The king is dead! Let us keep his rotting corpse buried.
First, let me state the obvious: We have no royalty in the United States of America. That is, in fact, the very reason there is a United States. Starting in the 1600's, Europeans emigrated to the New World to escape the despotic rule of kings and queens. It is the primary reason our Founding Fathers chose democracy over a monarchy, so that individual rights would trump the whims of royal rulers.
Which brings us to the 21st century. In very subtle ways we still have the tendency to treat politicians like royalty, rather than simply the elected representitives of the citizenry. Allow me to site two examples.
It galls me when I hear a former president, governor or senator still referred to as Mr. President, Governor or Senator, as if the title as been bestowed upon them for life. When Lee Iococca retired from Chrysler, did the media still refer to him as Mr. Chairman? Hell, no. He was Lee, or Mr Iococca.
The second item that offends my sensibilities is the playing of "Hail To The Chief" whenever the President appears at an official function. Again, this is not the king of the US making a grand entrance accompanied by blaring trumpets sounding his arrival to the peasants. He is, in essence, the CEO of our country, an executive like any other, albeit an executive with greater responsibilities and powers. But an executive, nonetheless. Was the late Steve Jobs greeted by official fanfare when he appeared in public? Do we have to rise to our feet whenever Bill Gates makes an entrance?
And what's with the official Presidential seal that ordorns every podium when the president makes a speech? Do we need this "coat of arms" to remind us who he is? Are we to be awestruck by such trappings of power? Do the CEO's of Walmart, General Motors or McDonalds travel around with their own "coat of arms?"
The president--whomever he may be--is elected by the people to run the country much the way a CEO runs a corporation. It is dangerous to treat this office holder with undue reverence, as if some supreme being endowed him with special gifts and priveleges far above those of mere mortals. The bottom line is all politicians are hired help. Sometimes that help is heroic, sometimes it is corrupt, incompetent and immoral. But essentially these are people selected and paid to do a specific job. That is the sum of it.
The king is dead! Let us keep his rotting corpse buried.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
BLOWN OUT OF THE SKY
Prior to 9/11, all airport security was handled by private security firms. After 9/11, the government--in its infinite wisdom and concern for the wellbeing of its citizens--decided that airport secuirty should be handled by the Feds rather than private companies. Afterall, who would be better at protecting us against plane hijackers? A bunch of greedy private contractors or the might and intelligence of the Federal Government?
Well, Homeland Security just did a test of airport security around the country. They planted weapons and explosives in luggage to see how efficient security procedures actually were. If you haven't already heard, you better sit down while reading this. Airport security failed to find these weapons 96% of the time. Think about that the next time you step foot on an airplane.
Let this be a lesson to all those you believe that privatization is evil, and that only the government can properly maintain our security. Name me the government agency that is run as efficiently and economically as Microsoft, Apple, Walmart, Toyota, etc. . Government by its very nature is incompetent and unreliable. Should you be unfortunate enough to get your ass blown out of the sky, on the way down you may wish it was an evil corporation that checked the luggage.
Well, Homeland Security just did a test of airport security around the country. They planted weapons and explosives in luggage to see how efficient security procedures actually were. If you haven't already heard, you better sit down while reading this. Airport security failed to find these weapons 96% of the time. Think about that the next time you step foot on an airplane.
Let this be a lesson to all those you believe that privatization is evil, and that only the government can properly maintain our security. Name me the government agency that is run as efficiently and economically as Microsoft, Apple, Walmart, Toyota, etc. . Government by its very nature is incompetent and unreliable. Should you be unfortunate enough to get your ass blown out of the sky, on the way down you may wish it was an evil corporation that checked the luggage.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
EFFING UP YOUNG MINDS
First off: I am not a prude, having come of age in the 60's milieu of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. I have dropped enough F bombs in my lifetime to annihilate every state west of the Mississippi.. That having been said, let me state that I am appalled by the lyrics of many of today's pop songs. If these songs were aimed primarily at adults, I would have very little objection; however, as we all know, the main audience and major consumers of pop music are kids between the ages of 12 and 20. Therein lies my objection. Two songs in particular have offensive lyrics.
First is a song by Lady Gaga titled DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH MY BODY. Would you want your adolescent daughter, granddaughter, niece, etc.,listening to a song promoting that sentiment? A song in which the singer implores her boyfriend to have his way with her, no matter what that "way" implies?
The second song is by Rihanna and is titled BITCH BETTER HAVE MY MONEY. Again, would you want your adolescent kids--male or female--listening to a song that voices that attitude? It promotes bad language, semi-literate grammar and an attitude more in line with thugs than with young men and women posessing some semblance of moral values and a positive way to interact with the world around them.
I have 2 granddaughters ages 11 and 8. They have begun, like so many of their friends and classmates, to listen to the radio and sing along with the music. I shudder to think they might be singing along with DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH MY BODY, and BITCH BETTER HAVE MY MONEY. What kids today do not need--especially young girls--are songs teaching them to disrespect their own bodies and allow themselves to be exploited physically and emotionally. Add to that poor grammar and a thuggish attitude when dealing with their peers.
What is the solution? The kneejerk reaction would be to demand censorship, but that would be a heavy-handed approach and a violation of our freedom of expression. What is needed is a greater awareness on the part of parents and caretakers. This is the age of radio, MP3's, streaming, downloading, You Tube, etc..Our electronic age makes it even more imperative that adults engage their children and teach them moral values. Parents need to monitor what their kids see and hear over the airwaves and cyberspace. And when you catch them listening to something objectionable, don't punish or pontificate. Take the time to explain why it is objectionable, and how it diminishes their lives and the world around them.
There is no guarantee it will work, but if we don't make the effort to teach and maintain moral standards, and to extoll the virtues of self-respect and treating others with respect, then we do our children and ourselves a disservice. The lessons begin at home. We, the parents and grandparents must be the teachers and role models;otherwise, we have failed our children and betrayed their futures.
First is a song by Lady Gaga titled DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH MY BODY. Would you want your adolescent daughter, granddaughter, niece, etc.,listening to a song promoting that sentiment? A song in which the singer implores her boyfriend to have his way with her, no matter what that "way" implies?
The second song is by Rihanna and is titled BITCH BETTER HAVE MY MONEY. Again, would you want your adolescent kids--male or female--listening to a song that voices that attitude? It promotes bad language, semi-literate grammar and an attitude more in line with thugs than with young men and women posessing some semblance of moral values and a positive way to interact with the world around them.
I have 2 granddaughters ages 11 and 8. They have begun, like so many of their friends and classmates, to listen to the radio and sing along with the music. I shudder to think they might be singing along with DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH MY BODY, and BITCH BETTER HAVE MY MONEY. What kids today do not need--especially young girls--are songs teaching them to disrespect their own bodies and allow themselves to be exploited physically and emotionally. Add to that poor grammar and a thuggish attitude when dealing with their peers.
What is the solution? The kneejerk reaction would be to demand censorship, but that would be a heavy-handed approach and a violation of our freedom of expression. What is needed is a greater awareness on the part of parents and caretakers. This is the age of radio, MP3's, streaming, downloading, You Tube, etc..Our electronic age makes it even more imperative that adults engage their children and teach them moral values. Parents need to monitor what their kids see and hear over the airwaves and cyberspace. And when you catch them listening to something objectionable, don't punish or pontificate. Take the time to explain why it is objectionable, and how it diminishes their lives and the world around them.
There is no guarantee it will work, but if we don't make the effort to teach and maintain moral standards, and to extoll the virtues of self-respect and treating others with respect, then we do our children and ourselves a disservice. The lessons begin at home. We, the parents and grandparents must be the teachers and role models;otherwise, we have failed our children and betrayed their futures.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
TEN UNLIKELY HEADLINES IN 2015
1) LINDSEY LOHAN QUITS SHOW BIZ TO BECOME HIGH SCHOOL GUIDANCE COUNSELOR.
2) AL SHARPTON TO JOIN CAST OF "DUCK DYNASTY."
3) MILEY CYRUS SAYS SHE WILL BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO ENTERTRAIN TROOPS.
4) OBAMA VOWS TO UPHOLD CONSTITUTION AND ALL PROMISES MADE TO OPRAH.
5) JOE BIDEN WINS "DANCING WITH THE STARS."
6) IGGIE AZALEA PREGNANT WITH BILL CLINTON'S BABY.
7) ROSIE ODONNELL PREGNANT WITH HILLARY CLINTON'S BABY.
8) MILITARY WITHDRAWS FROM AFHGANISTAN: REASSIGNED TO CHICAGO.
9) COMMANDER OF CHICAGO TROOPS LONGS FOR PEACEFUL DAYS FIGHTING ISIS.
10) ALL THE CHILDREN IN THE STATE OF KANSAS ADOPTED BY BRAD AND ANGELINA.
2) AL SHARPTON TO JOIN CAST OF "DUCK DYNASTY."
3) MILEY CYRUS SAYS SHE WILL BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO ENTERTRAIN TROOPS.
4) OBAMA VOWS TO UPHOLD CONSTITUTION AND ALL PROMISES MADE TO OPRAH.
5) JOE BIDEN WINS "DANCING WITH THE STARS."
6) IGGIE AZALEA PREGNANT WITH BILL CLINTON'S BABY.
7) ROSIE ODONNELL PREGNANT WITH HILLARY CLINTON'S BABY.
8) MILITARY WITHDRAWS FROM AFHGANISTAN: REASSIGNED TO CHICAGO.
9) COMMANDER OF CHICAGO TROOPS LONGS FOR PEACEFUL DAYS FIGHTING ISIS.
10) ALL THE CHILDREN IN THE STATE OF KANSAS ADOPTED BY BRAD AND ANGELINA.
Monday, April 20, 2015
TEN THINGS WE THINK WE KNOW
Someone once said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It could also be said that misinformation that passes as fact can be a dangerous thing, too. Erroneous information can distort issues, prejudice our thinking, and possibly cause us to take a wrong turn in making everyday decisions in our lives. Below is a list of items that our "comon wisdom" has ordained as fact. Some are serious, others just plain silly. How many of the these have you regarded as fact?
Myth: Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women.
Truth: While nearly fifty thousand women a year die from breast cancer, cardiovascular disease kills half a million women annually.
Myth: Our forest are swiftly disappearing:
Truth: We have more forest acreage today than we did a century ago. According to the US Forestry Service, our country grows 22 million cubic feet of wood a year, while cutting down 16.5 million cubic feet a year, a net increase of 36 percent annually.
Myth: Cinderella's slippers were made of glass.
Truth: In the original version of Cinderella written in Old French, her slippers were made of white squirrel fur, or "vair." Years later, subsequent translations mistook "vair" for "verre", which means glass. Cinderella has been wearing glass slippers ever since.
Myth: Teen smoking is on the rise.
Truth: Recent studies have found that 15 percent of current high school seniors smoke at least a half pack of cigarettes daily, compared to 20 percent of seniors in 1979.
Myth: Sharks must keep moving or die.
Truth: While most species of shark breath by swimming with their mouths open, other species, such as the sandtiger, nurse, bull and lemon sharks can breath without having to swim.
Myth: Handguns are the leading cause of death in children under the age of ten.
Truth: Fewer than fifty children a year under ten are killed by handguns. By comparison, twice that number annually drown in five-gallon buckets, and five times that number drown in bathtubs.
Myth: The term "shyster" is derived from the Shakespeare character of Shylock.
Truth: "Shyster" is actually derived from from an unscrupulous American lawyer named Scheuster, who practiced law in the 1840's.
Myth: Urban sprawl is rapidly overtaking our nation.
Truth: Cities and suburbs comprise a mere 3 percent of the total US land area. In fact, according to the Pacific Research Institute, the amount of government protected land has tripled in the past thirty years.
Myth: Lemmings are furry little animals that follow one another to their death.
Truth: Lemmings do not follow each other into the sea and drown. Being migratory animals, they leave their home areas when food becomes scarce, and will forge rivers and streams to find new food sources. Unfortunately, sometimes they attempt to swim across bodies of water that are too deep for them to negotiate. The result is that large numbers will drown.
Myth: The total number of police officers killed in the line of duty is increasing.
Truth: Figures from the US Bureau of Statistics show that in 1979, 134 police officers were killed nationwide. Last year it was fewer than one hundred.
It is a truism that knowledge is power. But wrong information can be as dangerous as no information at all.
Myth: Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women.
Truth: While nearly fifty thousand women a year die from breast cancer, cardiovascular disease kills half a million women annually.
Myth: Our forest are swiftly disappearing:
Truth: We have more forest acreage today than we did a century ago. According to the US Forestry Service, our country grows 22 million cubic feet of wood a year, while cutting down 16.5 million cubic feet a year, a net increase of 36 percent annually.
Myth: Cinderella's slippers were made of glass.
Truth: In the original version of Cinderella written in Old French, her slippers were made of white squirrel fur, or "vair." Years later, subsequent translations mistook "vair" for "verre", which means glass. Cinderella has been wearing glass slippers ever since.
Myth: Teen smoking is on the rise.
Truth: Recent studies have found that 15 percent of current high school seniors smoke at least a half pack of cigarettes daily, compared to 20 percent of seniors in 1979.
Myth: Sharks must keep moving or die.
Truth: While most species of shark breath by swimming with their mouths open, other species, such as the sandtiger, nurse, bull and lemon sharks can breath without having to swim.
Myth: Handguns are the leading cause of death in children under the age of ten.
Truth: Fewer than fifty children a year under ten are killed by handguns. By comparison, twice that number annually drown in five-gallon buckets, and five times that number drown in bathtubs.
Myth: The term "shyster" is derived from the Shakespeare character of Shylock.
Truth: "Shyster" is actually derived from from an unscrupulous American lawyer named Scheuster, who practiced law in the 1840's.
Myth: Urban sprawl is rapidly overtaking our nation.
Truth: Cities and suburbs comprise a mere 3 percent of the total US land area. In fact, according to the Pacific Research Institute, the amount of government protected land has tripled in the past thirty years.
Myth: Lemmings are furry little animals that follow one another to their death.
Truth: Lemmings do not follow each other into the sea and drown. Being migratory animals, they leave their home areas when food becomes scarce, and will forge rivers and streams to find new food sources. Unfortunately, sometimes they attempt to swim across bodies of water that are too deep for them to negotiate. The result is that large numbers will drown.
Myth: The total number of police officers killed in the line of duty is increasing.
Truth: Figures from the US Bureau of Statistics show that in 1979, 134 police officers were killed nationwide. Last year it was fewer than one hundred.
It is a truism that knowledge is power. But wrong information can be as dangerous as no information at all.
Friday, April 3, 2015
UNDER THE BLOOD MOON
Since April 4 will see both a lunar eclipse and a blood moon, I thought it was an appropriate time to post a poem I wrote titled UNDER A BLOOD MOON that was published in Loves Chance magazine.
UNDER A BLOOD MOON
We kissed
under the light of the blood moon
The cold and docile orb
distorted and bloated
like a distended organ
its face burnished, as if
in the grip of a feverish seizure,
swollen with passion
unblinking and unapologetic
in its lunar elegance,
almost begging us to touch it
Instead we kissed again,
daring our love to flourish
under the light of the blood moon
###
UNDER A BLOOD MOON
We kissed
under the light of the blood moon
The cold and docile orb
distorted and bloated
like a distended organ
its face burnished, as if
in the grip of a feverish seizure,
swollen with passion
unblinking and unapologetic
in its lunar elegance,
almost begging us to touch it
Instead we kissed again,
daring our love to flourish
under the light of the blood moon
###
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
FOOD POISONING
You've no doubt heard or read how evil corporations like Monsanto are slowly poisoning us by putting additives and chemicals in our food. The so-called experts advise us to "eat natural." Consume only that which comes directly from nature. Look for the list of ingredients, and if you can hardly pronounce any of them, don't eat it. For example, here is a partial list of ingredients found in one of our everyday foods you may very likely have in your own kitchen: glutamic acid, aspartic acid, histidine, leucine, E515, E300, E306, methylbut-1-YL, ethanoate, ethyl ethanoate, pentyl acetate, methylbutyl ethanoate, , ethyl ethanoate, yellow-orange E101, yellow-brown E160a, methylbutyl lutonate, ethane gas.
Wow! Scary stuff! What horrible Monsanto concoction contains this devil's brew of chemicals? Wait for it...wait for it...Nature's own BANANA!! That's right. Those substances and more can be found in every banana plucked off of every banana tree on the planet. Moral of story? Every edible plant and animal on earth contains a cornucopia of chemical ingredients. The concept of eating "natural" indicates a lack of biological knowledge on the part of its adherants.
One final question? What would companies like Monsanto have to gain by poisoning their customers? Sounds like a stupid business plan to me.
Wow! Scary stuff! What horrible Monsanto concoction contains this devil's brew of chemicals? Wait for it...wait for it...Nature's own BANANA!! That's right. Those substances and more can be found in every banana plucked off of every banana tree on the planet. Moral of story? Every edible plant and animal on earth contains a cornucopia of chemical ingredients. The concept of eating "natural" indicates a lack of biological knowledge on the part of its adherants.
One final question? What would companies like Monsanto have to gain by poisoning their customers? Sounds like a stupid business plan to me.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Birthday Poem
Since today is my birthday and also the one year anniversary of my little blog, I thought it would be appropriate to post a poem I had published several years ago about getting older.
GAMBLING WITH TIME
What is age
but an illusion
That melts like a sugar cube
inside our minds
Sweet and sour
raw and spicy
For there is no time except
for the play that skims through your head
Because life is like
betting on a longshot
The over/under
some abstract number
The odds pivoting
like a roulette ball
When the only sure thing
is that there is no sure thing
So place your bets,
then read em and weep.
GAMBLING WITH TIME
What is age
but an illusion
That melts like a sugar cube
inside our minds
Sweet and sour
raw and spicy
For there is no time except
for the play that skims through your head
Because life is like
betting on a longshot
The over/under
some abstract number
The odds pivoting
like a roulette ball
When the only sure thing
is that there is no sure thing
So place your bets,
then read em and weep.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
2001: A SPACE TRAJEDY
One of my favorite films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, which was released in 1968. Based on a short story by the iconic Sci-Fi author, Arthur C. Clarke, it depicts a 21st century where flying to the moon is as routine as hopping a plane to LA. Enormous space stations orbit the earth, and the moon itself is fully colonized. Such was the vision of life in the coming turn of the century.
I have viewed the movie countless times. The first time was in 1968 along with two of my buddies at the old McVickers theatre in downtown Chicago. It was a mindblowing experience, partly because we were watching the movie stoned. But even straight, it was an exhilirating experience thanks to the Oscar winning special effects.
I watched SPACE ODYSSEY again a couple of weeks ago on one of the cable channels. This time, instead of exhiliration, I felt a sadness--sadness over what could have been compared to what is.
Kubrick, Clarke and other visionaries of their day were wrong. Flights to the moon are not commonplace. We have not colonized the lunar landscape. There are no massive space stations orbitting earth. And to think we had such a great start in the 60's.
At the beginning of the 1960's, President Kennedy made a famous speech in which he declared that by the end of the decade we would put a man on the moon. With the finest scientific minds in the country and a sufficient budget, we achieved the goal in less than a decade. That first moon landing was followed by five more, the final one taking place in April of 1972. Subsequently, we built space shuttles ande a space station. There was still talk of colonizing the moon and setting foot on Mars.
We are now 14 years past 2001, and there is no space odyssey. No human has set foot on the moon in 43 years. We have yet to step foot on Mars. Thanks to President Obama's policies, we no longer have any space shuttles, and the only working space station belongs to the Russians.
So what happened to the dreams and visions of the 60's and 70's? In a word: government. Nasa took control of the space program, and when that occured, space exploration went from a scientific endeavor to a political endeavor. Budgets became political footballs. Goals and strategies became political footballs. No one had to worry about success and achievement to further their careers because careers were propped up by political pull and bureaucratic inertia.
In the interim, we have seen a virtual explosion in other technologies, such as computers, the internet, cellphones, tablets, smart TV's, streaming, texting, etc. Buy a computer, smartphone or MP3 player, and within a few years it becomes obsolete because of lightning advances in the technology. And in every single instance, these innovations were the creations of free enterprise and individual entrepeneurs--not a government agency like Nasa or the FCC.
The lesson to be learned is simple. Endeavors by private enterprise are dynamic, efficient, goal oriented. Endeavors by government agencies, on the other hand, are ponderous, inefficient and stunted by political whims and in-fighting.
Had our leaders in Washington thrown space exploration to the private sector a half century ago instead of relegating it to a bureaucracy that stifles innovation and long-range planning, I dare say we would be having those routine flights to the moon, and colonies on Mars.
That is why it saddens me to watch Kubrick's masterpiece of filmmaking. Thanks to government, our space odyssey has become as empty as space itself, our dreams and visions trapped in a vacuum.
Open the podbay doors, Hal...
I have viewed the movie countless times. The first time was in 1968 along with two of my buddies at the old McVickers theatre in downtown Chicago. It was a mindblowing experience, partly because we were watching the movie stoned. But even straight, it was an exhilirating experience thanks to the Oscar winning special effects.
I watched SPACE ODYSSEY again a couple of weeks ago on one of the cable channels. This time, instead of exhiliration, I felt a sadness--sadness over what could have been compared to what is.
Kubrick, Clarke and other visionaries of their day were wrong. Flights to the moon are not commonplace. We have not colonized the lunar landscape. There are no massive space stations orbitting earth. And to think we had such a great start in the 60's.
At the beginning of the 1960's, President Kennedy made a famous speech in which he declared that by the end of the decade we would put a man on the moon. With the finest scientific minds in the country and a sufficient budget, we achieved the goal in less than a decade. That first moon landing was followed by five more, the final one taking place in April of 1972. Subsequently, we built space shuttles ande a space station. There was still talk of colonizing the moon and setting foot on Mars.
We are now 14 years past 2001, and there is no space odyssey. No human has set foot on the moon in 43 years. We have yet to step foot on Mars. Thanks to President Obama's policies, we no longer have any space shuttles, and the only working space station belongs to the Russians.
So what happened to the dreams and visions of the 60's and 70's? In a word: government. Nasa took control of the space program, and when that occured, space exploration went from a scientific endeavor to a political endeavor. Budgets became political footballs. Goals and strategies became political footballs. No one had to worry about success and achievement to further their careers because careers were propped up by political pull and bureaucratic inertia.
In the interim, we have seen a virtual explosion in other technologies, such as computers, the internet, cellphones, tablets, smart TV's, streaming, texting, etc. Buy a computer, smartphone or MP3 player, and within a few years it becomes obsolete because of lightning advances in the technology. And in every single instance, these innovations were the creations of free enterprise and individual entrepeneurs--not a government agency like Nasa or the FCC.
The lesson to be learned is simple. Endeavors by private enterprise are dynamic, efficient, goal oriented. Endeavors by government agencies, on the other hand, are ponderous, inefficient and stunted by political whims and in-fighting.
Had our leaders in Washington thrown space exploration to the private sector a half century ago instead of relegating it to a bureaucracy that stifles innovation and long-range planning, I dare say we would be having those routine flights to the moon, and colonies on Mars.
That is why it saddens me to watch Kubrick's masterpiece of filmmaking. Thanks to government, our space odyssey has become as empty as space itself, our dreams and visions trapped in a vacuum.
Open the podbay doors, Hal...
Friday, February 20, 2015
THE ONE PERCENT LIE
If Barack Obama accomplished anything during his presidency, it has been to popularize the term one percent. In doing so, he has revealed his true political leanings byinjecting classic Marxist class warfare rhetoric into political discourse. Who among us has not heard the phrase bandied about over the past six years? What is it supposed to signify? Marxist doctrine tells us that the one percenters are those ultra rich folks who are the top one percent of the income level. In turn, they are the wealthy elite who run the country and exploit everyone under them on the economic ladder. They are evil, and we are to fear them, and ultimately dislodge them from their lavish estates so they can no longer control the rest of us.
But who exactly are these one percenters we are told to distrust and despise? Are they money-grubbing, profit mongering, cigar chomping ruthless capitalist barons as leftists would have us believe? Are they members of an exclusive club whose membership is severely restricted?
The University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics decided to investigate. Their finding were eye opening, to say the least. The study completely obliterates the notion that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and that everyone in between is in a perpetual state of economic stagnation from which there is no escape. Here is what the study found:
By age 60, almost 70% of the working population will spend at least one year in the top 20% of income earners; 53% will have at least one year in the top 10% of earners; 11% will spend at least one year in the top 1% of earners. And to dispel the idea that the one percenters have exclusive membership in a highly restricted club, only a microscopic .06% remain in the top 1% for more than a decade.
What these numbers show is that income status in the US is quite fluid. People go up the ladder, down the ladder, back up the ladder, and so forth. The idea that the top 1% is a private club is demolished. People come, people go.
What doesn't change is the left wing's attempts to instigate class warfare, where the rich devour the poor, and people are forever locked into their economic status like medievil serfs. In truth, upward mobility is the hallmark of a free market society. All that is required is hard work, dedication and goals. While success is not guaranteed, failure is not pre-ordained by some ruthless elite hiding in their mansions.
But who exactly are these one percenters we are told to distrust and despise? Are they money-grubbing, profit mongering, cigar chomping ruthless capitalist barons as leftists would have us believe? Are they members of an exclusive club whose membership is severely restricted?
The University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics decided to investigate. Their finding were eye opening, to say the least. The study completely obliterates the notion that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and that everyone in between is in a perpetual state of economic stagnation from which there is no escape. Here is what the study found:
By age 60, almost 70% of the working population will spend at least one year in the top 20% of income earners; 53% will have at least one year in the top 10% of earners; 11% will spend at least one year in the top 1% of earners. And to dispel the idea that the one percenters have exclusive membership in a highly restricted club, only a microscopic .06% remain in the top 1% for more than a decade.
What these numbers show is that income status in the US is quite fluid. People go up the ladder, down the ladder, back up the ladder, and so forth. The idea that the top 1% is a private club is demolished. People come, people go.
What doesn't change is the left wing's attempts to instigate class warfare, where the rich devour the poor, and people are forever locked into their economic status like medievil serfs. In truth, upward mobility is the hallmark of a free market society. All that is required is hard work, dedication and goals. While success is not guaranteed, failure is not pre-ordained by some ruthless elite hiding in their mansions.
Friday, January 23, 2015
SKIN IN THE GAME: CAUGHT IN A DRAFT
The other morning I hear a conservative radio talkshow host say that America needs more "skin in the game"--the game being our war on terrorism and Islamist extremeists.The skin he was referring to is the military draft. According to the host, our war against terrorism hasn't been successful because Americans do not have enough of an emotional investment in the struggle. By having a draft, he concludes, Americans will be more directly involved, and therefore, as a nation, we would be more focused and engaged in the war on terror.
It is interesting that this self-proclaimed conservative, a man who says he distrusts big government and demands less intrusion in our lives by politicians, would call for a renewel of the military draft. To call his thinking skewered and inconsistent would be a gross understatement.
There is a reason the draft was abolished in the 1970's. It is in direct opposition to the values and principles upon which this country was founded. When the United States was established over 200 years ago, it was the first nation in the history of the human race to be based on the concepts of individual liberty and the sanctity of the individual. In previous culturess going back thousands of years, the individual had little or no personal freedom, and was under the absolute authority of the king or queen, the general or the despot. Ours was the first nation to declare the government to be subservient to the individual citizen--not the other way around.
The military draft is a total perversion of this concept. What the draft says, in essence, is that the government has prior claim to at least 2 years of your life; that, in fact, it has total ownership of 2 years of your life, and you have virtually no say in where you are sent or what it is you are ordered to do. You can refuse to register and comply, and for that you would be imprisoned. Does that sound like the principles upon which this country was founded? Does that sound like you have complete and total ownership of your life?
There is also a bonus to not having military conscription. With a draft, if our leaders seek to go to war--regardless of how unpopular that war may be with the citizens--they would only have to fire up the draft in order to have enough bodies to execute the war.
When there is no draft, these same leaders would first have to appeal to the citizens--especially those of military age--and convince them that the war is a legitimate cause. If Americans are soundly against the war, enlistments and re-enlistments would plummet, forcing the government to reconsider its policy. Had there been no draft in the 1960's, it is doubtful 57 thousand Americans would have perished in that fruitless and hated debacle.
In January of 1966 I was caught in the draft. Fortunately I was assigned to serve in Germany, and not Viet Nam. The reason I was drafted brings up another distasteful aspect of mandatory government service. In 1965 my father suffered a severe heart attack that forced his retirement from his managerial position at United States Steel. With his income drastically reduced by a disability pension, he sadly informed me that he would no longer be able to pay for my college education. I was a student at a nearby community college. I fully understood. I quit school and went to work full time at the same steel mill my father had retired from. My plan was to work for a year or two, save up enough money and continue my college education. But when I quit school I lost my 2S student deferrment, and 6 months after that I received my draft notice. One month later I was at Fort Polk, Louisiana for basic training.
So what is my point? My story introduces one more negative aspect to the draft. Young men from affluent families were able to avoid conscription because their parents paid for the college education that allowed these young men to be draft deferred. By contrast, working class dudes like myself whose families could not afford to finance 4 years of college ended up as draft bait. Studies during the Viet Nam war showed that working class and lower income males comprised the overwhelming majority of draftees. It was the soldiers drawn from the ranks of blue collars that shed the most red blood, proving that the so-called universal military draft was anything but universal.
Support for a draft and mandatory national service is the antithesis of a country steeped in individual liberty and a love of freedom. If there is any skin in the game, it should not be stripped from the backs of free citizens.
It is interesting that this self-proclaimed conservative, a man who says he distrusts big government and demands less intrusion in our lives by politicians, would call for a renewel of the military draft. To call his thinking skewered and inconsistent would be a gross understatement.
There is a reason the draft was abolished in the 1970's. It is in direct opposition to the values and principles upon which this country was founded. When the United States was established over 200 years ago, it was the first nation in the history of the human race to be based on the concepts of individual liberty and the sanctity of the individual. In previous culturess going back thousands of years, the individual had little or no personal freedom, and was under the absolute authority of the king or queen, the general or the despot. Ours was the first nation to declare the government to be subservient to the individual citizen--not the other way around.
The military draft is a total perversion of this concept. What the draft says, in essence, is that the government has prior claim to at least 2 years of your life; that, in fact, it has total ownership of 2 years of your life, and you have virtually no say in where you are sent or what it is you are ordered to do. You can refuse to register and comply, and for that you would be imprisoned. Does that sound like the principles upon which this country was founded? Does that sound like you have complete and total ownership of your life?
There is also a bonus to not having military conscription. With a draft, if our leaders seek to go to war--regardless of how unpopular that war may be with the citizens--they would only have to fire up the draft in order to have enough bodies to execute the war.
When there is no draft, these same leaders would first have to appeal to the citizens--especially those of military age--and convince them that the war is a legitimate cause. If Americans are soundly against the war, enlistments and re-enlistments would plummet, forcing the government to reconsider its policy. Had there been no draft in the 1960's, it is doubtful 57 thousand Americans would have perished in that fruitless and hated debacle.
In January of 1966 I was caught in the draft. Fortunately I was assigned to serve in Germany, and not Viet Nam. The reason I was drafted brings up another distasteful aspect of mandatory government service. In 1965 my father suffered a severe heart attack that forced his retirement from his managerial position at United States Steel. With his income drastically reduced by a disability pension, he sadly informed me that he would no longer be able to pay for my college education. I was a student at a nearby community college. I fully understood. I quit school and went to work full time at the same steel mill my father had retired from. My plan was to work for a year or two, save up enough money and continue my college education. But when I quit school I lost my 2S student deferrment, and 6 months after that I received my draft notice. One month later I was at Fort Polk, Louisiana for basic training.
So what is my point? My story introduces one more negative aspect to the draft. Young men from affluent families were able to avoid conscription because their parents paid for the college education that allowed these young men to be draft deferred. By contrast, working class dudes like myself whose families could not afford to finance 4 years of college ended up as draft bait. Studies during the Viet Nam war showed that working class and lower income males comprised the overwhelming majority of draftees. It was the soldiers drawn from the ranks of blue collars that shed the most red blood, proving that the so-called universal military draft was anything but universal.
Support for a draft and mandatory national service is the antithesis of a country steeped in individual liberty and a love of freedom. If there is any skin in the game, it should not be stripped from the backs of free citizens.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
BEWARE THE LOOMING GAS PRICE INCREASE
Yes, beware of the coming gasoline price increase. No, it won't be because of those evil, money-grubbing, profit-mongering oil companies. It will be because of those evil, money-grubbing, profit- mongering elected offricials in our state capitals and in Congress.
Illinois senator Dick (the name fits me) Durbin is already making noises about hiking the gasoline tax, as are various state level politicans around the country. Since gas prices are averaging a hair over 2 dollars a gallon nationwide, with many regions under 2 dollars, they see a perfect oppportunity to stick it to the taxpayers one more time.
Federal taxes on a gallon of gasoline are already around 18 cents. In Illinois, after you tack on state and county taxes, the total comes to almost a half a buck a gallon. The absurdity is that when gas prices are high, people bitch about oil companies running the world--this concept encouraged by politicians looking for scapecoats. They tell us Big Oil companies are greedy SOB'S. But when gas prices were over 4 bucks a gallon, did our caring, loving liberal politicians demand that gas taxes be lowered? Hell, no would be the correct answer. So much for caring about working people, the middleclass, the little guy, etc.
As for those greedy oil compnay bastards, ask yourself this: If they're so greedy and they run the world, why is the price of gasoline half of what it was a couple of years ago? Did they suddenly become philanthropists? Humanitarians? Corporate versions of Mother Theresa?
Of course not. Despite the falsehoods past along as facts by leftist and liberal politicians, Big Oil doesn't set the pricde of oil--the marketplace does. And that price is determined by the good old law of supply and demand. Thanks to that other whipping boy of the left--fracking-- the US has become a major oil producer, which in turn increases the supply of oil, which in turn lowers the price of gasoline, which in turn puts more money in the pockets of working people.
The price stays down until politicians see a golden opportunity (or in this case green, the color of money) to slap on more taxes and exploit the working people they claim to love and care for. And far more often than not, once they create or raise a tax, it rarely goes away--unlike high oil prices.
So know this: Your enemy is not the oil companies. Your enemy is liberal, anti-capitalist schemes.
Illinois senator Dick (the name fits me) Durbin is already making noises about hiking the gasoline tax, as are various state level politicans around the country. Since gas prices are averaging a hair over 2 dollars a gallon nationwide, with many regions under 2 dollars, they see a perfect oppportunity to stick it to the taxpayers one more time.
Federal taxes on a gallon of gasoline are already around 18 cents. In Illinois, after you tack on state and county taxes, the total comes to almost a half a buck a gallon. The absurdity is that when gas prices are high, people bitch about oil companies running the world--this concept encouraged by politicians looking for scapecoats. They tell us Big Oil companies are greedy SOB'S. But when gas prices were over 4 bucks a gallon, did our caring, loving liberal politicians demand that gas taxes be lowered? Hell, no would be the correct answer. So much for caring about working people, the middleclass, the little guy, etc.
As for those greedy oil compnay bastards, ask yourself this: If they're so greedy and they run the world, why is the price of gasoline half of what it was a couple of years ago? Did they suddenly become philanthropists? Humanitarians? Corporate versions of Mother Theresa?
Of course not. Despite the falsehoods past along as facts by leftist and liberal politicians, Big Oil doesn't set the pricde of oil--the marketplace does. And that price is determined by the good old law of supply and demand. Thanks to that other whipping boy of the left--fracking-- the US has become a major oil producer, which in turn increases the supply of oil, which in turn lowers the price of gasoline, which in turn puts more money in the pockets of working people.
The price stays down until politicians see a golden opportunity (or in this case green, the color of money) to slap on more taxes and exploit the working people they claim to love and care for. And far more often than not, once they create or raise a tax, it rarely goes away--unlike high oil prices.
So know this: Your enemy is not the oil companies. Your enemy is liberal, anti-capitalist schemes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)