...on being a constituent

“If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.” -Orson Scott Card

Much has been made in recent days of the attempt in the senate to block a further extension of unemployment benefits (it finally passed today BTW). Obama, of course, has demonized the republicans and pitted them against the unemployed who "just want a job."

The president claims the unemployed need this extension, but he and his party need it far worse. Obama's interests, and the interests of the democrats, lie in getting the maximum number of people onto the government dole prior to the upcoming elections...and keeping them there for as long as possible.

The idea is simple: You don't bite the hand that feeds you. To the contrary, you vote for it.

Ideally, you get people to vote for you by fixing problems like sky-high unemployment. But if you suck at fixing problems (the unemployment rate is still above 9.5% and the real unemployment rate is much higher) and your interests lie elsewhere, then your best bet is to give out free money--to literally buy votes--and create an ongoing dependency on the government. The Obama administration is doing just that, basically saying, "Don't worry about a job--you don't need one. You need us! We'll give you money. You don't even have to work for it--it's free! We'll be your daddy and take care of you. Now, get out there and vote for your daddy."

That sounds cynical and harsh, but it's not blindly cynical and harsh. In late 2008, when my former company cut its staff by 50%, I found myself unemployed and was grateful to have unemployment insurance for the few months it took me to find a new job. Back then (in the heart of the recession) you were eligible for 6 months of unemployment benefits, which was generous but not too generous. The looming cut-off certainly helped focus and intensify my job search. Then benefits were extended. Then extended again. And again. They're up to two years now (do you really need two years to find a job?) and the president wants more.

Imagine being the hand that feeds 9.5% of the voting population! Imagine being the person who gives them their money every month--who pays for their mortgage and car! Think of it: A constituency of the unemployed! And the worse you do your job, the bigger this constituency gets. Genius!

And government handouts aren't limited to unemployment benefits. Since Obama took office, the percentage of Americans who don't pay taxes has gone from 40% to 49%. And analysts predict it could go as high as 60%. Forget the fact that half of all Americans currently bear the entire, sky-rocketing tax burden and think of the political ramifications of having 60% of voting Americans not having to pay taxes. That's not just a constituency, it's a guaranteed election-winning super majority.

It's going to cost money, of course. Lots of money! And for a nation who's already $13 trillion in debt, it's money we simply don't have and can't afford. But massive deficit spending has yet to phase the Obama administration--after all, this just might be the best political strategy tax revenues and borrowed Chinese money can buy. And besides, it's Bush's fault that Obama has to dig out of this mess by passing a trillion dollar universal health care...I mean...um...er...

...on being disingenuous

This week renowned dimwit and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed suite against the state of Arizona for crafting a state immigration law that seeks to enforce federal immigration law (mind you, Arizona has yet to implement the new law over which they are being sued). The Arizona law, he says, "crossed a constitutional line" by "hampering the authority of the administration of President Barack Obama to enforce national immigration policy."

Two comments:

First, when did Eric flippin' Holder become a constitutionalist? Holder, his party, the President who appointed him and the justices they nominate view the constitution as an antiquated stumbling block to progressive government...until it suites their needs, I guess.

Second, why on earth would a man and an administration that overtly refuses to "enforce national immigration policy" care about its authority to do so? Authority is meaningless without action (or the will/intent to act). The Arizona law is nothing less than a product of federal immigration law perpetually unenforced. If federal immigration law were enforced in any meaningful way, the Arizona law would not exist. Period. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a complete and willful dereliction of constitutional duties on the part of this and previous administrations in order to curry the favor of latino voters.

"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," Holder recently opined in defense of his law suite. Indeed, Mr. Attorney General, indeed. But then so is enforcing immigration law. What gives you the right to set laws but not enforce them? Is the constitution nothing more than a buffet to you? Let me know when you or anybody else in Washington conjures-up the will to enforce immigration policy--to do your job--and I'll consider giving a rat's patooty about your hampered authority.

In the meantime, chew on this: According to recent opinion surveys, 60% of Americans, and over 70% of Arizonans, support the new Arizona immigration law. Seems like doing your job would not only be constitutional but very popular. But what do I know? I'm just one of the 60% of "misguided" Americans who'll be voting your party out of office in a few months.

...on being too big to succeed

"Obama's philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America--confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable." -Peggy Noonan

It's common knowledge, and no doubt in school text books by now, that the government's inept response to hurricane Katrina was Bush's fault. But now, just a few years later, the coast of Louisiana is being hammered again, this time with oil spilling from an undersea well. Thank goodness we've got a competent, compassionate president at the wheel this time around, right? Because that's all we need. Right? The problem last time was the president and we fixed that problem.

And yet after 40 days oil is still spewing into the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate. Granted, not all 40 of those days were spent trying to fix the problem. In fact, the first few weeks were dedicated to distancing the current administration from BP and the spill. But with political pressure (the only kind that really counts) mounting, the President is finally addressing the spill and--if it doesn't interfere too much with his upcoming second vacation since the oil spill--will actually go visit the coast of Louisiana and inspect the damage. Unfortunately, the government which Mr. Obama heads is not capable of fixing the problem--they'll have to continue to rely on BP for that.

But rather than dwell on President Obama's inexplicably poor handling of this environmental disaster (which has been nothing if not on par with Bush's handling of Katrina) let's focus on the true lesson here: The government can't take care of us. And the bigger the government get's the less capable it becomes of taking care of anything or anybody.

Those who favor big government (and big taxes to pay for it) do so because they believe that the government can and will take care of them fairly and effectively. But that premise is misguided and incorrect on two levels. First, the government can't physically do the job. The bigger and more bureaucratic it gets, the more layers you place in the already inefficient bureaucracy, the harder it falls. Today, 40 days into an environmental catastrophe, the U.S. government will watch from the side lines as a London-based oil company attempts to plug the underwater oil leak with tires and golf balls. Um...wow..need I say more?

Second, the government only acts in the best interest of its citizens when the best interest of its citizens aligns with the political interests of those in the government. In other words, until we the people get righteously pissed-off and threaten their political futures, politicians are going to continue serving the interests of the special interest groups who give them money.

This isn't a partisan rant. To the contrary, it's a rant against all those who believe that governmental incompetence and gross inefficiency are a product of party. It's a rant against big, expensive, inefficient and increasingly ineffective government. And it's a rant against anybody who believes that it's a good idea to spend trillions of dollars that we don't have to put the government--the one that's on board with the plan to pour golf balls and old tires onto an 40 day old, underwater oil leak because that's the best plan they've got--in charge of health care, the environment, banking, business, etc.

...on being profiled

"There has to be reasonable suspicion and probable cause. It's very clear. It's federal law that if you're an immigrant here you carry your documentation with you. And if you don't have it and you are arrested, then you will have to prove that you are here legally. And if you're not, then you will be deported." -Jen Brewer, Governor of Arizona

In the last week, there has been an uproar over a tough illegal immigration law passed in Arizona. Protest and rallies are in the works and will no doubt be enormous and well covered by the media.

There has been no uproar and scant media attention for the broken U.S. border with Mexico, the mass illegal immigration or the associated violence. Presidents past and present have the clear-cut legal obligation to secure the border and have failed to do so. Politicians running for federal office always give immigration reform lip service on the campaign trail, but none of them do anything about it once they get into office. So, ignored for decades by both parties, Arizona took it upon themselves to address their problem.

The wave of criticism and accusations of racial profiling seem to be centered on a portion of the Arizona legislation that allows law enforcement officers to ask for documentation. Critics envision police officers approaching people on street corners and, based solely on their skin color, demanding that they show identification to prove their legality. Supporters of the legislation say it's clear that racial profiling is illegal and it won't happen as a result of this legislation--that the governor has issued an executive order to ensure that it does not.

Naturally, I have a few observations on the matter:

First, it seems that the vast majority of the critics live in the peanut gallery rather than along the border.

Second, a federal law was just passed requiring U.S. citizens to show proof of health insurance to the IRS (now that Obamacare is law). I also have to fill-out information for the U.S. Census this year--if I don't answer all of the questions I will be subject to a stiff fine and possible prosecution. So, a foreign national in the United States illegally can't be asked for identification while being arrested, but as a U.S. citizen, having committed no crime whatsoever, I have to prove that I'm insured and answer questions relative to my identity? Or face prosecution? Is that how our country works now?

The next thing you know, they'll be requiring me to prove that I have a right to drive a car! That's right, the burden will be on me! Any time I break a traffic law in my car, law enforcement officers will be able to pull me over and demand that I produce a drivers license. Outrageous!

Third, if the current administration (or any politician for that matter) seriously believes that Arizona's new immigration law is "misguided", they are more than welcome to SECURE THE BORDERS and ENFORCE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS so that states don't have to take matters into their own hands. And if they don't like federal immigration laws, they're welcome to change those laws and enforce the new ones.

But I have absolutely no time for people in far-removed ivory towers who deride as racist those on the front lines of the immigration problem. No time for people who's constitutional mandate it is to secure our borders and protect our citizenry, who not only don't do their job, but take it upon themselves to criticize those who step up and do the job for them. No time for hypocrites who champion the law when it suites their fancy (civil rights laws) and ignore the law when it does not (federal immigration law). No time for progressive thinkers who would heap countless laws and regulations on U.S. citizens, but who become outraged at the very suggestion that existing laws be applied to illegal immigrants. And no time for people who pontificate on ethics and civil rights for the sole purpose of political gain.

...on being moral

In the Fall 2009 General Conference, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said this about moral discipline, societal decay and the rule of law:

"The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as 'value judgments.' As the Lord describes it, 'Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god' (D&C 1:16).

"As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that 'gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior...Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.'

"In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention. There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. In the memorable phrase of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, 'We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.'

"In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues."

...on being able to imagine

When it comes to the national debt, the numbers are so big that it's hard to imagine. We know that we're adding about 1.5 trillion dollars to the national debt each year. But what does that mean? How big is a trillion dollars?

Here's a new way to think of it:

"A million seconds takes about 12 days to elapse; a trillion seconds takes over 31,000 years." -Rick Berman, Executive Director, Defeat The Debt

...on being ignored

Political ineptitude is expected, but it's rare that a politician, much less a party of them, knowingly and purposely defies the will of an angry electorate who will almost certainly vote them out of office for doing so. And yet we now have Obamacare.

Here are a few thoughts on this topic.

It is good to make health care available to every citizen who wants and needs it, but now you have to pay for it. And if anybody thinks that the Democrats are really going to cut that $500,000,000,000 from Medicare, you need to put down the joint and pick-up a history book. It's not going to happen. They'll back down and end up throwing that half Trillion dollars onto the already mammoth national debt.

How about we get the economy going again first? How about you listen to the people screaming, "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!!" How about you consider the 10% unemployment rate before you jack-up taxes to pay for this new, colossal entitlement?

It is good to make health care available to every citizen who wants and needs it. It's another thing entirely to force everybody--especially those who neither need nor want it--to buy health care. Ah, you say, but you never know when you'll need it, accidents happen. What if something happened to Mr. Healthy Uninsured guy?

Oh please! Don't feign concern for the young, healthy and uninsured. It's not their well being that you and the government are after, it's their money. Plain and simple. Statistically nothing will happen to Mr. Healthy Uninsured guy. That's how Obamacare works--the healthy people pay for unhealthy ones. The whole ponzie scheme is based on this statistic holding true. Why else would they insist that everybody buy?

The massive loop-hole in all this--the one that was somehow missed in 2,000 pages of legislation--is this: I'm not going to buy health insurance. What? You'll fine me? Great, I'll pay the fine because THE FINE IS LESS THAN THE INSURANCE. And if I do get into an accident or discover I have cancer I'll get insurance after the fact because insurance companies can no longer deny me for pre-existing conditions. Thanks Obama!



So Obama is going to begin taxing people now (2010) to pay for his plan through 2020. But the entitlement/benefits part won't kick in until 2014. So we're going to be taxed for ten years to pay for six years. OK, but if it takes ten years of taxes to pay for six years of entitlements, how do we pay for the next ten years? This is a ponzie scheme--if you or I tried it we'd be thrown in jail along side Bernie Madoff. But the government legislates this crap and it's not only OK, it's celebrated in the national media.

It's a mess. And epic mess. Obama, Pelosi and Reid bought what they couldn't afford and threw it on the national charge card, despite the fact that the clear majority of Americans were opposed. But what's done is done. And when what's done is a government-run entitlement, there is no going back. It's done.

Still, I can't even tell you how much I'm looking forward to voting in November. I can hardly wait!

...on being capable

Of the many topics on which I disagree with the current administration, none is so mystifying as Attorney General Eric Holder's insistence that the 9/11 mastermind and several other terrorists (formerly held at Guantanamo Bay) be tried in U.S. civilian court.

His justification for this seemingly toxic political maneuver is elusive. He has repeatedly asserted that he is, "quite confident that we're going to be successful in the prosecution efforts.” His Democrat backers make the same assertion. Senator Russ Feingold applauded Holder's decision, claiming, "Our system of justice is more than capable of securely, fairly, and effectively prosecuting alleged terrorists." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy echoed this sentiment, saying, "I have always believed that the nation’s federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism and national security cases."

To those who claim that our criminal justice system is "capable" of successfully prosecuting terrorists, I would simply agree. It is capable. We could do it. We could also eliminate Iran as a nuclear threat by bombing them off the face of the earth and return to the moon and set up an cheese processing plant. But does being capable of doing something mean that we should do it? Is capability a justification?

Can does not equal should. Any grade schooler can tell you that. The fact that we are capable of forking out the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars it would take to try these terrorists in a civilian courtroom, does not mean that we should. The fact that we can grant these terrorists the same legal rights accorded to U.S. citizens does not mean that we should. The fact that we can remove officials from office who willfully use tax payer money to defend foreign terrorists rather than defeat them, does not mean that.....well actually, that one we probably should do.

...on being scientific

Boy, this global warming is a lot colder than they made it sound.

OK, jokes aside, I'm not a global warming denier, honest. But I'm not an advocate either. I'm like most people: I have my suspicions, but I don't really know what to believe. And I'm precipitously close to not caring.

"Look at the science," climate change evangelists cry! Well and good, but the science available for layman like me is, at best, contradictory. Especially when viewed over time.

Speaking of time...Time magazine's March 2006 cover reads, "Be Worried, Be Very Worried," with a subtitle of, "Climate change isn't some vague future problem--it's already damaging the planet at an alarming pace." Time followed this up in April of 2007 with a cover reading, "The Global Warming Survival Guide."

But back in April of 1975, Time's lead science story was, "The Coming Ice Age." It spoke of global cooling resulting in famine and claimed, "the evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

Of course, Time wasn't the only magazine touting global cooling. In June of 1974, Newsweek ran a lead story entitled, "Another Ice Age?" that explained, "when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing." In March of 1975, Science magazine predicted, "a full-blown, 10,000 year ice age." And in August of 1976 The New York Times reported, "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

Flash forward to 2006 and Time magazine is telling us, "Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us." A year later, Al Gore would win the Nobel Prize for An Inconvenient Truth and his work evangelizing global warming.

So you explain it too me. I'm willing to listen and learn. Explain to me why science now is right and science in the '70s, which was right, is now wrong. And why science now won't be equally as wrong in 30 years. Explain to me why leading climate change scientists are getting caught fudging the numbers in favor of a conclusion that will ensure them additional grant money. Tell me where this notion that "the debate is over" ever found it's way into science. And tell me why it's so darn cold outside.

But please don't tell me what to think. Got plenty of that around here already. All stocked up. I'm also all stocked up on reading materials, especially news articles from the '70s promoting the science of an imminent ice age. Guess I could stack all those articles up on my desk right beside the stack of recent articles on global warming and go insane and cross-eyed reading them all.
-----

1969 - New Ice Age Threat Seen (St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 1969)
1969 - Worrying About a New Ice Age (The New York Times, February 23, 1969)
1969 - Ice Age Biggest Threat According to Archeologist (The Hartford Courant, November 21, 1969)
1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It's Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 - Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 - Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 - New evidence indicates ice age here (Eugene Register-Guard, May 29, 1974)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 - 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 - Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1974 - Believes Pollution Could Bring On Ice Age (Ludington Daily News, December 4, 1974)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 - B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 - The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 - The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1977 - We Will Freeze in the Dark (Capital Cities Communications Documentary, Host: Nancy Dickerson, April 12, 1977)
1978 - The New Ice Age (Book, 1978)
1978 - Winters Will Get Colder, 'we're Entering Little Ice Age' (Ellensburg Daily Record, January 10, 1978)
1978 - Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 - The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 - An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 - New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

...on being under water

Being wise about buying a house was undoubtedly the stupidest thing we've ever done. We bought in the fall of 2007, right before the housing market plunged into the abyss, never to be heard from again. After years of "throwing our money away" renting, we decided to be "wise" and buy. Of course we paid top dollar for a town house that we figured we'd be in for 2-3 years. And of course we figured we'd take the equity and roll it over into the next, bigger house. And of course, thanks to the housing bubble bursting and an undisclosed, pending lawsuit between our HOA and the builder we're now about $100K+ underwater.

But our wisdom didn't end with buying a house at the worst possible time in history. Oh no! The stupidity really kicked into high gear when we "wisely" chose to live within our means and buy a house we could (and tragically still can) afford. The down side of buying an affordable house in the Seattle area is that it's going to be small--really small. And the kicker is we bought willingly*, knowing that we wanted more kids (we had one at the time).

Buying a house we could afford....idiot!!! Had we leveraged ourselves to the max (or better yet, beyond) like so many others, YOU, gentle reader, would be paying our mortgage now. We'd have been bailed out by the government! But no! Instead, we're not only still paying our own mortgage, but our rising taxes are paying the mortgages of all the "unwise" people who got in over their heads.

Sure, we could just walk away and let the bank foreclose (it will take us far longer to get back above water on our house than it would to repair our credit), but that would be dishonest. Boy have honestly and morals come back to bite us. Those without them...yea, we're paying their mortgages too.

Had we only only known in 2007 that a socialist government would aggressively reward stupidity on the wise man's dime, we'd have acted differently. Instead, we acted "wisely." And now wise has become stupid and stupid wise.

Lest you think that I'm implying that wisdom no longer pays, I'm not. Wisdom, it turns out, pays for itself and everybody else. It pays and pays and pays. And that's just stupid.

*It was only after we bought the house that we discovered that the seller had failed to disclose known and major damages that were, and still are, at the heart of a lawsuit between the HOA and the builder. So even if we were willing to sell at a huge loss we can't because no bank will issue a loan on any house in our community until the lawsuit settles.

...on being a virtuous capitalist

"When people don't spend their own money, they don't care what health care costs." -John Stossel

Capitalism is not perfect. Sir Winston Churchill described it as, "the unequal sharing of blessings." But Churchill's portrayal of socialism as, "the equal sharing of miseries" not only hits the mark but, in my mind, makes capitalism the better option.

To understand this, one must understand the essence of government. I've said this before, but it bears repeating that the history of government can be boiled down to the taking of money from one group and giving it to another group. In other words, wealth redistribution.

The principal I would put forth here is that those who do the work should enjoy the fruits of their labors. If this is moral, then it is not virtuous for the government to take away one man's hard earned money and give it to another man. Sure, this will lead to inequalities. In the free market, competition is king and those who can deliver high-value goods and services will be rewarded far more handsomely than those who cannot.

The onus, then, is on each individual to prepare themselves to be able to provide the goods and services that the market demands. The end results, though unequal, are a product of individual choice--the opportunity being generally equal. And equal opportunity is virtuous. Guaranteed equality of result is not virtuous because it overwrites choice and consequence by forcefully taking from one person and giving to another.

Imagine the 100 meter dash. All eight runners line up side by side and start at the same time. That's equal opportunity. By mid-race, the runners begin to separate, as some take the lead and others fall behind. This separation usually increases until the race ends with the runners crossing the finish line at different times, one through eight. The top finishers are rewarded and given medals. The late finishers are not. This is inequality of result, it's overtly fair and it's exactly what socialism seeks to overcome and undo.

I realize that there are and should be exceptions in all this. Mentally or physically disabled individuals, for example, may not be able to compete with those without disabilities. But such exceptions are just that--exceptions. The principal underlying the free market remains sound. It does so because it is based on free agency. Those who choose to work hard, educate themselves, take risks and find innovative ways to satisfy market demands deserve to be rewarded. The converse is also true.

Socialism exists because, simply put, everybody wants to be handsomely rewarded, but not everybody is willing to pay the price necessary to earn that reward. In a free market, the lazy, unskilled and uneducated will be financially punished because their goods and services are generally not valued highly.

Enter government. In a democracy, everybody gets one vote. And while school and ingenuity are difficult, electing representatives who will take the financial rewards from the hard working educated man and give it to the lazy, under-skilled man is easy. So, what socialism lacks in virtue it makes up in popularity.

Unfortunately, where the free market is ruthlessly efficient at wealth distribution, government--which takes a huge cut off the top to pay for its own bureaucrats and politicians--is horribly inefficient at income redistribution. And the bigger government gets, the more expensive and less efficient it becomes. Forced income redistribution is immoral; being forced to pay for the lackeys who are redistributing your income is pathetically immoral.

In the end, "pathetic" and "immoral" are perhaps the two words that best describe socialism. Whether you agree or not depends, I suspect, on where you've chosen to fall in the free market system of rewards and punishments. If you're reasonably well rewarded, then you probably view capitalism favorably. And if you're not well rewarded, you probably view socialism favorably.

But if you fall into the latter category, I have one question for you: Why do you think you deserve my money?


Post Script: I realize that native intelligence and talent have a lot to do with success in a free market economy. This highlights the need for gratitude, empathy and charity (none of which can or aught to be legislated). That the wealthy should be intelligently charitable with their largess is both practical and virtuous. Failure to do so not only offends the Giver of intelligence and talent, it exacerbates market inequalities and increases the chances that socialist governments will come to power and attempt to legislate equality of result.

So, even though we should never be required to give, we must give nonetheless. In the immortal words of John Milton, "Our voluntary service God requires."

...on being crutchless

I recently listened to a radio interview of a prominent atheist (in Seattle, it's not easy to be a prominent atheist). As with so many modern atheists, this one was intent on stirring up controversy by depicting religionists, and especially Christians, as naive, misguided sheep. Such is the fashion of the day.

But this atheist, who spoke in calm, self-assured tones, went a step further. He took several occasions to accuse believers of being immoral, and gave several examples. He also underhandedly complemented the interviewer (a practicing Christian) on "rising above the crutch of religion to a more humanistic morality."

What struck me was that this man rejected God, the Bible and theistic religion, but insisted on maintaining the the notion of morality--of right and wrong. And he clearly relished holding the moral high ground via what he called secular humanism.

So I looked up humanism to get a high level understanding of what makes it such an enlightened path. Turns out that humanism is a "life stance" that is deeply concerned with truth, ethics and morality. Sounds a lot like religion. Except that religion is bad and humanism is good.

A basic tenant of humanism holds that, "right and wrong must be based on the individual and common good." Which begs the question, which is it? Does the individual determine what's right or does the group? The answer to this question, no matter what it is, begs many, many more questions.

If the individual is the source of truth, then we've got a mammoth problem on our hands, because individuals inevitably have opinions that contrast with the opinions and ideas of other individuals. Get a few billion individuals together on a planet and you've got one, two three, four......well, a lot of versions of the truth. So who's right and who's wrong?

This, I'm guessing, is where group morality enters the picture. But is the common good ever really common (much less good)? It's not hard to find a group of individuals who share common views, but driving global consent is a bit like herding cats. Billions of cats. In all of mortality, there will never be unanimous consent when it comes to right or wrong. That's my opinion. And if you disagree, you're proving my point. Besides, I've got all of history on my side.

So what happens next? Does morality become democratic? Do we leave it to the majority to decide right and wrong? If so, then right and wrong are bound to change, then change again.

The problem with all this is that there is not, nor indeed can there be, an absolute in the equation without a God. Atheists will recoil at this suggestion, but I defy them to show otherwise. The only alternative is that right and wrong, moral and immoral are purely relative. Such a notion gives way to nihilism and chaos.

One might declare that murder is wrong.
To which I would ask, why?
Because everybody knows it is.
Everybody?
Well, most people.
So right and wrong is determined by majority rule?
No.
Well then, what determines it? Why is murder wrong?
Because murder is contrary to the common good, that's why.
And who decides what is commonly good?
The people. The community.
All of the people, or just a majority?
Look, not killing people helps preserve society.
So it's a simple matter of preservation? In that case, is it wrong to kill murderers?

The slippery slope is obvious. Almost embarrassingly obvious. With secular humanism, right and wrong are forever subjective. There is no anchor holding the ship in place, only a lively debate on deck as to the proper course. And even if an unlikely consensus is reached that the ship ought to travel north, everyone's compass is pointing a slightly different direction, making north impossible to identify.

Does organized religion have a similar problem? Yes, with so many religions, doctrines and denominations, it's impossible to argue that all who believe in God also understand and follow His doctrine. And yet, there are some common principals and ideals, foremost of which is the idea of one God with one set of objective, immutable truths.

To the believer, this is the anchor. God is the basis of right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. And to the non-believer, the idea of God must be recognized for what it (at the very least) is: The best and only chance to rise above the shifting sands of philosophy and find truth.

...on being forced to buy car insurance

Growing up, everybody had a car. You really had to. Living in rural Snake River Idaho, the distances were just too great to walk. Our nearest neighbor was nearly a half-mile away. The grocery store was 7 miles. And an Idaho winter without a car? Forget it.

But life in the city is different. During my three years in Seattle, I've met a number of people who don't own a car, and don't want to (unlike the myriad college students who don't have a car but wish they did). These are high paid professionals who live downtown, use the ample public transit system to get around, and have an Obama '08 mug instead of the bumper sticker. It's a different lifestyle, but it works as well as one's birth control. To each his own, right?

So I had a thought: Wouldn't it be both bizarre and poetically just if the government passed laws placing auto insurance on the same plane with health insurance--I mean the kind of mandatory health insurance that Pelosi, Reid and Obama are ramming through congress?

My pedestrian, city-dwelling cohorts would then be forced by the government to by a car. Well, not forced, but they'd be forced to pay car insurance, so they might as well buy a car. That would just be ridiculous to buy car insurance and not buy a car to go along with it, right?

And if your neighbor decided to buy a big red Hummer or a totally impractical sports car, your insurance rates would go up to help cover their high-premium choice. It wouldn't matter that you own, or would have purchased, a Prius.

So the next time you hear somebody on TV or the radio or at work justify legally mandated health insurance by comparing it to car insurance, you'll understand the seamless logic of their argument.

Oh, and if you disagree with me, you're a racist.

...on bing opted-in

I listen to the radio on the way in to work. One of the ads I hear frequently pitches a solution to credit card debt. Basically, if you've got credit card debt, this company will hook you up with government stimulus money and pay off your debt. Is this for real? Who knows. What's obvious to me is that the pitch and appeal of this ad is income redistribution. Since government money is my money, this group proposes to take my money and pay off somebody else's debt.

That pisses me off, but on a small scale compared to the redistribution scam that is the health care reform bill(s) coming out of congress. Unable to gain traction for a trillion-plus dollar public option (i.e. government-run health insurance), congressional hucksters are now peddling a bill that allows states to "opt out" of the public option.

Mind you, the states can't opt out of paying for the public option. Oh no! Tax payers from all 50 states will fund the government option. Instead, "opting out" means that state governors can decline the government-run health insurance that their citizens are paying for. That's a tough sell--one that most governors will not attempt, and few-to-none will succeed in doing. Of course the snake oil salesmen in D.C know this, but they're apparently banking on us NOT knowing it.

So to anyone out there who still doesn't get it, here's the analogy: If you don't like the ShamWow, no problem. Just pay us the money for it and we won't make you take it home. Seriously, Billy Mays couldn't sell this crap! But Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi apparently think they can. And they may be right!

...on being cut in half

President Obama has often pledged to cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his first term. The fact that he's quadrupled the deficit during his first year should make this feat somewhat easier. Unfortunately, the net effect of halving a quadrupled deficit is doubling the original deficit. Here's the equation: (Dx4)/2=Dx2
As this chart from the Heritage Foundation illustrates, we have so much to look forward to.

Today's good news is that the GDP grew by 3.4% in the third quarter. So we're out of the recession! Hurray! But those curious enough to analyze the numbers will find that GDP has three financial components: CIG

"C" is for consumer consumption (spending), of which there hasn't been an appreciable increase. "I" is for business investment which, again, has not improved much since the depths of the recession. So the up-tick in GDP rests on the shoulders of "G", which stands for government spending, of which there has been P-L-E-N-T-Y.

So bottom line: Our economic recovery is riding on government spending, which in turn is based on borrowed and printed money that has quadrupled the deficit and made the Dollar nearly worthless. Bush is looking not so bader every day.