The Man. The Myth. The Hair. Donald Trump has made noise about running for the Presidency in 2012--and while it remains to be seen whether he's serious or just looking for some publicity or a stroking of the ego, he is at least saying some rather impressive things in recent media appearances. He's talking a good game about how we should deal with the Chinese, how America should re-build itself economically, and how Barack Obama isn't fit to manage a Tastee-Freeze, let alone be the President of the most powerful nation on earth.
But is that enough?
It's one thing to tell people what they want to hear when you appear on television--heck, Obama attained the Presidency by doing little more than this. But is The Donald truly a Conservative? What are his views on issues other than business and the economy? Is simply calling out Obama enough of a qualification to be President?
In the most recent edition of America's Evil Genius, I discuss these issues and analyze Trump's potential to be a good President. In addition, I introduce the "Presidential GPA", which will be the method I use throughout the run-up to 2012 to determine exactly who the best candidate for the Oval Office should be.
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Rebellion of the Responsible--How the "$75 Tennessee Housfire" points to a changing attitude regarding "Safety Net" government
First, before we get into the topic at hand in this post, a bit of housecleaning: As you may be aware, I'm a bit new to this "blogging" thing--so I'm learning what I'm doing as I go. As you likely are aware, comments on this blog are moderated by yours truly (only for the reason that I don't want this to turn into the typical AOL comments section filled with nothing of consequence). Tonight, when I logged in, I noticed a comment waiting for moderation that I had somehow missed for nearly a month. This is my fault, as I didn't notice the comment waiting for moderation, and I take full responsibility for the oversight. I assure you, faithful readers, that this shall not happen again. The comment has been published (It was in response to the "Gays and Kiss Cams" post), along with my response to it. My sincere apologies, particularly to the poster who originally made the comment...this type of oversight on my part shall not happen again, so sayeth the CWG!!!
Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.
The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.
Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.
After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.
But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.
For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.
However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.
We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.
If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.
A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.
Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.
The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.
Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.
The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.
Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.
After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.
But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.
For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.
However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.
We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.
If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.
A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.
Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.
The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Key Conservative Concept #2: "Fairness" and "Equality" are not interchageable terms
The words "equality" and "fairness" are tossed around--seemingly without a second thought--by the Left in almost every speech, soundbite, and debate that they have, whatever the issue might be. Equality and fairness are laudible goals--so we are told--that should be at the center of all legislative decisions.
But are these terms synomyms? Is fairness truly equitable? Is equality truly fair? Are these terms truly interchangeable?
First, let's consider what is meant by each term. For the term "Equality", WordNet Search defines the term in two ways--first "the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status", and secondly, as "a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced". On the face of it, those sound like laudible ideas--but is a goal of "equality" as defined either by constant sameness in measure of value, or a state of being equally balanced, truly something worthwhile for a society to aspire to? Think about that for a second...we'll come back to that question a bit later.
Now, let's consider the definition of "fairness". Wikipedia defines fairness as "The property of being fair". Um...ok...so that definition really told us nothing. So let's look back to our childhood and think of how many of us learned the concept of "fairness", through play, games, and sports. If you remember back to your childhood, a "fair" game or contest was one in which everybody played by the same rules and conditions. The the idea was that such a "fair" environment would give the best chance of winning to the person or team who played better on the day. When you played baseball, both teams get nine innings at bat. Would if be fair to give an inferior team 15 innings at bat, while restricting a superior team to only nine innings? Ceratainly not. When you played football, was an inferior team only required to make five yards for a first down, while a better team had to gain the full ten yards? Of course not.
In any truly fair competition, inequalities will naturally develop--those who play better, are more talented, and/or work harder will develop advantages within the context of the competition. Fast forwarding out of childhood and into adulthood, it stands to reason that if people are allowed to perform, develop, and work to extent that their talents and capabilities allow, then inequalities will natrually develop. Those who perform better in life will have a higher liklihood of "winning", those who don't perform as well will be less likely to "win" in the game of life. Because human beings are not created with equal amounts of talent, intelligence, drive, work ethic, or any number of other factors, human beings cannot expect to end up with equivalent results in a truly fair environment. Instead, a truly fair environment should see the "best and the brightest" have more success (and, by extension, more money and property, which are how human beings measure success, or "keep score") than others within society.
So now let's re-examine the concept of equality. The concept, as we defined earlier, is strictly about a numeric sameness. It does not take into account performace, work ethic, talent, or drive. Equality doesn't care who performed better or why, it simply takes from those with more natural ability (or from those who have less natural ability but have found a way to get more out of it), and gives to those who don't play "the game of life" as well. To pursue equality in this manner punishes success (and punishes all that leads to that success--the concepts of hard work, ingenuity, and drive) while rewarding failure. If you were playing any game, and you knew that no matter how many points you scored, the referee would simply end the game in a tie no matter what, then how hard would you try? How hard would you compete? Would you truly have anything to gain by playing your best game? I would think not.
So you see that "equality" is actually an unfair concept at it's core. Yet, the American Left bases much of their political philosophy around the concept of equality. How many times does the Left talk about taxing the rich at a higher rate than the rest of the population? While doing so might approach "equality", it certainly isn't "fair". Should those who can afford Health Care be forced to pay for those who cannot? In terms of fairness, the answer should be no-- because doing so rewards those who have not worked and sacrificed to become succesful while punishing those who have.
Much of Liberalism is about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. However, what Liberalism doesn't take into account is that there are some very good--and very fair--reasons why the "haves" have what they do, and the "have nots" don't.
The next time you hear a politician (usually a Liberal) talking about equality, your ears should now perk up...because you now realize that the politician in question is attempting to use the flawed concept of "equality" to foster an environment that is absolutely unfair.
But are these terms synomyms? Is fairness truly equitable? Is equality truly fair? Are these terms truly interchangeable?
First, let's consider what is meant by each term. For the term "Equality", WordNet Search defines the term in two ways--first "the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status", and secondly, as "a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced". On the face of it, those sound like laudible ideas--but is a goal of "equality" as defined either by constant sameness in measure of value, or a state of being equally balanced, truly something worthwhile for a society to aspire to? Think about that for a second...we'll come back to that question a bit later.
Now, let's consider the definition of "fairness". Wikipedia defines fairness as "The property of being fair". Um...ok...so that definition really told us nothing. So let's look back to our childhood and think of how many of us learned the concept of "fairness", through play, games, and sports. If you remember back to your childhood, a "fair" game or contest was one in which everybody played by the same rules and conditions. The the idea was that such a "fair" environment would give the best chance of winning to the person or team who played better on the day. When you played baseball, both teams get nine innings at bat. Would if be fair to give an inferior team 15 innings at bat, while restricting a superior team to only nine innings? Ceratainly not. When you played football, was an inferior team only required to make five yards for a first down, while a better team had to gain the full ten yards? Of course not.
In any truly fair competition, inequalities will naturally develop--those who play better, are more talented, and/or work harder will develop advantages within the context of the competition. Fast forwarding out of childhood and into adulthood, it stands to reason that if people are allowed to perform, develop, and work to extent that their talents and capabilities allow, then inequalities will natrually develop. Those who perform better in life will have a higher liklihood of "winning", those who don't perform as well will be less likely to "win" in the game of life. Because human beings are not created with equal amounts of talent, intelligence, drive, work ethic, or any number of other factors, human beings cannot expect to end up with equivalent results in a truly fair environment. Instead, a truly fair environment should see the "best and the brightest" have more success (and, by extension, more money and property, which are how human beings measure success, or "keep score") than others within society.
So now let's re-examine the concept of equality. The concept, as we defined earlier, is strictly about a numeric sameness. It does not take into account performace, work ethic, talent, or drive. Equality doesn't care who performed better or why, it simply takes from those with more natural ability (or from those who have less natural ability but have found a way to get more out of it), and gives to those who don't play "the game of life" as well. To pursue equality in this manner punishes success (and punishes all that leads to that success--the concepts of hard work, ingenuity, and drive) while rewarding failure. If you were playing any game, and you knew that no matter how many points you scored, the referee would simply end the game in a tie no matter what, then how hard would you try? How hard would you compete? Would you truly have anything to gain by playing your best game? I would think not.
So you see that "equality" is actually an unfair concept at it's core. Yet, the American Left bases much of their political philosophy around the concept of equality. How many times does the Left talk about taxing the rich at a higher rate than the rest of the population? While doing so might approach "equality", it certainly isn't "fair". Should those who can afford Health Care be forced to pay for those who cannot? In terms of fairness, the answer should be no-- because doing so rewards those who have not worked and sacrificed to become succesful while punishing those who have.
Much of Liberalism is about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. However, what Liberalism doesn't take into account is that there are some very good--and very fair--reasons why the "haves" have what they do, and the "have nots" don't.
The next time you hear a politician (usually a Liberal) talking about equality, your ears should now perk up...because you now realize that the politician in question is attempting to use the flawed concept of "equality" to foster an environment that is absolutely unfair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)