The most remarkable thing about Revolutionaries is how they so hate Revolution. Yes, they are the ultimate NIMBYs -- once they got theirs, nobody else is entitled. According to all Revolutionaries, Revolution (read: their Revolution) is wonderful, it represents the will of the people, sets up a much needed Thugocracy, whether it be Marxist or Religious in character and always ends up replacing one evil King with another evil King or, in the case of Iran, a counsel of bearded evil Kings. Revolutions are supposed to be one-way - my revolution is the Last Revolution. Hitler and Hess broadcast the same notion: "woe to those who would revolt against the revolution." (Yes, they really did say that). Well, the only way to end revolution is to allow the ultimate revolutionary floodgates to be opened - and to give people a Republic, a Constitutional Libertarian based government and the freedom to change leadership. In reviewing the struggle of man to be free, one has to work back, in amazement, over the past 2500 years of Western Accomplishment - initiated in Greece, continued by Rome and preserved for all of us in institutions modeled on these ancient principles by our founding fathers. Yes, our country is founded on Roman principles of Comitia Curiata, Senate, original division of powers, limited terms of office, independence of action - checks and counter-balances. The infectious pollen of freedom was first born by the flower of Greece, continued into the construction of the Republic after the overthrown of the Tarquin kings of Rome - blood upon blood spilled from the veins of men desiring freedom. The best way to preserve a revolution is to allow people to speak through the ballot box while ensuring fundamental freedoms that no majority or minority can take away -- even through the ballot box. So, after the sacrifices of life and fortune of the courageous many who have spoken for freedom over the millenia -- what do we have today? Obama is afraid to speak up and be accused of "meddling" in Iranian affairs. Diane Feinstein says that "we don't want our fingerprints on what is happening in Iran" and we have to watch what we say. If the people who founded this country and sailed to America in leaky boats 400 years ago to start this country had this much courage, they would have never have left the harbor.
Doug Foley
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Apothegm
If well behaved women seldom make history, what about Presidents? - Free Tibet - Free Iran
M.D.T.
M.D.T.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Scratching the Surface
So why can’t I go out in the marketplace and get a competitive bid to take care of my flabby white ass in the event I get cancer and only cancer? Or how about only for heart attack or stroke? Or how about only problems stemming from diabetes? Why can’t I take a look at my own family history, then get a competitive bid on just the type and amount of coverage which I think necessary? Where’s the ala carte menu? I’ll tell you why. Because our beneficent government thinks most of us are too damn stupid to make those decisions for ourselves and they don’t allow insurance companies to sell such policies. Just like most of us are too damn stupid to save for our own retirement, and too damn stupid to buckle our seat belt, etc. etc,
OK. I admit some Americans are too damn stupid to not wear a life jacket in a boat in a maelstrom, but why does that mean that those of us that aren’t that damn stupid have to be subject to the same rules as they? Well maybe it’s because the government thinks, perhaps accurately, that some of us think we’re smarter than we are. In a word, we’re not smart enough to tell if we’re smart. Good point. But just who in gad-jeezus gave the government the monopoly on smarts anyway? What makes them smart enough to determine if they’re smart enough to determine if we’re smart enough to determine if we need to wear bike helmets?
Those who believe that government is a force for good also have to believe that those who occupy its decision making positions, are smarter than the rest of us and that it’s possible to elect such people.* That’s why it’s impossible to be a statist/liberal without being an elitist. You have to believe that those smarter and most virtuous should make decisions for everyone else. When a liberal votes for someone, they’re essentially voting for someone to take care of them. No practical experience necessary, just a good heart, a good mind, and a belief in government as a force for good? (Remind you of anyone?)
But if our government doesn’t think we have the head-horse-power to make most practical decisions for our own well-being, how can they believe in a free society? If the only decisions we are allowed to make for ourselves are those that won’t potentially hurt us, are we in any real sense of the term, free people? And if we’re not allowed to make the most important decisions in our lives, what happens over time to our drive to succeed and to accomplish more with our lives, our will to take care of and defend ourselves, our sense of self-reliance and self-worth, even our creativity? Does the word maturity mean anything in a society where these goals and qualities aren't held in high esteem?
Clearly, those who believe that a uniform panoply of laws, regulations and disincentives must be imposed to protect each and every individual from their own bad choices can’t simultaneously, in any real sense, believe in a free society. If political freedom isn’t the ability to make meaningful decisions about one’s own life and future, what is it? It is a testament to the left’s elitist belief in their own goodness and wisdom that they can’t bear to allow any of us to hurt ourselves. But where's the line between a society that controls all potentially hazardous human activity and a totalitarian society? Strange, how quelled within seemingly innocuous terminology like ‘public safety’, lurks the potentially quintessential evil of tyranny. One needn’t scratch the surface of liberalism too deep to find totalitarianism. Failed controls bequeaths more control. A government strong enough to give you all you need is a government strong enough to take away all you have; but to gain that much power, it first has to cajole you into giving up your freedom. And in a democracy, paradoxically, giving up one’s freedom, is a choice.
*I’ve asked a score of liberals this question and never got a nay when asked for instance, ‘Do you think that if we got the right people in office we could fix health care?’
M.D.T.
OK. I admit some Americans are too damn stupid to not wear a life jacket in a boat in a maelstrom, but why does that mean that those of us that aren’t that damn stupid have to be subject to the same rules as they? Well maybe it’s because the government thinks, perhaps accurately, that some of us think we’re smarter than we are. In a word, we’re not smart enough to tell if we’re smart. Good point. But just who in gad-jeezus gave the government the monopoly on smarts anyway? What makes them smart enough to determine if they’re smart enough to determine if we’re smart enough to determine if we need to wear bike helmets?
Those who believe that government is a force for good also have to believe that those who occupy its decision making positions, are smarter than the rest of us and that it’s possible to elect such people.* That’s why it’s impossible to be a statist/liberal without being an elitist. You have to believe that those smarter and most virtuous should make decisions for everyone else. When a liberal votes for someone, they’re essentially voting for someone to take care of them. No practical experience necessary, just a good heart, a good mind, and a belief in government as a force for good? (Remind you of anyone?)
But if our government doesn’t think we have the head-horse-power to make most practical decisions for our own well-being, how can they believe in a free society? If the only decisions we are allowed to make for ourselves are those that won’t potentially hurt us, are we in any real sense of the term, free people? And if we’re not allowed to make the most important decisions in our lives, what happens over time to our drive to succeed and to accomplish more with our lives, our will to take care of and defend ourselves, our sense of self-reliance and self-worth, even our creativity? Does the word maturity mean anything in a society where these goals and qualities aren't held in high esteem?
Clearly, those who believe that a uniform panoply of laws, regulations and disincentives must be imposed to protect each and every individual from their own bad choices can’t simultaneously, in any real sense, believe in a free society. If political freedom isn’t the ability to make meaningful decisions about one’s own life and future, what is it? It is a testament to the left’s elitist belief in their own goodness and wisdom that they can’t bear to allow any of us to hurt ourselves. But where's the line between a society that controls all potentially hazardous human activity and a totalitarian society? Strange, how quelled within seemingly innocuous terminology like ‘public safety’, lurks the potentially quintessential evil of tyranny. One needn’t scratch the surface of liberalism too deep to find totalitarianism. Failed controls bequeaths more control. A government strong enough to give you all you need is a government strong enough to take away all you have; but to gain that much power, it first has to cajole you into giving up your freedom. And in a democracy, paradoxically, giving up one’s freedom, is a choice.
*I’ve asked a score of liberals this question and never got a nay when asked for instance, ‘Do you think that if we got the right people in office we could fix health care?’
M.D.T.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Let's Buy China
Wouldn’t it only seem reasonable that if our government is going to enter into the usual realm of private business, e.g. autos, banking, health care, that they be compensated to some degree, in the same manner as those who, dare I say, swim in those deeper waters? In conformance with our renewed spirit to control executive compensation and tie executive pay to performance, I propose that we require all of our federal legislators that believe so strongly in preserving our domestic union auto industry be required to take 10% of their annual remuneration in GM and Chrysler stock for the next 10 years. After all, if it’s a good deal for the taxpayer it should be a good deal for them, don’t you think? And why shouldn’t they financially benefit from their financial acumen in discerning such an undervalued asset? Why not a single private capital source was prescient enough to put up a dime during their descent into bankruptcy? Those fools living outside the beltway just don’t know excellent value when they see it!
Why, those brain-dead-execs can’t even see the proverbial King Solomon's gold mine just screaming to be exhumed from the green energy revolution. Big oil, big coal and their like should have been investing billions in wind power, bio-fuels and solar, right? If they’re too stupid to see such salient opportunities right in front of their faces, what’s wrong with rewarding our more sagacious market maven legislators with a share of profits? Let’s make them take 20% of their annual compensation in after tax and subsidy profits of our new private/public partnership energy companies. Let them pile up the big green for being green!
Why stop there? If we can save money and still provide quality health care by having the government run it, let’s pay them another 20% of every dollar they save us on health care. And certainly we would be remiss if we didn’t reward our savant salons with additional compensation for the improvements yet to be realized in public education. Let’s give them another 20% of their take-home in bonuses for increasing standardized test and SAT scores and decreasing the drop-out rate. What a great deal for them and for the taxpayer! It’s a total win-win. I'm confident that if we dig a little deeper we can find, without too much sweat, a way to base the total compensation of our entire federal and state legislatures on performance. Who’d mind paying our senators and congressmen seven figures plus a year if it was based upon real, measurable savings and profits? But wait a minute. What do we do when our senators and congressman run into their own executive compensation limits? We couldn't pay them all that they've earned. No worry. They can easily amend the law, at least for themselves, by adding some obscure line-item to a late night anti-poverty bill.
( Unfortunately, if we actually paid lawmakers based upon a percentage of profits we would fall into violation of the federal minimum wage laws so I guess we’d be obligated to pay them at least $6.55/hr no matter what. But would anyone besides me be truly surprised if that’s all they ended up making? Perhaps that’s all they’re really worth? )
Saints be damned! Why not have President Obama appoint George Soros and Warren Buffet to implement measurable pay for performance standards unilaterally for all state and federal employees as our new Public Employee Compensation Czars. Can anyone imagine how much money could be saved if government operated at a profit? Can anyone imagine a government that didn't need more money? What if public institutions were actually run as efficiently as the private sector? Hell, we could start buying up hundreds of Chinese companies with our profits instead of them buying ours. Shazam, no trade deficit! At the very least, 'we the people' could buy the entire depraved U.S. pharmaceutical industry and our newly liberated, financially adept government entrepreneurs could show those idiots how to make money while lowering drugs prices. And then we could buy the depraved tobacco industry and then the depraved auto... woops, already bought that! Maybe there might be enough cash left over to buy Starbucks and lower the price of my favorite mocha! Why not just let them run everything! With Uncle controlling our auto, energy, retirement, banking, health care, mortgage industries, education etc., we'll finally be able to just quit worrying, 'git ourselves one of dem der new green guberment jobs', drink the people's lattes, relax and play with our iPhones*. Why take any chances? Freedom is choosing your ringtone......
* Isn't that cute the way Apple uses the lower case 'i'. Might this possibly suggest some sort of subconscious mass sublimination of the the big 'I' individual ego. Suppose it's better than a 'wePhone'. Paranoid me.
M.D.T.
Why, those brain-dead-execs can’t even see the proverbial King Solomon's gold mine just screaming to be exhumed from the green energy revolution. Big oil, big coal and their like should have been investing billions in wind power, bio-fuels and solar, right? If they’re too stupid to see such salient opportunities right in front of their faces, what’s wrong with rewarding our more sagacious market maven legislators with a share of profits? Let’s make them take 20% of their annual compensation in after tax and subsidy profits of our new private/public partnership energy companies. Let them pile up the big green for being green!
Why stop there? If we can save money and still provide quality health care by having the government run it, let’s pay them another 20% of every dollar they save us on health care. And certainly we would be remiss if we didn’t reward our savant salons with additional compensation for the improvements yet to be realized in public education. Let’s give them another 20% of their take-home in bonuses for increasing standardized test and SAT scores and decreasing the drop-out rate. What a great deal for them and for the taxpayer! It’s a total win-win. I'm confident that if we dig a little deeper we can find, without too much sweat, a way to base the total compensation of our entire federal and state legislatures on performance. Who’d mind paying our senators and congressmen seven figures plus a year if it was based upon real, measurable savings and profits? But wait a minute. What do we do when our senators and congressman run into their own executive compensation limits? We couldn't pay them all that they've earned. No worry. They can easily amend the law, at least for themselves, by adding some obscure line-item to a late night anti-poverty bill.
( Unfortunately, if we actually paid lawmakers based upon a percentage of profits we would fall into violation of the federal minimum wage laws so I guess we’d be obligated to pay them at least $6.55/hr no matter what. But would anyone besides me be truly surprised if that’s all they ended up making? Perhaps that’s all they’re really worth? )
Saints be damned! Why not have President Obama appoint George Soros and Warren Buffet to implement measurable pay for performance standards unilaterally for all state and federal employees as our new Public Employee Compensation Czars. Can anyone imagine how much money could be saved if government operated at a profit? Can anyone imagine a government that didn't need more money? What if public institutions were actually run as efficiently as the private sector? Hell, we could start buying up hundreds of Chinese companies with our profits instead of them buying ours. Shazam, no trade deficit! At the very least, 'we the people' could buy the entire depraved U.S. pharmaceutical industry and our newly liberated, financially adept government entrepreneurs could show those idiots how to make money while lowering drugs prices. And then we could buy the depraved tobacco industry and then the depraved auto... woops, already bought that! Maybe there might be enough cash left over to buy Starbucks and lower the price of my favorite mocha! Why not just let them run everything! With Uncle controlling our auto, energy, retirement, banking, health care, mortgage industries, education etc., we'll finally be able to just quit worrying, 'git ourselves one of dem der new green guberment jobs', drink the people's lattes, relax and play with our iPhones*. Why take any chances? Freedom is choosing your ringtone......
* Isn't that cute the way Apple uses the lower case 'i'. Might this possibly suggest some sort of subconscious mass sublimination of the the big 'I' individual ego. Suppose it's better than a 'wePhone'. Paranoid me.
M.D.T.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
