Fear Goggles

One Solution to the Jobs Problem

2010-09-05T14:31:00.000-04:00

One time a thing occurred to me, why do the "recovery jobs" have to focus on the broadest qualifications?

I heard some statistics recently, and while I do not remember the specifics, I remember that the gist was an alarming proportion of the workforce are stuck in jobs for which they are overqualified.

Here is my simple suggestion for the week: if the federal government creates any more stimulus jobs, let the government create high-level, highly specialized jobs and push the new openings hard. People who are qualified will take these jobs and move to them out of their lower-level jobs, opening these jobs for people to move up in (or up into) the job market.

I do not see how creating new unskilled or unspecialized jobs is preferable to this plan. If it is, please fill me in. If I'm onto something, though, pass it on. Feel free to take credit for it.

On Timeliness and a Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-26T18:16:00.001-04:00

A lot happens every day. Some of these events are interesting to talk about. Some are talked about in most mainstream and alternative news venues, while others are largely ignored. Regardless of how much attention is paid to these events, most are quickly forgotten.

Here at Fear Goggles, we try to continue discussing noteworthy events beyond the normal forgotten-zone. This goal has proved to be surprisingly challenging. While I would like to talk about something worthwhile, I have trouble resisting opining on the “Ground Zero mosque” or on Dr. Laura’s "nigger nigger nigger" controversy.

In fact, I can’t resist opining about the mosque. If the old Burlington Coat Factory building is zoned so that a mosque can legally be built there, then one should be permitted to be there. A mosque has nothing to do with 9/11. Mosque-going Muslims were jailed during World War II for refusing to take part in the violence of the military. The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in 2001 may have done so in the name of Islam, but not in the spirit of the religion.

Opposing construction of this mosque is prejudicial in the extreme.

“We can’t let the terrorists win!” you might exclaim. Unfortunately, the nature of terrorism is such that the moment the first plane hit on September 11, the terrorists succeeded. That we are still making decisions based on their attack 9 years after their direct destruction was over is a testament to their victory. The only real way to fight terrorism is to make decisions as if terrorism did not occur, i.e., to ignore terrorists. Terrorism is an extreme vie for attention. Giving terrorists attention only encourages other terrorists. Ignoring terrorism is the way to combat it. The old adage “the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference” is applicable here. Of course we should try to prevent terrorist attacks, but once an attack occurs, we have to clean up the mess and move on. To change how we do things because of a successful attack, or to make decisions in light of successful attacks only serves to encourage terrorists to attack in the future.

In other words, causing a stink about a proposed mosque is the only way a mosque construction project could be a victory for the 9/11 terrorists.

I’d like to say more, but I’m exhausted just thinking about this issue. So calm down and think about the position you want to take on this: loving tolerance, peaceful indifference, fearful prejudice, or something else?

Let’s talk about it! Comment below:

NEWS in celebration of our 50th post on Fear Goggles!

2010-08-18T11:51:00.003-04:00

This is our 50th post on FG! Woo hoo!

In celebration I wanted to announce a new theme for this prestigious blog (oxymoron?).

ANYWAY, beginning next week yours truly begins law school. In the spirit of that new development, I will begin writing periodical pieces dealing with legal topics and, specifically, the interplay of law, politics, and skepticism in the United States.

I'm excited about where these studies can take the blog, so STAY TUNED!

Brett Favre, you're a douche

2010-08-18T11:26:00.002-04:00

Sure, this is not really a sports blog. It's not really a blog about any one (or several) topics. But the blog was inspired by a great Kentuckian, Dr. Hunter Stockton Thompson. In case you couldn't tell from our heavy-handed attempts to HST-and-Ralph-Steadman-ize the site.

But in the spirit of the sport-loving Dr. Gonzo, here's our first dip into the sports world...

Dear Brett Favre,

You are one of the greatest quarterbacks in the history of the NFL. For 20 seasons you've rocketed laser passes, made impossibly ballsy TD throws, run for your life from 300-pound behemoths. You've got multiple MVP awards and a Super Bowl victory; a guest-star spot in one of the greatest comedies of the last 30 years, "There's Something About Mary". You, sir, are a sports legend.

Another title you should be given is "Sports Douche of the Decade". Is that an overstatement? Maybe. I mean, you have to compete with Terrell Owens, Barry Bonds, Stephon Marbury, etc. But hear me out.

You're a stone's throw away from AARP. In many ways it's a miracle you're still in good enough physical shape to play football. You've taken big hits through the years.

The fact that you're playing at age 40 is very impressive. Hell, I'd like to see you play until you're 65!

But you're not special. Football is the ultimate TEAM sport. You need a roster of 53 strong-willed, selfless players to succeed in the NFL.

These strong-willed, selfless 53-man rosters are forged in the molten pit of despair known as training camp: two-a-day practices, searing heat, immense fatigue. These activities serve to stratify the players and solidify the depth chart, create team chemistry, learn new concepts and improve position skills, and--perhaps the most important aspect of all--form a bond between players and across the team.

Brett, by not coming to training camp but showing up during preseason games to play a season, you are impeding your team's chances to win a Super Bowl. Plain and simple.

Play until you're 65. No one cares. But have the decency to go through two-a-days; sit in tape sessions with your teammates; help the younger quarterbacks develop their skills for when you DO really retire; help build chemistry with your wide receivers; help build TEAM chemistry, as a team leader.

Is that to much to ask for a professional being paid millions of dollars a year?

Stop being a douche, Brett.

Sincerely,

Sports Fans Everywhere

The (Potential) Legacy of George W. Bush

2010-08-10T11:49:00.002-04:00

I realize that a Venn diagram of readers of the Atlantic and readers of Fear Goggles looks something like this, with blue and red representing the respective demographics:
, but I want to spread this message:

Jeffrey Goldberg has a great idea for President George W. Bush:

In this generous and visionary statement can be found the seed of an important task for ex-President Bush. I would hope -- especially now that he is finished writing his book -- that he would speak out for Muslim enfranchisement in America, in particular in the wake of the "Ground Zero" mosque controversy. He should let American Muslims know that he accepts them as equal citizens under law, and that all Americans, but particularly members of his own party, should do the same. This is an important task, and I believe that George W. Bush is the best man for it.

Andrew Sullivan points to a precedent quotation from the former president from Everything₂:

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race. America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect. Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I know President Bush claims to want to let history decide how he is remembered, but history will surely view him more favorably if he continues to say thoughtful, powerful, and wonderful things like the aforementioned quotation, like the request from Goldberg than if he does not.

My respect for the man (and my interest in reading his book) certainly increased when I read that quotation.

On Glenn Beck's Side (for once)

2010-07-29T20:21:00.002-04:00

Barry Ritholtz thinks Glenn Beck is scheming:

I disagree.

I think Glenn Beck is making money in a more honest and transparent way than how most of us pay our bills. When I read over Jess Bachman's chart (above), I couldn't help but think of Thank You for Smoking.

Not only does protagonist come up with an internal advertizing campaign like Beck's (but for cigarrettes instead of for gold), "Now, what we need is a smoking role model, a real winner. . . .

Indiana Jones meets Jerry Maguire. . . . Right, on two packs a day. . . ." featuring Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones smoking healthy cigarettes in the nude in the future in space, but he also iterates and reiterates what he calls "the Yuppie Nuremberg defense": some variation of "Everyone's got a mortgage to pay."

Our economic system is such that, for a person to make a living doing whatever-it-is-Glenn-Beck-does, one must sell something. To make money doing anything, one must sell something. I put Amazon.com affiliate links all over this post in hopes that you, you personally, will click one, buy the product, and we will get a cut. Also, maybe the movie covers are illustrative.

Side note: I have never been able to wrap my head around how the system is supposed to work: everyone sells things and makes a profit. Where is the source of all this money? How can it be a zero-sum game? I understand on the individual level how things work, but I have trouble imagining the big picture. Maybe Bachman could make an illustration of that for me?

Back to business: Remember Judge Doom's dream in

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?? Billboards everywhere came true! I realize that the film takes place years before it was written, filmed, or released, but even in the era in which the film takes place, the economy was moving towards its current configuration. Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones may not be smoking Sector Sixes nude in space, but they have to hock products for a living too. If you catch

Twelve Monkeys or Se7en or Meet Joe Black or Burn After Reading or Inglourious Basterds on a network station, your film will be interspersed with "commercial breaks" filled with filmed advertisments. These ads imply and deny implying mutual support of the real and/or fictional people involved with the film that is bookending them. You might even see an ad where Catherine Zeta-Jones explicitly states mutual support of a beauty product. Even in theaters and on most dvds, commercials precede the feature. Many, perhaps most, films include embedded product placement.

Compare the fund-raising practices of Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones to those of Glenn Beck. Beck is just about as transparent as possible. Goldline advertizes during both his radio and television shows. Beck promotes Glodline during both his radio and television shows. Beck even appears in Goldline advertizements. Beck is just short of explicitly saying, "I make money for Goldline, and Goldline makes money for me."

Beck is a weasel who is probably eventually going to laugh himself to death, but his arrangement with Goldline is hardly secretive or dishonest.

In His Diary, Ben Stein Wishes for the End of Wishful Thinking

2010-07-23T17:49:00.004-04:00

Zaid Jilani and Dennis DiClaudio are on Ben Stein’s case.

They are on his case for the entry he made in his American Speculator Diary this Monday. Specifically, they are on his case for writing and publishing this paragraph:

The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say “generally” because there are exceptions. But in general, as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or who do not know how to do a day’s work. They are people who create either little utility or negative utility on the job. Again, there are powerful exceptions and I know some, but when employers are looking to lay off, they lay off the least productive or the most negative. To assure that a worker is not one of them, he should learn how to work and how to get along -- not always easy.

Personally, I am not particularly offended by this paragraph. In fact, I agree with the sentiment. In a misanthropic way I do think that Stein is correct. I tend to agree that “the people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities.” However, I also think that the people who have not been laid off and can find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I suspect that Jilani and DiClaudio inferred that Stein is implying that the people who have not been laid off and that can find work have better work habits and personalities than the unemployed and underemployed. However, he does not make this claim, nor do I think that he would stand by such a claim.

Well, maybe he would.

Stein is a vocal advocate for Intelligent Design Creationism, so I know he is not afraid to stand behind offensive and crazy ideas. Along with his IDC support, his recent diary entry fills me with sad irony.

The man, known to refuse to wear shoes that are not sneakers says, “This brings to mind an idea I have long had: that high schools and colleges should have a course on "how to get along" and "how to do a day’s work." This would include showing up in clean clothes, smelling well, having had a good breakfast, dressed in a businesslike way, calling the other employees "sir" or "ma'am" and not talking back.”

The man uses the egalitarian generality “men and women” in one paragraph then writes with alarming discriminatory sexism in the next paragraph, “women selling their bodies, men turning to drugs.”

But the most ironic and unfortunate of Stein’s crazytalk in his diary entry is in the aforementioned (aforequoted?) paragraph. The title of his diary entry is “The End of Wishful Thinking,” and its primary thesis (yes, Stein has theses in his published diary) is that “people who add and subtract and see life plain, these people rarely get in desperate trouble.” However, many if not most of the minor theses of this diary article, e.g., “productive workers with real skills and real ability to get along are also sometimes unemployed, but they will be the last fired and the first hired,” are silverlined generalizations. I assert, at the risk of offending Jilani and DiClaudio, that a person’s get-along-ability and do-a-day’s-work-ability are real, important, powerful factors in that person’s employment status. However, despite what a wishful thinking economist Ben Stein might tell you, these two important factors are not the only two important factors. Experience, education, who a person knows, gender, race, age, and family prestige are a few other factors that have a comparable level of importance to Stein’s two factors.

In Stein’s defense, his two factors do play an important role. Ironically, Stein’s factors (and the others I listed) work in the same way as Darwinian evolution which Stein claims to disbelieve.

Ben Stein, as pixies in Butch Hartman's The Fairly Oddparents

Most of Stein’s claims in this diary article contain grains of truth, but most of the claims are oversimplified generalities stylized as Undeniable Truths. I do not know if Stein is playing some kind of rhetorical game here or if he “is . . . as much like . . . [his] friends of decades standing . . . [who] lacked prudence and lived in a dream world . . . as [he] often think[s he is].” He often thinks he is like these friends of his, and perhaps rightly so. That good hard-working people are rewarded and evil lazy people are punished is sometimes, but not always true. Accepting such a maxim as fact is wishful thinking.

I guess Ben is having one of those dreams that appears as though the dream world is the waking world.

A Note on Princess Culture & Love

2010-06-27T20:31:00.005-04:00

A Twitter update from a friend of mine brought to my attention a quote which struck me immediately and has been on my mind ever since:

"There are so many girls, and so few princes."

First, the most shocking thing to me is that such a quote came from Liza Minelli, who is not someone I would consider to be a font of notable quotables. The irony of such a quote coming from Ms. Minnelli--herself married and divorced FOUR times over--did not fall upon deaf ears. Her four divorces were to blame on the gentlemen's lack of princely qualities; in no way were her own actions to blame. Princesses are divine, infallible, beautiful, and perfect in every relevant way.

Such is the attitude many girls are raised with: You are special, you are perfect, you can do no wrong, you deserve perfection from whomever you come across and should accept no less. If mistakes are made, someone else is to blame. If poor decisions are made, it was a learning experience and no big deal; someone else led her to do it. And so forth, ad infinitum.

There are no shortage of articles and public sentiment that girls are flooded with unrealistic expectations for appearance, what with uber-svelte movie stars and models making the nut and being adored. I don't disagree that these images are damaging to the confidence, psyche, and emotional development of young girls.

What seems to go under-reported is the fact that young girls are force-fed preposterous ideas of love and relationships. Movies, television, and books all tell girls that they each deserve a perfect man: charming, smart, funny, rich, respectable, honorable and, most importantly, exceedingly handsome. Parents exacerbate these expectations by telling their little princesses that they deserve no less than perfection from a man (or woman) and should not settle for less.

How can you expect your daughter to find happiness when you keep telling her no one is good enough for her? When you encourage her to set her bar so high as to reject people out-of-hand?

But who really deserves perfection? We are all imperfect creatures. Sure, in the throes of love, we will often whisper to our partners "you are perfect in every way" either 1) because we mean it or 2) desperately seek some carnal satisfaction (or some melding of both). But do we mean it? When your partner leaves a wet towel laying on the bed all day and the comforter is soaked for bedtime, is that a perfect act? When your partner spends hours cooking your favorite meal and you go out with friends and eat there instead, is that perfect?

Of course not, and we are all guilty of such transgressions from time to time. Even the most loving, successful relationships I know of occasionally suffer the painful silent treatments and cold shoulders and hurt feelings. It is a byproduct of two imperfect creatures in an imperfect world trying to be together: occasionally conflicts arise.

To me it is preposterous for girls to be raised thinking if their man (or woman) doesn't do something exceptionally romantic almost daily, they are being taken for granted. If their partner snaps at them for no reason once in a blue moon, they are not loved. If their partner isn't the physical Adonis seen on US Weekly, they are undeserving and unworthy.

I would like to point out here that boys are subjected to similar unrealistic expectations in love, and in areas such as bravery: if you're a boy and you don't handle a situation like Bruce Willis, then you're not a man. If you'd rather talk out your issues than fight them out, you're weak. If you show emotion, you're a sissy. Equally unrealistic standards are applied.

So I guess Liz Taylor "princessed" Ms. Minnelli into this hyper-perfection orientation that leads her to believe all women are great and most men are undeserving slags. Ms. Taylor is notoriously poor at staying married, as well; that apple didn't fall far from the tree. Maybe if they had looked more at inner qualities, kindness, compatibility, etc. instead of power and money, there wouldn't be more than 10 failed marriages between them.

You are not perfect. I am not perfect. But that doesn't mean we're not right for each other. Doesn't mean we can't have the real-world equivalent of romantic comedies and love stories. In this sometimes cruel and hardscrabble world, you are lucky to be there with someone you like.

And what about us poor guys, sentenced to a life of bumps and bruises inflicted by women who think we are all scoundrels if we make so much as one or two very minor mistakes? When people come into a relationship expecting the other person to let them down, a bad foundation is set forth. Could this be a contributing factor to the outrageous divorce rate in our nation? I'm not saying it is, but I believe there's some connection.

Besides: how insane is it for a woman to expect to get by with murder and be imperfect, yet still expect her man to be perfect at all times? How unfair.

This may sound like a whining diatribe, and if it does, I don't care. I'm just reporting what I see unfolding in the world around me.

For a closing thought, I'll leave you with a quote from Woody Allen's "Whatever Works", that splendidly sums up a realistic and touchingly sweet take on happiness...

"That's why I can't say enough times, whatever love you can get and give, whatever happiness you can filch or provide, every temporary measure of grace, whatever works. And don't kid yourself. Because its by no means up to your own human ingenuity. A bigger part of your existence is luck, than you'd like to admit. Christ, you know the odds of your fathers one sperm from the billions, finding the single egg that made you. Don't think about it, you'll have a panic attack."

Quintana Roo

2010-07-20T11:07:00.002-04:00

We're back. The wedding was awesome. The honeymoon was awesome. We stayed at Hotel Catalonia Playa Maroma on Riviera Maya just north of Playa del Carmen in Quintana Roo, Mexico. I would like to share a couple tidbits from the trip:

Getting Mexican pesos was a waste of resources. Everywhere we went and everything we did accepted Visa, Mastercard, European euros and American dollars. I doubt that this state of affairs is true throughout Mexico, Quintana Roo is so touristy, I'm not surprised at their lenient currency expectations.

The food at the resort was wonderful. They provided an international buffet, a Mexican restaurant, an Italian restaurant, an American restaurant, a Spanish restaurant, a creperie, and two bars. Sarah and I were each stricken with "Montezuma's revenge" or "tourista syndrome", but the food was worth that price.

The food was not the only thing international at the resort. Each menu was available in Spanish, English, French, and Italian. I got the impressive impression that most of the staff was proficient in all four languages.

On the day that Montezuma's revenge struck me, we went to see the ruins at Tulum. We took the "Xtreme" tour, which included a swim in a cenote (supposedly the only cenote in all of Mexico that people are permitted to swim in), three zip-lines, one rappel down a tower, and a Mayan lunch. Besides Sarah and me, three other couples who got married in outdoor ceremonies on the tenth of July, a father-son team, and a mother-two-sons team travelled with our guide, Sergio. The other newlyweds were from California, Colorado, and Texas (we're from Indiana in case you didn't know), five of them are teachers, and the sixth a lawyer. The main reason I am even writing about my honeymoon on here is something one of the brides said. I don't know which bride was speaking since I was focused on keeping my insides inside, but one of them was complaining that some of the parents of her students don't speak English very well. She went on to complain that a lot of people in Mexico do not speak English well or at all.

In Mexico.

Where the national language is Spanish and the cultural history is indigenous American, Spanish, and French.

She was complaining that they don't speak English.

Vacation, 2010

2010-07-06T07:29:00.000-04:00

This Saturday, Sarah and I will be getting married. Zach will be presiding, Jerry will read the first reading, and Drew will read the second.

Immediately following the ceremony will be a reception. The following day, Sarah and I will leave for Playa del Carmen, Mexico, our first vacation since we went to Panama City Beach, Florida in March of 2007.

We have had a few long (i.e., 3-day) weekends here and there (e.g., this most recent Independnce Day weekend), but we have not had more than a single day to relax in years.

Granted, we have moved and changed jobs several times, and we are getting married, but the point is that we can use the break.

Personally, I have never been outside of the United States before. I'll be back in a couple weeks, hopefully better-rested and with more worldly perspective.

Adventureland

2010-01-06T18:24:00.004-05:00

"From the director of Superbad" proclaims the front cover of the dvd case of the 2009 film Adventureland. I recall trailers prominently featuring Ryan Reynolds, Bill Hader, and Kristin Wiig. I remember the trailers giving the impression that the film is hilarious.

Unfortunately, that impression is misleading. The film is not particularly a comedy.

Fortunately, the film is a very good drama. The shame is that the film was marketed as a comedy rather than being allowed to succeed on its dramatic merits.

Viewing the film, I was correct to suspect that the story is based on the writer/director's experiences working at Adventureland after he graduated college. The story is interesting and relatable. Some parts are funny; some parts are not. Ryan Reynolds, Bill Hader, and Kristin Wiig are funny, but the film is really about Jesse Eisenberg's character, the young writer-director working at an amusement part the summer after college.

I recommend the film as a drama, not as a fun comedy. Even Wikipedia's article about the film includes a section about the misleading marketing. See the film for yourself, but don't expect it to be Anchorman. Expect it to be The Squid and the Whale or Lost in Translation. Enjoy it, and don't be surprised.

Metastasis

2010-06-26T08:40:00.001-04:00

Two weeks ago, I wrote a lengthy article about cancer, but a network error destroyed the post. Here, I attempt to recreate that article, appending a positive update that I could not have written even last week.

Wednesday, 2010 June 16

My friend-from-work Debbie has terminal brain cancer. She had breast cancer about a year ago, and the cancer metastasized to her brain, into two separate tumors. One was surgically removed, and the other is inoperable. According to her, her doctors say her chances are slim. She came into work today to see how everyone is doing, to check up on us, to make sure we keep our spirits up. She is that kind of person. A couple weeks ago, she sent a veggie tray to us to try to lift our spirits.

Shouldn't we be lifting her spirits with veggie trays?

Anyway, the last time she came in (before today), she had lost some of her hair to a lobotomy and had cut the rest close for symmetry. The morning of this previous visit, I had flubbed an incognito mohawk and, Sarah had to salvage my hair (for my work's dresscode) with a marines-style high-and-tight. In short, we had the same haircut but for very different reasons. We joked that I cut mine like hers in support.

Today, she had no hair on her head. She had lost all of her head hair from radiation- and chemo-therapy. She said she cannot keep a beard from growing now, though. She took off her bandanna and showed me her bald head, and we joked that I would shave my head to match hers.

Later, I thought, why not? I've got a little over three weeks until my wedding to Sarah, and my hair will grow back by then. Plus, I can keep the beard, apparently!

She told us how painful and difficult treatment has been. I told her that I read Gene Wilder's memoir (about his experiences with Gilda Radner's cancer treatment, and then with his own), and that, like when I read Anne Frank's diary, I sympathized but could not even comprehend what the victims experienced. To me, that kind of pain is unimaginable.

Debbie said that she had not read Wilder, that she thinks she should, but that she cannot stand to read any more cancer books. She went on to say that she really wants to read Lance Armstrong's book (which I didn't even know existed!), but that she has just read enough about cancer.

Thursday, 2010 June 17

I buzzed my hair, then I Bic'd my head. Sarah helped. I kept the beard. Apparently Debbie came and left while I was at lunch today and missed the whole thing. Yolanda took my picture for a present for Teresa (who is transferring), though, so Debbie can see what my bald head looks like sometime.

Having no hair feels surprisingly like having hair. I forget that I am bald until I touch / scratch / brush against my head and feel it with my hand.

Friday, 2010 June 18

My hair grows so fast. The stubble on my head acts like Velcro, making toweling and shirting a challenge.

Thursday, 2010 June 24

Debbie got her latest test results back, and these results indicate that she is once again cancer-free! When my father's brother and parents had cancer, I never heard of this test result. Things seem to be looking better for Debbie. Of course she is still bald and weak and tired, but given some time to rest and keep an eye on herself, she may just end up good as new! We are all so happy for her and her family. Good luck Debbie!

"Fatherhood And Apple Pie" from The New Republic

2010-06-21T08:57:00.007-04:00

Most everything associated with President Obama—his policy platform, his public style, his personal story—have become grist for intense partisan conflict. I had thought that the one remaining uncontroversial scrap was his endorsement of fatherhood, which he has been doing periodically since he appeared on the public scene. But even this can now spur outrage, at least by Ira Stoll, who has attracted a lot of attention with a column denouncing Obama's fatherhood initiative:

President Obama interrupted my Father's Day with an e-mail announcing the launch of "The President's Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative" ...So I ignored my children for a few minutes of Father's Day and did what the president asked which was to check out the Web site, and especially the government's "Tips for Parents." They were infuriating.

I'm no technological wizard, so I am not sure how an email "interrupted Father's Day." I have one of those email systems that you only read when you want to check email. Perhaps Stoll has his email set up to buzz loudly every time a message arrives, and he hasn't figured out how to disable the feature. I would suggest that, if the arrival of an email is going to interrupt Father's Day, try leaving your computer or smart phone off, or in a different room. (I thought about emailing this suggestion to Stoll, but I worried the message might interrupt his sleep.)
Also, I'm pretty sure that when Obama suggested readers check out the web site, the implication was that they should do so when they had some available time. It was probably not meant to be read as a demand that readers check out the site right then. But I blame the government for failing to spell this out. The disclaimer should be made explicit, the way consumer products feature warnings like "Do not jab this product into your eye socket," in order to account for the wide variety in reading comprehension levels of the American public.
So I can see why Stoll was upset that the government set off his email buzzer, and was further upset by a message that could easily be interpreted as a federal demand that he leave his children and look at a website immediately. What I don't understand is why he proceeded to ignore his children further by composing a column on Father's Day. Perhaps he did this as a collaborative activity with his children—which, come to think of it, would explain a lot.
Let us proceed to Stoll's objections with the website:
Here was tip number two: "Watch a game on television with your children. Cheer for your favorite team and chat about the plays. Mute the commercials and use those minutes to talk about what's going on in your lives." Here is the government telling Americans to "mute the commercials." Suppose I work at an advertising agency and earn my living making commercials, or own a company that has just invested millions of dollars in those commercials in the hope of winning customers and making a profit? Suppose I own a television network that makes its money by selling those commercials? Suppose I am a taxpayer who has just shelled out major bucks for the Army or the Census or some other branch of the government to buy these commercials, only to have another branch of the government instruct Americans not to listen to the same commercials my tax money was just spent to purchase. If I had any advice for fathers, it would be to mute the ballgame and turn up the volume for the commercials, or turn off the tube altogether and go play a game with your child. But now the government wants us to mute commercials? Really.

He is upset that the government is urging fathers who watch sports with their children to mute the commercials and talk with the kids. The free market system apparently requires that the young tykes obediently watch the commercials so they can determine which brand of light beer to drink when they turn 21. Is there no corner of American capitalism Obama doesn't want to destroy?

Here was tip number three: "Take a virtual vacation with your children. Decide on a 'destination' then borrow a library book that features facts and photos of your dream locale. Prepare a meal based on the native cuisine and enjoy it together while you watch a documentary about the country or a movie that takes place there. Let these fantasy voyages be your passport to lasting family memories." The assumption seems to be that the dream destination is outside America, unless by "native cuisine" the government means corn and venison.

In Obama's defense, I'd note that he is not urging parents to actually visit foreign countries, which of course would be grounds to impeach him and deport him to his native ~~Hawaii~~ Kenya, but is merely suggesting they imagine doing so. Still, it is true: Obama is presuming that people dream of vacationing in foreign locales over the good old U S of A. Stoll's own honeymoon took place in Youngstown, Ohio.

Another tip: "Buy compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs, which last about 5 years and use less energy. Switching just one standard bulb to a CFL can help you reduce your electricity bill by as much as 75 cents per month." I used to believe in this idea. Then, after putting CFL bulbs all over the house, I found that they don't last five years. They may last a couple of years.
Stoll has temporarily moved on to "green tips," but his outrage remains unabated. The government is relying upon studies comparing CFL bulbs to old-fashioned incandescent bulbs. I'd be willing to believe that Stoll's one-man focus group could produce superior data. But his inability to solve technical challenges like the buzzing, can't-be-turned-off-or-walked-away-from computer gives me pause.

(via Jonathan Chait)

Crazitarian

2010-06-15T21:13:00.002-04:00

Rand Paul is ridiculous.

In Paul's America, discrimination is legalized as free speech. Oil companies shouldn't be punished for pouring millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. And doctors don't need to be board-certified.

Or at least that's what Paul's actions should about his feelings. It's recently come to light that Rand Paul is not, in fact, a board-certified medical physician!

In the state of Kentucky, where Paul practices, physicians are not required to be board-certified. At hospitals and other medical establishments certification is often required for promotions, advanced placements, and certain benefits. So, technically, Paul is not breaking the law.

He is, however, selling a false bill of goods. During his campaign he's boasted the fact that he's a board-certified physician. Which is kind of true: he created a board and he is the Chairman of it, and his wife is VP. Hardly an impartial certification! The American Medical Association does NOT consider Paul to be certified, and he hasn't been since December 31, 2005! (Read the linked article for details)

The point is this: Paul in insane. He wants to make up BS as he goes, play fast and loose with the truth, and make asinine comments in the media, for which he later has to pretend he never said (a la Sarah Palin now trying "We never said 'drill, baby, drill'!").

During the 2008 Presidential election, Republicans kept saying the "cult of personality" around Obama was dangerous and he was wholly unqualified for the job. But they stand quiet while the cults of Palin and Paul rage on, unperturbed by the sheer lack of REALITY in either person's worldview.

So thanks for nothing, Rand Paul, for making the world "libertarian" sound so crazy I'm no longer calling myself one. Jackass.

Abortion is not the Issue

2010-06-06T08:37:00.001-04:00

Humans are born, developmentally, much later than most other mammals. To say that abortion is not killing a human is just farfetched rationalizing. To say that such killing is unjustified to save a mother's life is fanatical. To argue about abortion on broad terms is irrational.

Also irrational is the way we socially view pregnancy and children. Most people who I know, whether they themselves have children or not, act and speak as though they honestly believe that children are a terrible disease. These people also act like this 'disease' is a punishment that is deserved by those afflicted.

People are so mean to children and pregnant women. As an adult man, I do not know how these other demographics can handle the emotional abuse that they are constantly bombarded with. The character Quinn Fabray has been used, somewhat effectively, on this season of Glee to explore the emotional abuse pregnant teenagers go through.

Legislation and adjudication are not going to change the abortion rate much. They never have, and they never will be able to. Abortion is not the issue; abortion is merely a symptom. The cure is compassion. If people could be nice to children and pregnant women, then these miracles could more easily see themselves for what they are.

Rand Paul & the Trolls

2010-05-28T06:35:00.027-04:00

Two recent news stories ("Why Rand Paul Is Right … and Wrong" by Julian Sanchez in Newsweek and "Website Editors Strive To Rein In Nasty Comments" by Laura Sydell on NPR) clicked together in my mind and got me thinking about the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Any honest Libertarian or Strict Constructionist would be correct to assert that Rand Paul is right and that the First Amendment clearly protects bigotry and hate-speech.

On the other hand, the First Amendment seems to be about tolerance. That the Amendment grants tolerance of intolerance is ironic to say the least.

Like in our recent look at the Price's relationship with Value, a lot has changed since the 1770s. A lot of the same factors that have skewed the aforementioned relationship have changed the media of free speech. For most of the history of the press, the press has been an elite group, and one had to be talented and/or wealthy to have one's opinions published. Gradually, this state has changed. Today, requirements are minimal for one to be heard on the internet, television, radio, and newspapers.

As Sydell noted, only a small percentage of the comments posted on websites is worthwhile or constructive while a large percentage is hateful or destructive.

Clearly absolute free speech is undesirable. Libel and slander are verboten. But how can we allow the good, constructive, rabble-rousing, and humorous without allowing the bad, destructive, brainwashing, and banal? Sydell's suggestion of selective publication is appealing, but who decides what can and cannot be published?

I do not have a solution or even a suggestion as to how to deal with harmful speech. I had always been 100% behind absolute free speech. Suddenly, after just two news stories in just a few days, I am not so supportive anymore.

You Have No Right to Remain Silent; You Must Be Loud!

2010-05-21T23:59:00.052-04:00

"This is a public service announcement
With guitars.
Know your rights, all three of them.

Number 1:
You have the right not to be killed.
Murder is a crime.
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat.
Know your rights.

And Number 2:
You have the right to food money,
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation,
And if you cross your fingers,
Rehabilitation.
Know your rights.
These are your rights.

Know these rights.

Number 3:
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
Know your rights.
These are your rights.
All three of 'em.

It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough.
Well,
Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run." --Joe Strummer and Mick Jones

Immediately following the arrest of فیصل شہزاد for his attempted Times Square bombing, politicians, pundits, and other people proclaimed an alleged need to do away with mandatory Miranda Rights. As usual, misconceptions drive the seemingly polar and dichotic debate. So here's the skinny on Miranda rights:

Miranda rights serve the express purpose of executing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, viz. that no one is obligated to self-incriminate and that everyone has the right to a fair trial.
Miranda warnings are always optional. Verbal or written evidence against someone, particularly when instigated by interrogation, is inadmissible in court if said person was not mirandized. However, these inadmissible confessions can be useful in the same way that plea-bargaining can be useful. Police and lawyers often skip the Miranda rights when looking to fry bigger fish.
Being mirandized is the first major step to a criminal trial. Without being mirandized, a suspect can let confessions run free, for these confessions will be inadmissible.
Miranda rights should absolutely and always be read to anyone that is expected to be charged and tried with a crime.

The Reality of Value & Price

2010-05-15T09:02:00.000-04:00

Last week we discussed the legend of Value and Price; this week, I would like to try some non-fiction regarding the same subject.

I am sure that studies have been done regarding fair-market-values and prices, and I would love to read or skim any of those studies you would like to post in the comments below, but I am talking about societal value, like Adam Smith was talking about in Wealth of Nations. As our world economy continues to struggle, we make changes to the system, slowly but surely. While we're at it, we should look into what works, what doesn't, and why.

In the days before instant communication and fast transportation, communities were mostly manageable sizes, and a free-market economy in these manageable communities did a fantastic job keeping Price and Value comparable.

Globalization changed the game, though, and we have tried to ignore it. Now, instead of pricing goods and services based wholly on their value, we are valuing goods and services based partly on their price. Originally, items and services were priced so that supply-and-demand niches would be filled. Now supply-and-demand niches are being manufactured so that items and services can be priced. While the value-to-price model makes for strong economic health, the wheels fall off of the price-to-value model.

For years, Americans have complained that "everything is made in China." People still say that, although the truth is clearly counter to that statement:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Wham-O Moves to America

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

Also in the old days, occupations that did the most good made the most money: farmers, doctors, clergy. Today, farmers have to be paid subsidies, the medical industry makes less money than the insurance industry, and schools across the country and around the world are laying off good teachers and canceling extra-curricular activities. Today more than half of the American GDP is made up of interest and banking fees. The changes have been mostly gradual (although studies will show that certain leaps [e.g. the telephone, the radio, the television, the assembly line, the computer, the internet, email, cell phones] occurred), and has been mostly invisible to those living through the changes. Comparing today's prices and values with those of a century or two ago, the differences are both visible and astounding.

As a kid, when I would want to buy something frivolous, my parents would tell me, "You need to learn the value of a dollar!" I think that advice is something we should all work on figuring out these days.

The Legend of Value & Price

2010-05-06T07:32:00.001-04:00

While Value and Price may once have held a strong correlation to one another, these two concepts have grown apart. The concepts have surely been separated, and there are even rumors of their divorce.

This story, like many good old-fashioned American stories, begins in the Eighteenth Century anno Domini. In the same year that Thomas Jefferson’s United States Declaration of Independence was published, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations was published. Smith’s writings have been astoundingly influential. One would be hardpressed to find someone to genuinely argue against the proposition that Adam Smith is the father of modern economics.

The Declaration of Independence was followed by the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States of America, its twenty-seven (to date) Amendments, and countless other documents of varying importance to define the United States of America. Likewise, Wealth of Nations has been followed by The Communist Manifesto, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Steady State Economics, The Roaring Nineties, and countless other works of varying importance to define economics. Somehow the Eighteenth Century documents have held their influence.

A lot of this influence comes from genuine quality of thought and writing. Some of the influence, however, seems to come from legend. Jefferson and Smith were certainly extraordinary individuals. Attend to their respective cult statuses, though, and one would think these men were gods, or at least demigods.

While these impressive writings are among the most accurate philosophical writings of their time, we seem to forget that these writings are dated. Although much of the writings of these - perhaps of any - great philosopher are timeless, some material is time-sensitive and does not make sense in another era.

Transportation and communication are both indispensable tools of the businessperson, and these two domains function entirely differently than they did in the Eighteenth Century. Jefferson and Smith, the great thinkers of their day and place, could likely not even imagine the Internet or commercial air transport. They could imagine unimaginable changes, though, and both men wrote of the need for adaptation and cautioned of maintaining habitual philosophies.

We need to examine Economics through the lenses of our own era and see that Free-Market Capitalism does not by itself effectively fit the world of wide contact, fast travel, and instant communication. Value and Price can still save their marriage, but they need counseling. They need us to look at their relationship, see what works, what doesn't, and offer them advice for relating in the modern Twenty-First Century world.

Racial Discrimination is finally legal!

2010-04-24T14:37:00.002-04:00

As Americans, we're supposed to stand for tolerance, justice, and fairness for all to pursue happiness.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Right?

Well, not in Arizona. In Arizona, you can now be legally stopped and detained simply if a law enforcement officer has "reasonable belief" that you may be an illegal alien. Given Arizona's proximity to Mexico and the flood of illegal immigrants from Latin America and South America, there's no mystery regarding which group of people this legislation is targeted toward.

The Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, says critics of the bill are "overreacting" and she "won't tolerate racial profiling". So her idea of "overreacting" is when people are concerned about a slippery slope in which legislation can be made to single out whatever group of people is currently disliked the most. And her idea of not tolerating racial profiling is to sign into law legislation that that can only be implemented by the use of racial profiling. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

The bill's Republican sponsor, Russell Pearce, made a disturbing comment: Obama and the bill's critics are "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law".

Think about the implications. Our President, charged with upholding the laws of our land, is actually working against those laws to harm citizens and make our country less safe. If a Democrat had said something like that during the GWB presidency, there would have been cries of TREASON and DOMESTIC TERRORISM. Why are Democrat's so scared of firing back at these conservation pol morons that are angling for political points instead of doing their job?

Pearce went on to say this bill will result in "less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms".

Really? The implication here is that illegal immigrants are de facto criminals that don't pay taxes, endanger neighborhoods, spend time in hospital emergency rooms for frivolous reasons, and foolishly try to send their children to school to get a better education and have a better life. What assholes!

I have a hard time believing illegal immigrants are statistically more likely to be criminals than your average American citizen. If you were here illegally and knew you could be sent back to a hellhole of a country, wouldn't you lay low and try not to rock the boat? If you're going to be a criminal, why not just stay in Mexico and be a criminal? Also, I feel like illegals are only going to emergency rooms when ABSOLUTELY necessary. Why expose yourself to an increased risk of being "outed" as illegal and deported?

Does Pearce believe American citizens are in no way to blame for what he's accusing illegals of? Probably so. It's easy to be critical when you're a career politician, far removed from the real world.

The most disturbing part is that people like Pearce say "come here legally and we'll welcome you with open arms", but we all know that isn't true. There is systematic discrimination against people that sound or look Hispanic, or Asian, or Persian, or anything other than American. Hell, we don't even like Canadians that much, do we?

Our problem is that no matter what we say, we are at our core still a Racist Nation. We are not post-racial, or post-nationalist.

We are, as Hunter S. Thompson said, "[we are] just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable."

That is why even in 2010 we are legislating against groups of people we dislike or fear. This is not the "Land of Opportunity".

This is the Land of Fear.

Michael Steele & Racism

2010-04-21T06:45:00.003-04:00

Michael Steele by ajagendorf25

Although, as Jon Stewart often points out, RNC chairman Michael Steele looks like the muppet Mr. Johnson, the chairman acts like a blaxploitation character. Speaking in a parody of AAVE, Steele has acted as a token of racial acceptance, citing many of his setbacks as examples of racism.

In February, I wrote a piece called "Sarah Palin & Sexism" in which I argued that Palin’s shenanigans are actually encouraging bigoted people to be less sexist. I cannot argue that Steele’s shenanigans are encouraging bigoted people to be less racist.

While Steele and Palin use racism and sexism as catchall excuses, respectively, Steele caters to stereotypes where Palin does not. Not to say that Palin does not cater to any stereotypes; she knows who she is talking to, and she likely believes some sexist stereotypes herself. However, she hunts, she speaks out, she does not restrict herself to a kitchen and a laundry room. She demonstrates that being powerful does not make her any less feminine. I will not often compliment this woman, but I do admire this aspect of her public persona.

Steele, on the other hand, awkwardly inserts broken jive phrases into serious interviews and public statements. He wears a suit and acts a fool. He insults powerful white men then apologizes. He plays to stereotypes of black men. He chooses to play to these stereotypes. Looking over Steele’s impressive work history, writings, and statements, he appears to be a remarkably thoughtful and intelligent person. Looking over Steele’s recent public statements and interviews (from around the time he began running for the RNC chairmanship), he appears to be Bosko. He does not have to play to stereotypes. Palin is a great example of a person who can lead bigots away from a particular brand of prejudice.

Perhaps Steele is sacrificing his dignity to attack Obama’s by mocking their common black skin and heritage. Whatever his reasons, Michael Steele falls far behind most political leaders in terms of dignity and beneficial action. Far. Behind. Most political leaders. In terms of dignity and beneficial action.

Another Lesson in Profit

2010-04-15T19:33:00.013-04:00

Marsha Enright and Gen LaGreca of The Daily Caller published an article a couple weeks ago called "A Lesson in Profit." Below is my response to that article. I would have responded to the article more quickly, but as you can see, I have a lot to say, and saying a lot takes time. I have tried to stay on topic and discuss the issues the authors discuss without paying attention to their original style. I would love to hear responses to my response. Without further ado, the original is on the left¹ with my response on the right.

Addressing a joint session of Congress on health care, President Barack Obama reiterated his often-expressed aversion to the profit motive: “[B]y avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private [health insurance] companies by profits and excessive costs and executive salaries, [the public insurance option] could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better . . .” Is this true? Is profit wasteful, as Obama implies? Does it lead to higher prices and lower value to consumers? Can the government, unburdened by profit, do the same job as a private company, only cheaper and better?	Yes. Profit certainly has the potential be wasteful. Profit always leads to higher prices and can lead to lower value. The United States government, unburdened by profit, can often, though not in all cases, do a less expensive and better job than a private for-profit company. A public health insurance option would compete with private companies and, should one option force another out of business, let the best service win.
To answer, let’s consider one business, one product, and one profit-seeking man who lived at a time when the market operated largely free of government subsidies, bailouts, regulations, taxation, and other “progressive” intrusions.	Looking at a single example can be illustrative but cannot be evidential. Also, products and services are different, so looking at a product will not be analogous to looking at a service like healthcare.
Henry Ford, at age 13, saw a steam-driven land vehicle, a “road locomotive,” which filled his imagination with the vision of a horseless carriage and fueled a passion to create one. As a young man, he worked day jobs, while trying to build a car in his free time. Realizing a viable car could not run on steam, he sought to develop a new kind of engine.	On a public road or a private road?
On Christmas Eve 1893, the 30-year-old inventor clamped his first gasoline engine to his wife Clara’s kitchen sink. With the home’s electricity providing ignition, the motor roared into action, sending the sink vibrating and exhaust flames flying while Clara prepared the holiday dinner. In pursuit of his dream, Ford and Clara moved eight times in their first nine years of marriage. He quit a secure job at the Edison Illuminating Company, banking everything on his vision. He co-founded the Detroit Automobile Company—a venture that failed. Jobless, Ford moved his wife and child into his father’s home. But he kept working on his car. “It is always too soon to quit,” he said. Ten years passed from the roar of the little engine on Clara’s sink to the launch of the Ford Motor Company. It took five more years to produce his big success, the Model T, and additional years to master its mass production. Why did Ford persist through years of hardship and uncertainty? How much would his love for the work have sustained him without the hope of eventual profit? Imagine if he had lived in a system where politicians could, at the stroke of a pen, seize his profits or decide how much he could keep. Would he have risked so much or worked so ferociously to bring a world-changing invention to market?	From this anecdote, I would say Ford persisted through years of hardship to sate his “filled imagination” and through a belief that “it is always too soon to quit.” Who knows if “the hope of eventual profit” motivated him? Who knows if he would have persevered without said hope? Who knows if Ford would “have risked so much or worked so ferociously to bring world-changing invention to market” under a hypothetical oppressive totalitarian government? Who knows if he would have needed to? Are counterfactual hypotheses appropriate outside of fiction?
Would an Amtrak employee devote a decade of free time inventing a new train, only to rise a notch on a civil-servant’s pay scale? Dream big, work hard, create something earth shaking, but be paid small is the antithesis of the American dream.	Would a teacher, a police officer, an intelligence agent, a firefighter, or any other civil servant devote a decade of free time to civil service on a civil servant’s payscale? Of course! So might an Amtrak employee do the same? One might if Amtrak became a civil service. Payscale is a factor, but not the only factor, in determining what jobs people do. Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, Martin Luther King, Jr., Martin Luther, Pablo Picasso, William Shakespeare, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Jesus of Nazareth are just a few examples off the top of my head of people who did extraordinary work without being solely or even primarily motivated by profit; they “dream[ed] big, work[ed] hard, create[d] something earth shaking, but [were] paid small” if you will. Perhaps all of these people are simply unAmerican, and poor role models by implication.
The pursuit of profit not only motivated Ford, but also his bold investors who had the foresight to realize the horse was doomed.	I am not sure if “the horse was doomed” is intended literally or literarily, but figuratively, the horse of unregulated free-market capitalism looks pretty doomed these days. Also, the horse of gas-powered automobiles is now doomed.
In 1903, a school teacher invested $100—half her life savings—in the Ford Motor Company. Sixteen years later, she sold her stock for a total gain of $355,000. Why would she and others place their money on a highly experimental venture, were it not for the hope of tremendous gain should the enterprise succeed? What kind of person would deny her the reward for recognizing Ford’s vision and risking her own money?	What is the purpose of this two sentence anecdote? What is the parallel? Should only publicly-traded companies be allowed into the market? Are the authors under the impression that wholly private companies or wholly public companies would drive publicly-traded private companies out of business? Are the authors under the impression that somehow private ownership is at risk? I fail to see the relevance or intention of this anecdote and pair of rhetorical questions. I admit that this failure may be my own blindness to some allusion or detail.
The pursuit of profit also impacted every aspect of Ford’s business operations. Ford didn’t need a politician’s scolding to lower prices—only the desire to make huge profits by reaching mass markets. Because early cars were expensive, people viewed them as mere playthings of the rich. But Ford sought to “build a motor car for the multitude.” This led him to develop his moving assembly line, significantly reducing manufacturing costs and, consequently, prices. The original $825 price of the Model T finally bottomed at $260. That price-lowering strategy brought him the millions of customers that made him rich.	“Reducing manufacturing costs, and consequently, prices” is almost exactly analogous to a public option for healthcare; replace “manufacturing costs” with “unnecessary spending” and the praise of Ford’s frugality becomes praise of Obama’s frugality. If “that price-lowering strategy” works in Obama’s case, millions of citizens will save money on healthcare.
Similarly, Ford’s pursuit of profit didn’t result in bare-subsistence wages for employees, but in phenomenal pay increases. He shocked the world by introducing the $5 workday, more than doubling the era’s prevailing wage. Why? To attract the best workers, whose talents increased product quality and company efficiency. High pay also decreased employee turnover and training costs, again increasing Ford’s profits.	Ford’s pursuit of profit didn’t result in bare-subsistence wages for his employees, but what about the “manufacturing costs” that he lowered? Surely reducing manufacturing costs reduced someone’s pay! Likewise, a public insurance option would surely pay its employees better than “bare-subsistence” wages.
Ford typifies the successful capitalist, whose profit-driven innovations lower prices, while raising wages and living standards for all.	Ford may have risen “wages and living standards”, but certainly not “for all”; horse-drawn-carriage-makers, for instance probably lost business, as well as competing motor companies.
Even today’s Ford Motor Company, a much-fettered child of our mixed economy, demonstrates the superiority of private- over government-run companies. Ford refused TARP bailout money, choosing to operate without government strings. The result? Ford’s profits are up 43 percent, while bailed-out GM and Chrysler lag behind.	What kind of fettering (I assume from the government) does today’s Ford Motor Company have? Are the authors referring here to regulations like the requirement that all motor vehicles must have seatbelts? Also, Ford was doing better than GM and Chrysler before the government intervention, allowing Ford to pass on the bailout. I agree that the bailing-out of “too-big-to-fail” companies is a terrible idea, but that issue is completely different from that of a public option for health insurance. The bail-outs are akin to a public mutual fund, i.e. purchasing shares of private companies with public money. Like the teacher in the earlier anecdote, we the people are all together “risking [our] own money . . . on a highly experimental venture . . . for the hope of tremendous gain should the enterprise succeed.” The bailouts are public purchases of companies that needed more investment capital. If the bailed-out companies turn around and survive, the money will be paid back with dividends; if the companies dissolve, the unrepaid money is lost. The only difference between the bailout and the schoolteacher story is who is investing and in which company.
In Henry Ford—a thin man who was the fattest of fat cats—we see an embodied refutation of President Obama’s worldview. Ford developed a new form of transportation vastly cheaper, faster, more convenient, and superior to the old mode. He continually lowered prices so that everyone, rich and poor, would have access to his product. He created thousands of jobs. He raised employee wages. He did all this good without government grants, bailouts, stimuli, subsidies, or coercion, but simply as a result of the honest pursuit of personal gain.	The thesis of this paragraph is preposterous. With healthcare reform, Obama is trying to develop a form of insurance that is “vastly cheaper, faster, more convenient, and superior to the old mode . . . [and create] thousands of jobs.” The final sentence of this paragraph seems to be a bastardization of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” However, Smith’s invisible hand helps the government via honest pursuit of personal gain; personal wealth is irrelevant in Smith’s theory. To say that Ford operated strictly outside of government influence is naïve, dishonest, or both.
This achievement was possible only because a private individual had the freedom to pursue his own self-interest, in cooperation with others who supported his vision and shared in the rewards, unencumbered by government.	The government of the United States is nothing but cooperation of individuals who support visions and share in rewards. All government actions are ultimately determined by the electorate and the representatives that the people represent. If any encumbering is going on, the encumbering is coming from the very people who are being encumbered (with unfortunate exceptions, like felons and fetuses).
By eliminating profit, Obama implies that everything else about an enterprise would remain the same, only the product would be cheaper and better. Actually, by removing profit, nothing at all would remain the same.	The argument is actually that health insurance is a right rather than an elective product. Obama is not trying to eliminate profit from enterprises; he is trying to correct the fact that healthcare is treated as a commodity for the privileged rather than a right for all people.
Contrary to Obama’s notions, profit is not an overhead cost, but a vital gain sought over and above costs in order to reward a company’s risk-takers. According to economist Ludwig von Mises, “Profit is the pay-off of successful action.” And “The elimination of profit . . . would create poverty for all.”	Profit is probably necessary for a successful privately-owned commerce-intended capitalist company, but not all endeavors are commercial, private, or capitalist. The auto industry is privately-owned, commercial, and capitalist. As such, the profit model makes sense for the industry. Healthcare, however, is a service industry. Publicly-owned not-for-profit can outperform privately-owned for-profit ventures, not in terms of money, but in terms of breadth of service or product. Private health insurance need not be eliminated, but a public option should be available for those who cannot afford or choose not to purchase private insurance. Analogously, many high-profile and wealthy people employ private security; the police serve this function for those of us who cannot afford to or otherwise choose not to have bodyguards. I feel like I am being random discussing healthcare here since the article mostly discusses the nearly unrelated topic of the Ford Motor Company, but looking back at the beginning of “A Lesson in Profit”, the article is apparently a response to some of the President’s remarks regarding healthcare.
Eliminate the hope of profit, and you extinguish that spark which ignites the human engine and powers it to explore uncharted roads: the creative mind. Profit is the proud product of the creative mind, and the creative mind is an attribute of the individual. Obama’s attack on profit is an attack on human creativity and innovation, which is an attack on the individual.	This paragraph is wildly contrived and untrue. History is filled with examples of creative people who were creative without profit as “that spark which ignites the human engine and powers it to explore uncharted roads.” Besides the aforementioned unAmericans, countless other artists, philosophers, scientists, and other creative-types have created and innovated without both eyes on the bottom line. Personally, I often struggle to contain creativity. I also have no desire for money beyond what I need to pay for the goods and services that I buy. Whenever I have excess funds, I give the money to organizations who need the money to provide for the needs of unfortunate people (e.g., abused children, orphans). I tip based on service rather than on how much I spent on my meal. For good service, I tip well even when I’m broke; I once literally tipped my last liquid dollar in such a situation. In the words of Henry Rollins, “I’d rather be heard than paid.” Do motivated creative people who are inspired despite (rather than because of) profit have some sort of disorder? Are people who are uninterested in financial gains nonindividuals? These questions are serious philosophical questions, and are not intended to poke fun.
Obama’s antipathy for the self-interested individual is explicit. “In America, we have this strong bias toward individual action,” he said in an interview in the Chicago Reader. “But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”	I agree with Obama. LaGreca and Enright are free to disagree with the president and me, but as someone with a likeminded viewpoint, I would like to elaborate on the president’s comment mentioned here. Individual actions and dreams are good and necessary, but collective actions and dreams provide additional benefits and fill niches left empty by individuals alone. This idea is not antipathetic towards individuals or towards self-interest. Rather, this idea is the cornerstone for having families, friends, language, communities, corporations, states, etc. Benjamin Franklin drew a famous political cartoon in an attempt to persuade people that the United States is a good idea because collective action can do things that individuals cannot. A related, more fundamental notion is that a human (or a snake) can do things that its cells cannot do individually.
It was Henry Ford’s individual actions and individual dreams that brought motorized, personal transportation within reach of everyone in the world.	Ford could not have had such a dream or made such profits without the collective purchases of automobiles by, apparently, “everyone in the world.” Earlier in this very article the authors proclaimed, “Henry Ford, at age 13, saw a steam-driven land vehicle, a “road locomotive,” which filled his imagination with the vision of a horseless carriage and fueled a passion to create one. As a young man, he worked day jobs, while trying to build a car in his free time,” citing several early examples of collective action in Ford’s rise to financial success. Ford did not invent the “road locomotive which fueled his imagination with the vision of a horseless carriage and fueled a passion to create one.” Nor did he live independently of society. Rather, he used common currency and networking to compile his inventions and innovations with those of contemporaries and predecessors. In the end, Ford made remarkable strides toward today’s automobile culture, but he did not do so in complete isolation. He did so as an individual that is also a part of several communities. He did not build the roads or build each car by hand. The assembly line is in fact an epitomic example of the superior power collective action has compared to individual action.
America is rooted in the “pursuit of happiness”—which means the right of each of us to create, to produce, to rise, to succeed, and to profit from the fruits of our labor. Contrast this worldview with that of a president who disparages the individual and seeks to limit or expropriate his profits on behalf of a faceless “collective.” Obama’s war on profit is a war against the individualist heart and soul of America.	“The pursuit of Happiness” is third in a list of three exemplars of “unalienable Rights” enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The first exemplar listed is “Life,” which I think should include access to life-saving medical procedures. These rights are defined as unalienable, meaning the rights apply to everyone. Every individual in America is the “faceless ‘collective’” that the authors refer to. I wonder which individual the authors think deserve these rights, since the American people are apparently an un-happiness-worthy collective. Also, in Obama’s quote, he used the adjective collective in the phrases “collective action” and “collective institutions and organizations;” LaGreca and Enright use the homonymic noun “collective” here as a derogatory and misleading turn of phrase. Obama has no “war on profit” nor “against the individualist heart and soul of America.”
Profits are a badge of honor earned by someone who offers others something they value enough to buy. The first buyer of the first car of the Ford Motor Company was a doctor. He was tired of hitching up his horse and buggy for nighttime emergencies. Ford’s product enhanced his life, as it later enhanced the lives of millions. Profit is the medal Ford received from his customers for a job well done.	Sainthood, inner peace, respect, gratitude, friendship, an improved world, actual badges and medals, future acknowledgement, and unknown yet beneficial effects are just a few other rewards that I think a person might consider recognition of a job well done. If profit were the only motivator, the words “anonymous” and “volunteer” would be much more uncommon.
If our nation is to cultivate productive geniuses like Henry Ford, it must proclaim that the quest for profit is moral and noble.	I contend that Benjamin Franklin, an avid proponent of collective action, institutions, and organizations, was a more creative person and a greater inventor, i.e. a more "productive genius," than Henry Ford. I also contest that the word “United” is in the name of United States of America, and that by including the idea of a union of individuals in the very name of the country indicates some favor toward that idea.
POSTSCRIPT: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently announced “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.” This means that the federal government, with its vast powers to fund highway projects, “liveability” initiatives, and other aid programs, as well as to tax gasoline, now intends, in LaHood’s stunningly brazen words, “to coerce people out of their cars,” in favor of walking or cycling. A century ago, Henry Ford, through capitalism and the profit motive, brought motorized transportation to the world. Now, an alarmingly anti-capitalist government is reversing that historic achievement and pulling us back to the pre-industrial age.	Walking a cycling are intended for short distances. LaHood also has initiatives for high-speed electric rail systems and development of new technologies for long-distance transportation. I do not know much about Enright and LaGreca, but I do know that Ray LaHood is a transportation expert. I also know that the plans of the transportation department are being dictated by the increasingly vocal and influential movement to break free from dependence on fossil fuels, a movement that continues to gain support from new directions. "An alarmingly anti-capitalist government is reversing that historic achievement [motorized transportation] and pulling us back to the pre-industrial age" is a blatantly dishonest statement. At least, I think they are talking about the United States government. If not, I apologize, but I would like to know what they are talking about. If I do understand what the authors are saying here, however, I maintain that the statement is untrue. The government is far from anti-capitalist (although capitalism as we have known it for the past century may be a doomed horse), and the Department of Transportation is working to bring us to the future beyond motorcars, not back to horse-drawn carriages.

I could go on, but this response is already longer than I would like. Please, respond to my response!

¹The original is only included for reference and for full context. Please read the original article at The Daily Caller. If you have an interest in the copyright of this article and would like me to remove the full text of the original, please just let me know.

Spirit of '68 presents Henry Rollins Frequent Flyer Spoken Word Tour, Monday, 2010 April 5, 8:00 PM, Bloomington, Indiana

2010-04-06T17:07:00.006-04:00

Last night, Henry Rollins performed for the first time in Bloomington, Indiana's Buskirk-Chumley Theater. I had seen Henry perform once before last night - Saturday, 2006 February 11 at American University in Washington, DC. Both performances were fantastic; both times Mr. Rollins exceeded my expectations, which were pretty high based on how much I have enjoyed his writing, music, and acting.

Check out some clips from the tour here: http://spiritof68promotions.com/?p=738 , and if you get a chance to see Hank on this tour, or at any other time: GO SEE HENRY ROLLINS. Read his books and posts and listen to his music and watch his shows and movies, too, but his live shows are the most unique. He continually demonstrates how much he cares about his audience. In any prerecorded format, that kind of care can be indemonstrable or can go unnoticed; in a packed theater, you can sense his intense interest and hopefulness.

Whether you agree with the man is irrelevant. He is thoughtful, interesting, and he has a lot to say. Most of what he says is worth hearing.

If you can't catch him and love YouTube videos, here is some footage from his Dublin show from this tour:

March Twenty-First, Two Thousand Ten...

2010-03-28T11:48:00.003-04:00

This is eight days before the next episode, from Comedy Central's news headquarters in New York, of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

This is also the day that Congress finally passed healthcare reform. Two days later, President Obama signed the bill into law.

The Daily Show's John Oliver.
Photo courtesy of tedkerwin.

I wonder if the Daily Show / Colbert Report break has anything to do with the timing of the passage and signing of the wonderful new law. Not long ago, the White House complimented the two fake news shows on their quality and toughness of coverage.

Perhaps the legislators and executives wanted a few days for the dust to settle before Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert broadcast the biggest fuckin' deals about their positive and difficult-to-pass for-the-good-of-the-people legislation.

A Need for Slavery

2010-03-21T10:36:00.002-04:00

The Confederate States of America were onto something: slaves are often necessary for an individual to become rich & powerful. However the War of Northern Aggression a.k.a. the American Civil War was an unnecessary struggle; slaves do not have to be a class of unpaid humans oppressed by collective bigotry. Slavery is not an all-or-nothing category. Plenty of modern individuals are slaves to some degree. Some are wage slaves who can't afford to miss a single day of work, no matter how sick they or their families might be. Some are slaves to their employers, coerced into dressing and behaving in a way that represents their respective companies' values, even when those values clash with their own personal values.
Slaves aren't necessarily people, either. Other animals, computers, robots, and other machines do, dare I say, most of the world's work without any expectation of a fair paycheck.
Modern Americans are quick to condemn our slave-owning ancestors, but we must remember that times have changed. Without a dishwasher, washing machine, air conditioner, computer, etc. etc., I suspect that most of us would desire slaves and that the anti-slave minority would be composed mostly of those who could not afford to feed slaves of their own. Times have changed more than we have, I think.