Monday, November 29, 2010
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM
I am a staunch believer in American Exceptionalism. Americans are exceptionally arrogant, hypocritical and lacking in a sense of humility. Americans are exceptionally disdainful of the poor, the oppressed and anybody with opposing viewpoints. Americans are exceptionally wasteful and unwilling to sacrifice for the good of mankind. So much for American Exceptionalism.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
MANNING - A TRAITOR IN OUR MIDST
As outrage continues to grow over the recent Wikileaks release of secret U.S. State Department cables from U.S. diplomats abroad and foreign leaders, the call for bringing to justice those responsible for the release of the top-secret information contained in the cables is sure to increase. Currently, only Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning has been arrested and charged in connection with the leaking of top-secret information, and I for one hope that a charge of treason is added to the list of criminal charges Manning faces. There is no justification for his actions.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
CITIZEN TO F.B.I. - Thank you!
A major debt of gratitude is owed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for foiling the terrorist plot of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a 19 year-old living in Corvallis, Oregon who tried to detonate what he believed was a van full of explosives during yesterday's Christmas tree lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. His efforts failed because he was unknowingly working with F.B.I. agents who had previously uncovered his plans and were allowing Mohamud to think they were rendering him assistance. In reality, the F.B.I. was building its case against the young terrorist and taking steps to insure that Mohamud's sinister plan would never come to fruition.
Mohamud was arrested seconds after using his cell phone to try to detonate the fake device the F.B.I. had built for him, and contrary to Mohamud's wishes, the Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony was held as planned and no loss of life or mayhem occurred.
While this foiled terrorist plot must serve as a reminder that the danger of terrorism is very real and constant, it also underscores the effectiveness of people in the security sector simply doing their job. People remaining vigilant and alert are the most effective weapons we have in combating the destructive plans of terrorists and we should never cease our efforts to remain aware of our surroundings.
Thanks F.B.I. – well done!
Mohamud was arrested seconds after using his cell phone to try to detonate the fake device the F.B.I. had built for him, and contrary to Mohamud's wishes, the Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony was held as planned and no loss of life or mayhem occurred.
While this foiled terrorist plot must serve as a reminder that the danger of terrorism is very real and constant, it also underscores the effectiveness of people in the security sector simply doing their job. People remaining vigilant and alert are the most effective weapons we have in combating the destructive plans of terrorists and we should never cease our efforts to remain aware of our surroundings.
Thanks F.B.I. – well done!
Friday, November 26, 2010
BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPERS BEWARE
Macroeconomics is the study of national, regional and global economies. It examines the structure, behaviors and decision-making processes of those economies and studies the relationships between national income, product output, consumer consumption, savings, investment, inflation, unemployment, trade and banking. Its counterpart, microeconomics, examines the factors involved in the smaller-scale buying and selling of goods and services. Microeconomic study dissects the laws of supply and demand and examines the economic decision-making processes of individual households and businesses.
On this day after Thanksgiving, commonly known as "Black Friday" here in the United States, shoppers historically begin their Christmas shopping. For many businesses, Black Friday is the day they have the highest volume of sales each year.
I noted the facts listed above because Black Friday provides an excellent example of how something can be great for macroeconomics, but bad for microeconomics.
The U.S. economy will get a shot in the arm if consumer consumption (spending) is high on Black Friday, because economic activity (the buying and selling of goods) generally boosts an economy. However, if consumers overspend on Black Friday, their individual household economies will suffer if their incomes are not sufficient to sustain their level of spending. The larger economy will benefit, but the individual economy will suffer.
That is essentially what happened during the middle to late part of this decade. Consumers were encouraged to spend, spend, spend…which was great for the larger economy, but all that overspending sent vast numbers of individual economies (the economy of an individual household) into a tailspin, and ultimately they collapsed. As the number of collapsed individual economies reached into the millions here in the United States, the collective impact of those collapsed individual economies exerted a substantial negative impact on our nation's economy, forcing the U.S. into a deep recession.
The moral of this economic lesson is clear: In the long run, while additional consumer spending is beneficial for our national economy; massive overspending is not. Shoppers, be careful out there!
On this day after Thanksgiving, commonly known as "Black Friday" here in the United States, shoppers historically begin their Christmas shopping. For many businesses, Black Friday is the day they have the highest volume of sales each year.
I noted the facts listed above because Black Friday provides an excellent example of how something can be great for macroeconomics, but bad for microeconomics.
The U.S. economy will get a shot in the arm if consumer consumption (spending) is high on Black Friday, because economic activity (the buying and selling of goods) generally boosts an economy. However, if consumers overspend on Black Friday, their individual household economies will suffer if their incomes are not sufficient to sustain their level of spending. The larger economy will benefit, but the individual economy will suffer.
That is essentially what happened during the middle to late part of this decade. Consumers were encouraged to spend, spend, spend…which was great for the larger economy, but all that overspending sent vast numbers of individual economies (the economy of an individual household) into a tailspin, and ultimately they collapsed. As the number of collapsed individual economies reached into the millions here in the United States, the collective impact of those collapsed individual economies exerted a substantial negative impact on our nation's economy, forcing the U.S. into a deep recession.
The moral of this economic lesson is clear: In the long run, while additional consumer spending is beneficial for our national economy; massive overspending is not. Shoppers, be careful out there!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
GIVING THANKS FOR PILGRIM HYPOCRISY
Today, we celebrate Thanksgiving and pay tribute to our grave-robbing (*) ancestors, the Pilgrims. They came to America to escape European religious persecution and then promptly started persecuting the non-Anabaptists (**) in their midst. Thus, we owe a debt of gratitude to Pilgrims for introducing the concept of hypocrisy to America. Without the product of their pioneering spirit, many a columnist would now be unemployed!
~~~~~~~
(*) The Massasoit native tribe that inhabited the coast of Massachusetts stored food in mounds with their deceased kin. The Massasoit believed that their deceased kin would watch over the stored food until the tribe returned to the site in early spring. When the pilgrims dug into the mounds, they discovered the food and promptly raided all the burial mounds in the area, causing much consternation with the native Massasoit. The rift was eventually settled with the help of Squanto, a Massasoit native who had learned English from early English fishermen visiting the coast of New England, and befriended the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims gave the Massasoit several rifles as retribution and assisted the Massasoit in fending off an attack by a militant neighboring native tribe. That Pilgrim assistance cemented a critical relationship between the Pilgrims and the Massasoit, which allowed the Pilgrims to survive those early harsh years in Massachusetts. You probably never learned about that in school.
(**) The Pilgrims were actually in the minority on the Mayflower. In addition to the Mayflower's crew, 44 Pilgrims made the voyage to America along with 66 "strangers" (the religious Pilgrim's word for non-believers). There were so many conflicts between the Pilgrims and the "strangers" during the voyage across the Atlantic, that once land was sighted, the two groups had to negotiate a truce (called The Mayflower Compact) to guarantee equality for both groups under a single governor who would rule the colony. Eventually, some of the "strangers" returned to Europe when the Mayflower departed, some died, and some left the colony to trap and hunt on their own. Once the Pilgrims were in the majority, they began shunning the non-believing "strangers" and ostracized them from the Pilgrim community. So much for religious tolerance!
~~~~~~~
(*) The Massasoit native tribe that inhabited the coast of Massachusetts stored food in mounds with their deceased kin. The Massasoit believed that their deceased kin would watch over the stored food until the tribe returned to the site in early spring. When the pilgrims dug into the mounds, they discovered the food and promptly raided all the burial mounds in the area, causing much consternation with the native Massasoit. The rift was eventually settled with the help of Squanto, a Massasoit native who had learned English from early English fishermen visiting the coast of New England, and befriended the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims gave the Massasoit several rifles as retribution and assisted the Massasoit in fending off an attack by a militant neighboring native tribe. That Pilgrim assistance cemented a critical relationship between the Pilgrims and the Massasoit, which allowed the Pilgrims to survive those early harsh years in Massachusetts. You probably never learned about that in school.
(**) The Pilgrims were actually in the minority on the Mayflower. In addition to the Mayflower's crew, 44 Pilgrims made the voyage to America along with 66 "strangers" (the religious Pilgrim's word for non-believers). There were so many conflicts between the Pilgrims and the "strangers" during the voyage across the Atlantic, that once land was sighted, the two groups had to negotiate a truce (called The Mayflower Compact) to guarantee equality for both groups under a single governor who would rule the colony. Eventually, some of the "strangers" returned to Europe when the Mayflower departed, some died, and some left the colony to trap and hunt on their own. Once the Pilgrims were in the majority, they began shunning the non-believing "strangers" and ostracized them from the Pilgrim community. So much for religious tolerance!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
EARMARK IRONY
Just days after winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives on a campaign platform to end the Congressional practice of "earmark spending", the GOP has gone back on its pledge and inserted $200 million in earmark spending in a bill currently under consideration in the House. I'm not surprised that they reneged on their pledge. After all, all that talk about fiscal responsibility was just campaign bullshit. Nevertheless, I expected that the GOP would wait until at least February of 2011 before reneging on their word. I guess I was wrong!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
AN EXPLOSION WAITING TO HAPPEN
Dealing with North Korea is like trying to handle an obstinate juvenile delinquent hell-bent on breaking the law; no amount of rehabilitation will work.
North Korea's rulers have perfected the art of mass propaganda and have filled the entire citizenry with such hatred for the United States and the leaders of South Korea that tens of thousands of North Koreans would rather die than divert one cent of the North's military budget to help feed their starving population. Kim Jung Il, the North's leader, is considered a god by his people and it isn't a stretch to view the entire nation as one gigantic religious cult, albeit one with no desire for peace or tranquility or interest in the afterlife. That's why North Korea is so dangerous.
Yesterday's mortal shelling of a South Korean island was the latest incident in a chain of provocative attacks by the North on South Korea. Some claim the incident was meant to bolster the militaristic spirits of the North Korean people as the country goes through a period of changing in their leadership – from Kim Jung Il to his son, Kim Jung Un. Others see the North's intrusions as saber-rattling to discourage attempts by the outside world to stop North Korea's nuclear weapons development. Whichever view is more accurate, there is no denying that North Korea's activities are unsettling and provide a legitimate reason for heightened concern.
Given North Korea's intractable nature, it's hard to see anything but the concept of containment as having any chance for real success. Attacking the North militarily would unleash a devastating second Korean war that would result in the loss of life for millions in both North and South Korea. Thousands of American soldiers would suffer a similar fate. Nor can Americans expect that diplomacy will one day yield a peaceful North. The North Koreans are too steeped in paranoia and militarism for trust in diplomacy to take root there and the world doesn't possess the number of therapist it would take to deprogram an entire population.
We can only hope that containment works, because North Korea is a powder-keg waiting to explode, and you won't want to be there if it does.
North Korea's rulers have perfected the art of mass propaganda and have filled the entire citizenry with such hatred for the United States and the leaders of South Korea that tens of thousands of North Koreans would rather die than divert one cent of the North's military budget to help feed their starving population. Kim Jung Il, the North's leader, is considered a god by his people and it isn't a stretch to view the entire nation as one gigantic religious cult, albeit one with no desire for peace or tranquility or interest in the afterlife. That's why North Korea is so dangerous.
Yesterday's mortal shelling of a South Korean island was the latest incident in a chain of provocative attacks by the North on South Korea. Some claim the incident was meant to bolster the militaristic spirits of the North Korean people as the country goes through a period of changing in their leadership – from Kim Jung Il to his son, Kim Jung Un. Others see the North's intrusions as saber-rattling to discourage attempts by the outside world to stop North Korea's nuclear weapons development. Whichever view is more accurate, there is no denying that North Korea's activities are unsettling and provide a legitimate reason for heightened concern.
Given North Korea's intractable nature, it's hard to see anything but the concept of containment as having any chance for real success. Attacking the North militarily would unleash a devastating second Korean war that would result in the loss of life for millions in both North and South Korea. Thousands of American soldiers would suffer a similar fate. Nor can Americans expect that diplomacy will one day yield a peaceful North. The North Koreans are too steeped in paranoia and militarism for trust in diplomacy to take root there and the world doesn't possess the number of therapist it would take to deprogram an entire population.
We can only hope that containment works, because North Korea is a powder-keg waiting to explode, and you won't want to be there if it does.
Monday, November 22, 2010
NO SACRIFICE - NO SOLUTION
The co-chairs of President Obama's bipartisan deficit commission, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Bill Clinton aide, Erskine Bowles recently released a set of proposals designed to reduce the federal deficit and bring federal spending in line with what the taxpaying public as a whole can afford. Since their release, the proposals have been met with nearly universal condemnation from every sector of American society – from rich to poor, from young to old, both Republican and Democrat and everyone in between.
From the nearly universal outcries against their plan, I can only surmise that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bowles have finally hit upon a solution that is (1) fair, (2) workable, and (3) demands an equal measure of sacrifice from every group in our country. Why else would everybody be angry at their proposal?
For too long, we Americans have deluded ourselves with the notion that the solution to our nation's financial woes lies in the sacrifice of every group but the ones we occupy. That viewpoint has left nobody willing to bear the necessary sacrifice and everybody willing to pass the buck onto the next guy. The real reason everybody is angry about the Simpson/Bowles plan is that it requires everybody to sacrifice – the only real chance we have to achieve financial stability.
Do I believe the Simpson/Bowles plan has any chance of being enacted into law? Nope, and that's too bad, because the Simpson/Bowles plan is a great first step, but that requires sacrifice, and that kind of sacrifice isn't something Americans are prepared to do.
From the nearly universal outcries against their plan, I can only surmise that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bowles have finally hit upon a solution that is (1) fair, (2) workable, and (3) demands an equal measure of sacrifice from every group in our country. Why else would everybody be angry at their proposal?
For too long, we Americans have deluded ourselves with the notion that the solution to our nation's financial woes lies in the sacrifice of every group but the ones we occupy. That viewpoint has left nobody willing to bear the necessary sacrifice and everybody willing to pass the buck onto the next guy. The real reason everybody is angry about the Simpson/Bowles plan is that it requires everybody to sacrifice – the only real chance we have to achieve financial stability.
Do I believe the Simpson/Bowles plan has any chance of being enacted into law? Nope, and that's too bad, because the Simpson/Bowles plan is a great first step, but that requires sacrifice, and that kind of sacrifice isn't something Americans are prepared to do.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
SIX FEET UNDER
While limiting the size of the federal government has become all the rage these days, and GOP and Tea Party politicians are banging their fists on the table demanding a major downsizing of the federal workforce, I'd like to focus on the dirty underside of all this bellyaching. Some people will pay the steepest of price for crippling the protections offered by the federal government – they'll lose their lives…as in stop breathing and get buried six feet under! You don't hear that from the politicians, do you?
The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) is the agency of the federal government that works to safeguard the health of our citizens and our environment against air, water and land pollution and hazardous waste (chemical, mineral & nuclear). The E.P.A. employs approximately 18,000 workers to develop, maintain and police federal regulations designed to carry out the Agency's mandates. Without E.P.A. regulations and the power to enforce those regulations, individuals and businesses would be free to dump unlimited amounts of toxic waste products into our nation's air and waterways and ordinary citizens would be virtually powerless to protect themselves against the effects of discarded deadly toxic pollutants.
People like to think that businesses would not jeopardize the health of people living around their plants by polluting the local environment, but that kind of thinking is delusional. The goal of business is first and foremost to make a profit. So long as polluting does not result in negative profits, polluters will continue at will. Ordinary citizens are seldom in any position to prevent, monitor or prosecute polluters for destroying the environment, so without government regulations of pollution, ordinary citizens would have little or no protection.
For example, since 1980, when Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, a law enacted to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances, the E.P.A. has supervised the clean-up of over 1600 toxic waste sites, all of which involved a finding that the hazardous waste site posed a substantial likelihood of causing human death and other adverse health conditions if left untreated. Without E.P.A. protections, our entire citizenry would suffer the consequences.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is another good example of government protecting citizens. The Transportation Department maintains and enforces federal regulations that cover aviation travel and shipping, highway infrastructure, highway safety, motor carrier safety, railroads, pipeline infrastructure and maritime shipping.
Maybe you don't care whether a truck carrying propane has had its brakes inspected in the last 30 days, but I do, because a propane tanker with faulty brakes is a time bomb barreling 65 MPH down any highway it travels. With DOT safety regulations and regular enforcement at weigh stations, people are far safer when on highways than they would be without safety regulations.
Yes, smaller government would mean less regulation and less taxpayer money to fund regulation, but less traffic safety regulation means more accidents and more loss-of-life. That's because people will cut corners when they can and profits trumps safety concerns in an unregulated marketplace.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Its job is to protect and promote public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, over-the-counter medications, blood transfusions, medical radiation devices, veterinary products and cosmetics. It has over 35,000 employees.
You could downsize the government substantially by eliminating that work force, but then there would be no meat inspectors working to insure that your hamburgers are not laden with the latest food poison to hit the slaughtering plant. There would be no scientists intervening on your behalf to insure that that the drugs you are taking have been reasonably tested to reduce the possibility of your dying from the medication. Yes, your spouse could sue the pharmaceutical company if you died taking one of its pills, but that would end up being one ordinary citizen versus an entire drug industry, so I don't personally like the individual's chance of winning that battle.
My favorite is the Federal Reserve banking system, a system the "small government" crowd wants to dismantle.
The Federal Reserve System (The Fed) is the central system of the United States. It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, and over the years since, has been the chief arm of the Federal Government conducting the nation's monetary policy. It also regulates banking institutions, maintains the stability of our nation's financial system and provides financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and many foreign governments. The Tea Party crowd would rather risk frequent runs on banks and total losses of individual savings rather than stand for government regulation of the financial sector. That stuff happens in third world countries with no financial regulation, but not here.
The next time somebody says they want to down-size the federal government, ask them which protection they want to jettison first. People think differently when it's their life in the cross hairs.
The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) is the agency of the federal government that works to safeguard the health of our citizens and our environment against air, water and land pollution and hazardous waste (chemical, mineral & nuclear). The E.P.A. employs approximately 18,000 workers to develop, maintain and police federal regulations designed to carry out the Agency's mandates. Without E.P.A. regulations and the power to enforce those regulations, individuals and businesses would be free to dump unlimited amounts of toxic waste products into our nation's air and waterways and ordinary citizens would be virtually powerless to protect themselves against the effects of discarded deadly toxic pollutants.
People like to think that businesses would not jeopardize the health of people living around their plants by polluting the local environment, but that kind of thinking is delusional. The goal of business is first and foremost to make a profit. So long as polluting does not result in negative profits, polluters will continue at will. Ordinary citizens are seldom in any position to prevent, monitor or prosecute polluters for destroying the environment, so without government regulations of pollution, ordinary citizens would have little or no protection.
For example, since 1980, when Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, a law enacted to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances, the E.P.A. has supervised the clean-up of over 1600 toxic waste sites, all of which involved a finding that the hazardous waste site posed a substantial likelihood of causing human death and other adverse health conditions if left untreated. Without E.P.A. protections, our entire citizenry would suffer the consequences.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is another good example of government protecting citizens. The Transportation Department maintains and enforces federal regulations that cover aviation travel and shipping, highway infrastructure, highway safety, motor carrier safety, railroads, pipeline infrastructure and maritime shipping.
Maybe you don't care whether a truck carrying propane has had its brakes inspected in the last 30 days, but I do, because a propane tanker with faulty brakes is a time bomb barreling 65 MPH down any highway it travels. With DOT safety regulations and regular enforcement at weigh stations, people are far safer when on highways than they would be without safety regulations.
Yes, smaller government would mean less regulation and less taxpayer money to fund regulation, but less traffic safety regulation means more accidents and more loss-of-life. That's because people will cut corners when they can and profits trumps safety concerns in an unregulated marketplace.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Its job is to protect and promote public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, over-the-counter medications, blood transfusions, medical radiation devices, veterinary products and cosmetics. It has over 35,000 employees.
You could downsize the government substantially by eliminating that work force, but then there would be no meat inspectors working to insure that your hamburgers are not laden with the latest food poison to hit the slaughtering plant. There would be no scientists intervening on your behalf to insure that that the drugs you are taking have been reasonably tested to reduce the possibility of your dying from the medication. Yes, your spouse could sue the pharmaceutical company if you died taking one of its pills, but that would end up being one ordinary citizen versus an entire drug industry, so I don't personally like the individual's chance of winning that battle.
My favorite is the Federal Reserve banking system, a system the "small government" crowd wants to dismantle.
The Federal Reserve System (The Fed) is the central system of the United States. It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, and over the years since, has been the chief arm of the Federal Government conducting the nation's monetary policy. It also regulates banking institutions, maintains the stability of our nation's financial system and provides financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and many foreign governments. The Tea Party crowd would rather risk frequent runs on banks and total losses of individual savings rather than stand for government regulation of the financial sector. That stuff happens in third world countries with no financial regulation, but not here.
The next time somebody says they want to down-size the federal government, ask them which protection they want to jettison first. People think differently when it's their life in the cross hairs.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
PLEDGING FAILURE
The GOP Pledge to America is nothing more than a pledge of failure.
Two days after the November 2nd elections, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the United States Senate boldly declared that making President Obama a one-term president would be his party’s top priority in the new Congress. There you have it - a pledge of failure.
Tens of millions of Americans (10% of our workforce) currently lack jobs, but the GOP's top priority is not getting those people back to work. Their top priority is adding one more person to the unemployment line.
Tens of millions of American homeowners (1 in every 5) are paying on mortgages with balances higher than the value of their homes, but the GOP's top priority is not to bring stability to the housing market. Their top priority is evicting a family living in a house with no mortgage.
Tens of millions of Americans (1 in every 7) lack health insurance and adequate access to health care, but the GOP's top priority is not working to get those people coverage. Their top priority is to oust a working President and give he and his wife health insurance coverage for life.
Tens of millions of voters (7 of every 10) are sick of partisan squabbling in Congress and want our two major political parties to compromise ideologies in working toward solutions to our nation's problems, but the GOP's top priority is not working with the President in a spirit of compromise. Their top priority is to obstruct the President effort's long enough to give them another crack at winning the presidency.
Thanks, Senator McConnell. You've explained GOP priorities in a nutshell...one failure after another.
Two days after the November 2nd elections, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the United States Senate boldly declared that making President Obama a one-term president would be his party’s top priority in the new Congress. There you have it - a pledge of failure.
Tens of millions of Americans (10% of our workforce) currently lack jobs, but the GOP's top priority is not getting those people back to work. Their top priority is adding one more person to the unemployment line.
Tens of millions of American homeowners (1 in every 5) are paying on mortgages with balances higher than the value of their homes, but the GOP's top priority is not to bring stability to the housing market. Their top priority is evicting a family living in a house with no mortgage.
Tens of millions of Americans (1 in every 7) lack health insurance and adequate access to health care, but the GOP's top priority is not working to get those people coverage. Their top priority is to oust a working President and give he and his wife health insurance coverage for life.
Tens of millions of voters (7 of every 10) are sick of partisan squabbling in Congress and want our two major political parties to compromise ideologies in working toward solutions to our nation's problems, but the GOP's top priority is not working with the President in a spirit of compromise. Their top priority is to obstruct the President effort's long enough to give them another crack at winning the presidency.
Thanks, Senator McConnell. You've explained GOP priorities in a nutshell...one failure after another.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
MY PREDICTIONS CAME TRUE
Here is the list of the predictions I made regarding yesterday's election:
I predict that on this upcoming Election Day, a majority of American voices will not be heard, and it will be their fault for not taking the time to vote.
I predict that Americans who are poor, sick, uninsured or unemployed at the beginning of Election Day will still be poor, sick, uninsured or unemployed at the end of the day.
I predict that many angry voters will have sore feet, for in the words of a Korean proverb, "If you kick a stone in anger, you'll have a sore foot".
I predict that many winning candidates will falsely proclaim that their election to public office validates the goodness of their ideas and many losing candidates will falsely assume that their ideas lacked merit.
I predict that the overinflated egos of many winning candidates will get even bigger and the self-esteem of many losing candidates will take an undeserved blow.
I predict that many winning candidates will pledge to work in a bipartisan manner when they take office next January, but they'll be lying when they make that pledge because they know a majority of folks who voted for them hate the idea of compromise.
And I predict that at the end of the day, America will still be a divided nation, and our greatest potential will still be unrealized. Unless we as a collective people come to appreciate the value of compromise in the process of self-governance, candidates will come and go, but no election will place us any closer to being a united people.
Wow! Every one of them came true last night. Way to go, Steve!
I predict that on this upcoming Election Day, a majority of American voices will not be heard, and it will be their fault for not taking the time to vote.
I predict that Americans who are poor, sick, uninsured or unemployed at the beginning of Election Day will still be poor, sick, uninsured or unemployed at the end of the day.
I predict that many angry voters will have sore feet, for in the words of a Korean proverb, "If you kick a stone in anger, you'll have a sore foot".
I predict that many winning candidates will falsely proclaim that their election to public office validates the goodness of their ideas and many losing candidates will falsely assume that their ideas lacked merit.
I predict that the overinflated egos of many winning candidates will get even bigger and the self-esteem of many losing candidates will take an undeserved blow.
I predict that many winning candidates will pledge to work in a bipartisan manner when they take office next January, but they'll be lying when they make that pledge because they know a majority of folks who voted for them hate the idea of compromise.
And I predict that at the end of the day, America will still be a divided nation, and our greatest potential will still be unrealized. Unless we as a collective people come to appreciate the value of compromise in the process of self-governance, candidates will come and go, but no election will place us any closer to being a united people.
Wow! Every one of them came true last night. Way to go, Steve!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
TRADING BULLETS FOR EGGS
This past Sunday night, a 17 year old kid in Atlanta tossed a bunch of eggs at a Mercedes Benz automobile as a Halloween prank. The driver of the Mercedes was so mad about the boy's prank that he stopped his car and fired ten shots at the boy who was in the process of running away. One of the bullets struck the boy's neck and he died while being taken by ambulance to a local hospital.
At first blush, you might assume that the driver of the Mercedes will soon be facing homicide charges, but that probably won't be the case, especially since Georgia is one of a growing number of states that have expanded the rights of gun owners to use deadly force whenever attacked, no matter what level of force is used against them.
Now, kids who toss eggs on Halloween or snowballs after a winter storm can expect a hail of live bullets in return.
Gun rights activists call it self-defense. I call it insanity.
At first blush, you might assume that the driver of the Mercedes will soon be facing homicide charges, but that probably won't be the case, especially since Georgia is one of a growing number of states that have expanded the rights of gun owners to use deadly force whenever attacked, no matter what level of force is used against them.
Now, kids who toss eggs on Halloween or snowballs after a winter storm can expect a hail of live bullets in return.
Gun rights activists call it self-defense. I call it insanity.
Monday, November 1, 2010
TEACHING KIDS TO APPRECIATE DUMB POLITICIANS
Have you ever noticed that some people constantly complain that schools have failed our children, and yet, when election season arrives, those same complainers are the first to accuse political candidates of being out-of-touch members of the "intellectual elite"? How can we expect our children to cultivate a thirst for knowledge or value educational pursuits if the message we propagate in our political world is that intelligence and reason are traits to disdain?
Our children are not stupid. They grasp our hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it affects them too.
When we tell our children that a good education is important and urge them to work hard in school, but in the next breath berate political opponents because of their intellectual achievements, we signal to our children that our words regarding the importance of education are hollow. They quickly deduce that ignorance is the more highly valued prize.
What's sad about America is that our kids are right!
Our children are not stupid. They grasp our hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it affects them too.
When we tell our children that a good education is important and urge them to work hard in school, but in the next breath berate political opponents because of their intellectual achievements, we signal to our children that our words regarding the importance of education are hollow. They quickly deduce that ignorance is the more highly valued prize.
What's sad about America is that our kids are right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)