This is "Elvis Week:" at his Graceland mansion in Memphis, but it isn't only Elvis fans gathering there. Members of Black Lives Matter have demonstrated this week, threatening to shut down the festivities. They are protesting a police shooting of a black man, and they are also protesting income inequality. One can assume they chose Graceland because it represents the millions of dollars earned by Elvis and his estate.
For years leftists have railed against so-called income inequality, thereby revealing their gross ignorance of the subject. Yes, incomes are unequal, but there are valid reasons for it. The primary factors that determine wage levels are skills (or lack of), experience, level of education, degree of difficulty of a job, demand for applicants, and an employer's ability to pay at a certain wage level.
In common sense terms, who would argue that a heart surgeon and a cashier at McDonalds should earn the same pay? But let's suppose for the sake of argument that a law was enacted that mandated equal pay for all workers. First, let us say that this law demands that the surgeon and the fast food cashier both earn 15 dollars an hour.What would be the consequences? That should be obvious. At some point in time we would run out of surgeons because no rational person would go through the required education and expense, and years of training if the end reward is 15 bucks an hour.
Now we will reverse the perspective. Let us suppose a top surgeon can earn 500 thousand dollars a year. This time we will assume the law mandates that all workers earn that five hundred grand, including the McDonalds cashier. How long do you think McDonalds or any other fast food operation would remain in business? And at those wage rates, what do you think a hamburger, fries and Coke would cost?
Wages are at the levels they are at for a reason. Should a busboy earn as much as a police officer or firefighter? Should the CEO of a corporation that employs 50,000 people, and a bus driver earn equal pay?
There is yet one more example of income disparity.The average salary for a player in the NBA is around 4 million dollars, while the average pay of a Chicago public school teacher is around 60,000 dollars.There would be little argument that a teacher is far more important to our society than a guy dribbling a ball up and down a wood floor. So why the outrageous income disparity?
Simple. The basketball player is involved in a business that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from ticket sales, radio and TV contracts, merchandising, etc..
A teacher's income, on the other hand, is derived from taxing the citizens.To make a teacher's salary equivalent to an NBA player, real estate and income taxes would have to be raised to such astronomical levels that no one could afford to own property or run a business. The system would collapse. Therein lies the final factor in terms of salary levels: The employer's ability to pay.
Ultimately if a system of income equality were to be established, it begs three vital questions: Who decides the pay rate? What criteria is used to make that determination? What gives that person or persons the right to determine what all workers should earn?
Like all socialist theories, the idea of income equality is rife with contradictions and reveals complete ignorance of economic laws.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Thursday, June 30, 2016
THE FAILURE OF GUN PROHIBITION
The recent massacre at the Pulse Club in Orlando, Florida has brought out the demand for stricter gun control laws. Such a reaction is expected, but it does not mean it is the proper solution to the problem. Those calling for greater gun controls fall into two camps: One camp is demanding tighter regulations regarding background checks and who should be allowed to purchase weapons. The second camp wants a complete prohibition of all gun sales. Period. Either approach is doomed to failure.
History tells us that prohibition never succeeds. For example, heroin has been prohibited
for the past hundred years, yet we keep hearing about the heroin epidemic infecting this country and that millions of Americans are regular heroin users. How can that be possible when the drug is illegal and prohibited? Likewise, back in the 1920's, the Feds initiated alcohol prohibition.How well did that work? As we know millions of Americans continued to drink, speakeasys flourished, bootleggers grew rich, and mafioso like Al Capone grew powerful, influential and rich.
Why do we think a prohibition on guns would be any more successful than the banning of alcohol and drugs? Let us not forget we have been fighting this "war on drugs" since Nixon was president in the early seventies. Over forty years later we are still fighting it. To emphasize this point we need only to look over at France. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet earth, yet in 2015 and 2016 they were victims of two vicious and bloody terrorist attacks in which dozens of innocent people were gunned down.
Even if there was a complete and total ban on all guns, this wouldn't solve the problem because it is estimated that there are already 70 to 100 million weapons in the US.
Denying citizens their constitutional rights is never the proper solution. Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And one more point to remember. Those who seek to commit immoral acts pay no heed to the laws that restrict law abiding citizens, and will always find a way to achieve their ends.
History tells us that prohibition never succeeds. For example, heroin has been prohibited
for the past hundred years, yet we keep hearing about the heroin epidemic infecting this country and that millions of Americans are regular heroin users. How can that be possible when the drug is illegal and prohibited? Likewise, back in the 1920's, the Feds initiated alcohol prohibition.How well did that work? As we know millions of Americans continued to drink, speakeasys flourished, bootleggers grew rich, and mafioso like Al Capone grew powerful, influential and rich.
Why do we think a prohibition on guns would be any more successful than the banning of alcohol and drugs? Let us not forget we have been fighting this "war on drugs" since Nixon was president in the early seventies. Over forty years later we are still fighting it. To emphasize this point we need only to look over at France. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet earth, yet in 2015 and 2016 they were victims of two vicious and bloody terrorist attacks in which dozens of innocent people were gunned down.
Even if there was a complete and total ban on all guns, this wouldn't solve the problem because it is estimated that there are already 70 to 100 million weapons in the US.
Denying citizens their constitutional rights is never the proper solution. Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And one more point to remember. Those who seek to commit immoral acts pay no heed to the laws that restrict law abiding citizens, and will always find a way to achieve their ends.
Friday, May 20, 2016
SPACE ALIENS AND DEMOCRATS
In 1947 in Roswell, New Mexico, the first sightings of flying saucers and space aliens were reported. It must also be noted that the following people were born in 1947:
Hillary Rodham
William Clinton
Al Gore Jr.
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Charles Schumer
Coincidence??? It must also be noted that every one of those Democrats are in favor of bringing more aliens into this country. Just saying...
Hillary Rodham
William Clinton
Al Gore Jr.
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Charles Schumer
Coincidence??? It must also be noted that every one of those Democrats are in favor of bringing more aliens into this country. Just saying...
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
TSA; THE SLOWDOWN AGENCY
Have you traveled by plane recently? The TSA suggests you arrive at the airport 2 hours prior to departure to give you adequate time to go through the airport security check line. But if you were to follow the TSA advice in recent weeks you would have missed your flight. It is now taking 2 to 3 hours to get through the security lines. This past week hundreds of passengers at Ohare Airport missed their flights because of security delays, and dozens of flights were delayed while waiting for passengers to process. Nationwide, some 4500 passengers have missed their flights over the past 2 months because of long check lines.
So what's going on? In the past 5 years, airline passengers and flights have markedly increased, and the number of TSA employees has decreased by almost 5 thousand. In addition 1200 to 1500 employees are lost monthly due to attrition. The Reason Foundation has estimated that since 9/11, people are collectively spending 300 million extra hours per year at airports because of screening delays. Reason analysts say this translates to 8 billion dollars a year in hidden costs to the economy.
To date, the TSA has received 70 billion dollars of our tax money, and for what? Seventy thousand passengers have filed complaints against the TSA for stolen or damaged property, and 500 agents have been fired for stealing.
After 9/11, airport security was taken away from the private sector and given to the Feds, who then created the TSA. Its purpose was to provide us with better protection from terrorism than the private sector could provide. And like virtually everything else the government touches, the service has turned into a crap fest. It is incompetent, inefficient and is bleeding the American taxpayers dry.
The next time you are stuck in a 2 hour line at the airport, ask yourself why a government agency is preferable to private sector efficiency.
So what's going on? In the past 5 years, airline passengers and flights have markedly increased, and the number of TSA employees has decreased by almost 5 thousand. In addition 1200 to 1500 employees are lost monthly due to attrition. The Reason Foundation has estimated that since 9/11, people are collectively spending 300 million extra hours per year at airports because of screening delays. Reason analysts say this translates to 8 billion dollars a year in hidden costs to the economy.
To date, the TSA has received 70 billion dollars of our tax money, and for what? Seventy thousand passengers have filed complaints against the TSA for stolen or damaged property, and 500 agents have been fired for stealing.
After 9/11, airport security was taken away from the private sector and given to the Feds, who then created the TSA. Its purpose was to provide us with better protection from terrorism than the private sector could provide. And like virtually everything else the government touches, the service has turned into a crap fest. It is incompetent, inefficient and is bleeding the American taxpayers dry.
The next time you are stuck in a 2 hour line at the airport, ask yourself why a government agency is preferable to private sector efficiency.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
THE DENNIS HASTERT PUZZLE
Former Congressman and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert--an admitted pedophile--was recently sentenced to 15 months in prison. Some people protested it was way too light of a sentence. I say it was too harsh of a sentence.
Some of you must be thinking: Conrad, are you serious? Too harsh a sentence? The man molested young boys. How can you say 15 months is too harsh a sentence?
This is where the Dennis Hastert conundrum comes into play. Many people mistakenly believe Hastert received the prison sentence for the molestation charges. He did not. He was found guilty of violating Federal banking regulations. Banking laws state that any bank transaction, either deposits or withdrawals of ten thousand dollars or more must be reported to the Feds. Over the years, Hastert had been sending money to one of his victims as hush money. To avoid disclosing these payoffs, Hastert made withdrawals of seven to nine thousand dollars so as not to hit the ten grand threshold. Eventually red flags went up, the Feds investigated, and Hastert was charged and convicted of violating the regulations.
I would be the first to agree that had Hastert been tried and found guilty of molestation, he should have spent the rest of his life behind bars. But because of the statute of limitations, he could no longer be charged with those crimes. Hence, the Feds got him on repeated banking violations. This is what is highly objectionable on a number of levels.
First, let us focus on the actual charges against the former Congressman, while temporarily putting aside his actions as a pedophile. As I noted, Federal regulations state that any bank deposit or withdrawal in excess of ten grand must be reported to the government. Yet these are legitimate accounts in legitimate banks regarding honestly earned money. What right does the government have to spy on our private legal transactions? The rationale for these regulations is to stop money laundering, primarily from the drug trade. But I contend that I, as a law abiding citizen, have every right to handle my honestly earned money in any way I see fit without Big Brother watching my every move and counting my every last dollar. If I wish to give my only son a sum of ten thousand dollars, what the hell business it it of the Government? Why should every honest citizen be treated like a criminal?
There is one final aspect to the Hastert case that has been made painfully clear. Violations against the government take priority over violations against the safety and security of private citizens. We have two glaring examples.
The first and most recent glaring example is the Dennis Hastert affair. He is accused of two crimes: sexual abuse of minors, and violating Federal regulations. Which one of these crimes was he ultimately charged with and convicted of? The crime against the Federal Government. The sex crimes could not go forward because of the statute of limitations.
Another example goes back almost 90 years. It involved Al Capone. In the 1920's Capone was the biggest, most notorious and powerful organized crime boss in the country. He was responsible for countless murders and assaults, as well as extortion, prostitution, drug dealing, bribing elected officials and bootlegging.Ultimately he ended up in prison, but nor for any of the above charges. Despite the blood on his hands, Capone went to prison for tax evasion--a crime against the government. Apparently his murderous crime spree was not as big and important a crime as cheating the government out of its money.
Fast forward to 2016 and watch Dennis Hastert go to prison for a crime against the government, not for molesting young boys. It seems that the statute of limitation applies only to citizens victimized by crime, but not the Feds, who always receive their pound of flesh, no matter how long it takes.
A free people cannot endure as long as government rules and regulations take precedent over the safety and security of every citizen.
Some of you must be thinking: Conrad, are you serious? Too harsh a sentence? The man molested young boys. How can you say 15 months is too harsh a sentence?
This is where the Dennis Hastert conundrum comes into play. Many people mistakenly believe Hastert received the prison sentence for the molestation charges. He did not. He was found guilty of violating Federal banking regulations. Banking laws state that any bank transaction, either deposits or withdrawals of ten thousand dollars or more must be reported to the Feds. Over the years, Hastert had been sending money to one of his victims as hush money. To avoid disclosing these payoffs, Hastert made withdrawals of seven to nine thousand dollars so as not to hit the ten grand threshold. Eventually red flags went up, the Feds investigated, and Hastert was charged and convicted of violating the regulations.
I would be the first to agree that had Hastert been tried and found guilty of molestation, he should have spent the rest of his life behind bars. But because of the statute of limitations, he could no longer be charged with those crimes. Hence, the Feds got him on repeated banking violations. This is what is highly objectionable on a number of levels.
First, let us focus on the actual charges against the former Congressman, while temporarily putting aside his actions as a pedophile. As I noted, Federal regulations state that any bank deposit or withdrawal in excess of ten grand must be reported to the government. Yet these are legitimate accounts in legitimate banks regarding honestly earned money. What right does the government have to spy on our private legal transactions? The rationale for these regulations is to stop money laundering, primarily from the drug trade. But I contend that I, as a law abiding citizen, have every right to handle my honestly earned money in any way I see fit without Big Brother watching my every move and counting my every last dollar. If I wish to give my only son a sum of ten thousand dollars, what the hell business it it of the Government? Why should every honest citizen be treated like a criminal?
There is one final aspect to the Hastert case that has been made painfully clear. Violations against the government take priority over violations against the safety and security of private citizens. We have two glaring examples.
The first and most recent glaring example is the Dennis Hastert affair. He is accused of two crimes: sexual abuse of minors, and violating Federal regulations. Which one of these crimes was he ultimately charged with and convicted of? The crime against the Federal Government. The sex crimes could not go forward because of the statute of limitations.
Another example goes back almost 90 years. It involved Al Capone. In the 1920's Capone was the biggest, most notorious and powerful organized crime boss in the country. He was responsible for countless murders and assaults, as well as extortion, prostitution, drug dealing, bribing elected officials and bootlegging.Ultimately he ended up in prison, but nor for any of the above charges. Despite the blood on his hands, Capone went to prison for tax evasion--a crime against the government. Apparently his murderous crime spree was not as big and important a crime as cheating the government out of its money.
Fast forward to 2016 and watch Dennis Hastert go to prison for a crime against the government, not for molesting young boys. It seems that the statute of limitation applies only to citizens victimized by crime, but not the Feds, who always receive their pound of flesh, no matter how long it takes.
A free people cannot endure as long as government rules and regulations take precedent over the safety and security of every citizen.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
GUARDIAN ANGELS OR BACKSLIDERS?
When I was in the 1st grade at St Mary Magdalene Catholic school in Chicago, our nun told us about guardian angels. She said that at the time of our birth, God assigns each of us our very own angel to watch over us and keep us safe from harm. As a six year old it seemed like a very cool concept. I actually had my very own bodyguard.
Of course as I grew into adulthood, my belief in a guardian angel went the route of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. I find it hard to believe that there are fully formed adults who still believe an invisible security guard is following their every move 24/7.
Seriously? A guardian angel? If these entities really do exist, they are without a doubt the most incompetent, useless protection force ever conceived. Every single day of every single year across this entire planet people are killed in car accidents, drowned, raped, beaten to death, molested, murdered and otherwise victimized by an endless variety of mayhem. A Boy Scout would be more efficient in offering protection.
For those who are avid believers in the Bible, there is one aspect to consider concerning guardian angels. Why would God even find the need to assign us each with an angel? It would be totally irrelevant. The Bible says God is prescient and omniscient. He sees all and knows all. He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.If He didn't possess this knowledge, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being we call God.
So if God knows all,that means He knows the entire course of your life the very instant you are conceived. He knows when and where you will be born, and He knows when, where and how you will die. Therefore, if He has full knowledge of our lives and the circumstances of our death, why would He need to assign us a guardian angel? For instance, if God can foresee that I will die at age 100 of heart failure, then it would be completely unnecessary to assign me a guardian angel to keep me out of the path of a speeding train because that is not how I am going to die.And if God knows I am going to die from heart failure, that means my guardian angel cannot change that fate, which makes the angel pointless.
Like so many Biblical stories and religious dogma, the idea of a guardian angel is riddled with contradictions and loose ends that defy logic. If I need security, I'll look up bodyguards online. They may not have wings, but they do carry guns.
Of course as I grew into adulthood, my belief in a guardian angel went the route of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. I find it hard to believe that there are fully formed adults who still believe an invisible security guard is following their every move 24/7.
Seriously? A guardian angel? If these entities really do exist, they are without a doubt the most incompetent, useless protection force ever conceived. Every single day of every single year across this entire planet people are killed in car accidents, drowned, raped, beaten to death, molested, murdered and otherwise victimized by an endless variety of mayhem. A Boy Scout would be more efficient in offering protection.
For those who are avid believers in the Bible, there is one aspect to consider concerning guardian angels. Why would God even find the need to assign us each with an angel? It would be totally irrelevant. The Bible says God is prescient and omniscient. He sees all and knows all. He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.If He didn't possess this knowledge, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being we call God.
So if God knows all,that means He knows the entire course of your life the very instant you are conceived. He knows when and where you will be born, and He knows when, where and how you will die. Therefore, if He has full knowledge of our lives and the circumstances of our death, why would He need to assign us a guardian angel? For instance, if God can foresee that I will die at age 100 of heart failure, then it would be completely unnecessary to assign me a guardian angel to keep me out of the path of a speeding train because that is not how I am going to die.And if God knows I am going to die from heart failure, that means my guardian angel cannot change that fate, which makes the angel pointless.
Like so many Biblical stories and religious dogma, the idea of a guardian angel is riddled with contradictions and loose ends that defy logic. If I need security, I'll look up bodyguards online. They may not have wings, but they do carry guns.
Monday, April 25, 2016
IS IT REALLY LOVE?
What is love? We all think we have the answer to that question. After all, haven't most of us loved, as well as being loved.
What we do know about love is that it comes in a variety of packages. There's the love for a parent and a parent's love for a child. There is the love for siblings and friends. Then there is love of a favorite food, or song, or movie star. And finally we have the most emotionally wrought variety of love--romantic love.
But do we really know what love is? There is strong evidence that many of us don't have a clue as to the meaning of love. For example, people often speak of love at first sight when describing their romantic relationships. But is there really such a thing as "love at first sight?" I contend there is not. There is certainly infatuation at first sight, and sexual attraction at first sight, but these feeling do not qualify as love. And here is why.
When we say we are in love with someone, it goes beyond the mere physical. To truly love someone we must thoroughly know that individual. We must know their personality, character traits, moral values, likes and dislikes. It is these attributes that we fall in love with, as well as the physicality. Ultimately we fall in love with the mind and heart of that person. Regardless of how strong the physical attraction, could you actually fall in love with a child molester, or rapist, or killer? It is not until we discover the underlying values of another can we truly say we have "fallen in love." For those values are who they are and what they are.
There is yet another example of misplaced love. Unlike the case of romantic infatuation, this second example is between people who know one another for extended periods of time--maybe their entire lives. The two most common examples would be the parent-child relationship, and the spousal or partner relationship. Now let us assume that there are people in these types of relationships who are victims of physical, mental or emotional abuse. Perhaps all three. The victim may be beaten, tortured, raped, humiliated, held up to the most vile types of verbal abuse and belittlement. Despite being subjected to these horrors, a child may swear their love for an abusive parent, a wife swearing her love for a sadistic husband. These two scenarios beg the question: How can you possibly profess your love for someone who causes such physical, mental and emotional pain and anguish? How can you love someone who holds you in such contempt and has no regard for your safety and wellbeing. That truly ranks as distortion and perversion of the term "love." So how can this be?
In the case of children, they are conditioned virtually from birth to love their parents. To do otherwise, regardless of how much they are brutalized by a parent, would be blasphemy.
In the case of spousal abuse, the abused partner believes themselves to be unlovable and unworthy of love, and as a result, even though they are abused by their partner, their thinking is that at least someone is there for them, no matter how sadistic that someone is.The alternative is loneliness and rejection. In both cases the root cause is a lack of self-esteem. The child and the spouse are beaten and degraded, and yet are dependent on their abusers for food, shelter and some degree of companionship. It is this they confuse as love.
Love is something all human beings seek and crave. It is the priceless commodity that should not be wasted on the undeserving. To pledge your love to someone is to reward them for their strength and values, while reaffirming your own self-worth and humanity.
What we do know about love is that it comes in a variety of packages. There's the love for a parent and a parent's love for a child. There is the love for siblings and friends. Then there is love of a favorite food, or song, or movie star. And finally we have the most emotionally wrought variety of love--romantic love.
But do we really know what love is? There is strong evidence that many of us don't have a clue as to the meaning of love. For example, people often speak of love at first sight when describing their romantic relationships. But is there really such a thing as "love at first sight?" I contend there is not. There is certainly infatuation at first sight, and sexual attraction at first sight, but these feeling do not qualify as love. And here is why.
When we say we are in love with someone, it goes beyond the mere physical. To truly love someone we must thoroughly know that individual. We must know their personality, character traits, moral values, likes and dislikes. It is these attributes that we fall in love with, as well as the physicality. Ultimately we fall in love with the mind and heart of that person. Regardless of how strong the physical attraction, could you actually fall in love with a child molester, or rapist, or killer? It is not until we discover the underlying values of another can we truly say we have "fallen in love." For those values are who they are and what they are.
There is yet another example of misplaced love. Unlike the case of romantic infatuation, this second example is between people who know one another for extended periods of time--maybe their entire lives. The two most common examples would be the parent-child relationship, and the spousal or partner relationship. Now let us assume that there are people in these types of relationships who are victims of physical, mental or emotional abuse. Perhaps all three. The victim may be beaten, tortured, raped, humiliated, held up to the most vile types of verbal abuse and belittlement. Despite being subjected to these horrors, a child may swear their love for an abusive parent, a wife swearing her love for a sadistic husband. These two scenarios beg the question: How can you possibly profess your love for someone who causes such physical, mental and emotional pain and anguish? How can you love someone who holds you in such contempt and has no regard for your safety and wellbeing. That truly ranks as distortion and perversion of the term "love." So how can this be?
In the case of children, they are conditioned virtually from birth to love their parents. To do otherwise, regardless of how much they are brutalized by a parent, would be blasphemy.
In the case of spousal abuse, the abused partner believes themselves to be unlovable and unworthy of love, and as a result, even though they are abused by their partner, their thinking is that at least someone is there for them, no matter how sadistic that someone is.The alternative is loneliness and rejection. In both cases the root cause is a lack of self-esteem. The child and the spouse are beaten and degraded, and yet are dependent on their abusers for food, shelter and some degree of companionship. It is this they confuse as love.
Love is something all human beings seek and crave. It is the priceless commodity that should not be wasted on the undeserving. To pledge your love to someone is to reward them for their strength and values, while reaffirming your own self-worth and humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)