Friday, May 9, 2008
7:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I know, that really surprises you regulars… But, via Hugh Hewitt, we have a perfect illustration with what I believe is wrong with Barack Obama. It is a mindset that permeates everything he is and does, and is brought to us courtesy of his wife Michelle, speaking on Friday ahead of this past week's North Carolina primary election.
(Throughout these quotes, the emphasis is mine.)
But we've also learned something else this year, something that we've all sort of felt at some point in our life, that we're still living in a nation, and in a time when the bar is set, I talk about this all the time, they set the bar. They say look, if you do these things, you can get to this bar, right? And then you work and you struggle, you do everything that they say, and you think you're getting close to the bar and you're working hard, and you're sacrificing, and then you get to the bar, you're right there, you're reaching out for the bar, you think you have it, and then what happens? They move the bar. They raise it up. They shift it to the left and to the right. It's always just quite out of reach.
This is a diatribe on victimhood. Look how many times the work “they” is used to refer to some external entity. The person she's describing does not believe that they are responsible for their own happiness - this person is too busy being held down by “them” (what previous generations would call “the man”). Ironically, though, this is pretty much real life she's disparaging here. How many people have saved up to buy something, only to find that they forgot the tax, or it's suddenly more expensive. I experience this in my line of work all the time. “Build it to these requirements.” So I build it. “Oh, why did you do it that way?” Because that's what the requirements said. “Oh, yeah - but what I meant was something else.”
And, who was it that said “Aim for the moon”? (No, not the “nuke the moon” folks over at IMAO...) Achievement is great, but it shouldn't be an end in and of itself. Once you achieve your goals, you set new ones and begin pushing again. That's the premise of the whole “SMART” goal-setting process. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely, for those who've never heard of that.) You break your big goal into specific, measurable, realistic goals (ex. “win in North Carolina”). It's not moving the bar, it's moving on to the next small goal.
And that's a little bit of what Barack has been experiencing. The bar is constantly changing for this man. Raise the money? Not enough. Build an organization? Not enough. Win a whole bunch of states? Not the right states. You got to win certain states. So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race…
Well, raising money means nothing for the presidency - if it did, we'd have wrapped up the second term of President Forbes in 2004. So no, that's not enough. If organization was key, Barack wouldn't even get to run because President Dean would be going for his second term. So no, still not enough. Win a bunch of states? Well, if you win 3 states for 100 delegates, and your opponent wins 1 state for 150 delegates, then yes, you won the wrong states. You're whining that running for President is tough? What did you expect, that raising enough money for a coronation would be enough?
...but the irony is, the sad irony is that that's exactly what's happening to most Americans in this country. The bar is shifting and moving on people all the time. And folks are struggling like never before, working harder than ever, believing that their hard work will lead to some reward, some payoff. But what they find is that they get there and the bar has changed, things are different, wasn't enough. So you have to work even harder.
No, they're not. This view of America is completely flawed. Yes, people are working hard. Yes, some are feeling the pinch of bad decisions or bad circumstances. It's not that the bar has changed, it's that real life has hit. The most important thing to realize in all this, though, is that when life happens, it's not the job of the government to step in and “fix” it.
And see what happens when you live in a nation where the vast majority of Americans are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then what happens in that nation is that people do become isolated. They do live in a level of division, because see, when you're that busy struggling all the time, which most people that you know and I know are, that you don't have time to get to know your neighbor. You don't have time to reach out and have conversations, to share stories. In fact, you feel very alone in your struggle, because you feel that somehow, it must be your fault that you're struggling so hard. Everybody else must be doing okay. I must be doing something wrong, so you hide. You don't realize that the struggles of that farmer in rural Iowa are the same as the struggles as a city worker in the south side of Chicago, because we don't talk to each other.
In the immortal words of Toby Keith, “A little less talk, and a lot more action.” If you're busting your butt to get ahead, you're struggling, you don't have a lot of time for conversations and story sharing. If you think that they're valuable to helping you with your struggle, you make time for them. If you can attain your goals without touchy-feely stuff, then you probably don't.
And, there's a bit of smug self-centeredness in this description as well. I don't believe that most people feel that they're all that different from other people. Certainly not any of the people I know - in fact, it's been my experience that the easiest common topic to discuss with people is child rearing. Everyone has a funny story from that, and most people's experience is quite similar. You're revealing a part of yourself that I don't think you meant to reveal.
And when you live in a nation with a vast majority of Americans are struggling to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then naturally, people become cynical. They don't believe that politics can do anything for them. So they fold their arms in disgust, and they say you know, I can't be bothered voting, because it has never done anything for me before. So let me stay home, let me not bother. Naturally, we as a nation get cynical.
Politics can't do anything for anyone! What people become cynical about is politicians who say one thing to get elected, then do another once in office. Why do you think our current President's approval rating has been in the toilet for some time? He campaigned as a conservative, then moved to middle once elected. His base doesn't like it because he's betrayed them, and his opponents still don't like him because he caused the country to get an education in electoral law in 2000. You don't find much in the middle of the road other than roadkill.
And besides, isn't “politician” the charge that got your husband all riled up? His pastor can say those horrendous things about our country, and he's just an old man from a different generation - but as soon as he accused Barack of being a politician, that's when he got disowned. (That's the irony - Barack's response to that essentially proved what Dr. Wright said!)
And when you live in a nation where people are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then what happens in that kind of nation is that people are afraid, because when your world's not right, no matter how hard you work, then you become afraid of everyone and everything, because you don't know who's fault it is, why you can't get a handle on life, why you can't secure a better future for your kids.
I'm not afraid. Is it because I'm one of those folks who's clinging to God and guns? :) I'm not too awfully worried about securing a better future for my kids. What I'm concerned with is teaching my kids how not to become victims; teaching them how to take responsibility for their actions; teaching them that if they want something done, they should do it; teaching them respect for other people; teaching them the difference between respecting the earth (which we learn as Cub Scouts) and worshiping it. Secure a better future for my kids? My ultimate goal is to feel that the future is secure because my kids are in it.
And the problem with fear is that it cuts us off. Fear is the worst enemy. It cuts us off from one another and our own families, and our communities, and it has certainly cut us off from the rest of the world. It's like fear creates this veil of impossibility, and it is hanging over all of our heads, and we spend more time now in this nation talking about what we can't do, what won't work, what can't change.
If people would quit trying to recycle failed socialistic programs and wealth-envy politics, we'd have a lot less to talk about. Many of us would love to talk about change, but it's tough to talk with someone who won't debate like an adult. An example of what won't work is the current Social Security ponzi scheme. But, a few years ago, when an attempt was made to get our government out of the Social Security business, opponents screamed about how they'd be taking food out of grandma's mouth. It's the same with the minimum wage debate - the claim is made that you can't support a family of four on minimum wage. First off, it is possible, if you live within your means (a foreign concept these days, I know - see collapse, mortgage, sub-prime); secondly, that's not what minimum wage is designed for. On the other side, you've got a $7+ minimum wage, and we wonder why there's a demand for $2/hour illegal labor. It's not that there are jobs Americans won't do, it's that they, by law, can't do them!
And one more example of the whole “arguing like adults” thing, blogress Cassy Fiano recently posted two pictures of Barack Obama's celebration in North Carolina - one from the campaign itself, the other from Mary Katherine Ham, who was there covering it. The pictures illustrated that, though some creative photography, it appeared that the venue was full when it was, in fact, not. What was the number one liberal response to this heinous exposure of “politicianing”? You're fat. (Language warning on that link.)
See, and the problem with that kind of thinking is that we passed that on to our children, because see, the thing I know as a mother is our children are watching everything we do and say, every explicit and implicit sign, they are watching us. And our fear is helping us to raise a nation of young doubters, young people who are insular and they're timid. And they don't try, because they already heard us tell them why they can't succeed. See, and I don't want that for my kids.
Then don't live in a fear-induced paralysis! Get out there and take control of your destiny. Go to school, apply for that better job, update your resume, do what it takes. That's the picture you want your kids to see. I'll tell you what, you're into real life here again - that is what's happening to our kids. But don't bemoan it, do something about it! There's nothing that the President of the United States can do to tackle that kind of fear, and putting that responsibility on him is a big part of the problem.
You know, jobs like my father had those blue collar jobs where you got pensions, vacation, all that, they're dwindling. They're drying up. They're disappearing, going overseas. And if you're lucky enough to have a job, nine times out of ten, your salary's not keeping up with the cost of living. Barack and I met with a family of railroad workers, union folks. They said for eight years, they hadn't seen a pay increase. For eight years, zero pay increase. Eight years. No increase. Gas prices going up, food going up, rent, insurance, own a home, what's going with the mortgages? That's going up. It's all going up, and salaries are staying stagnant. So no wonder that bar feels like it's moving.
And why is that? See regulation, government, obscene. People who don't understand free-market economics think that they can levy whatever requirement they want on business (usually some sort of wealth-distribution scheme), and that business owners are just going to eat that out of their profits. That's not the way the real world works. This is part of the minimum wage debate too - if I employ 10 people at $5/hour, and I suddenly have to pay them $7/hour, that a $20/hour of overhead I'm going to incur. To fix that, I will either raise my prices to compensate, or let 3 of the people go. With the former, the buying power of the $7/hour wage is diminished, and with the latter, three of the folks lose all their buying power (moving the bar, no doubt). Why are these jobs going overseas? Because people there will work harder, for less money, and be grateful to have a job in the first place.
And I don't know how single parents do it. There are millions of them all over this country. Let me tell you, single parents love their kids, too. But it is almost impossible to raise a family of any size on a single salary. So now you've got single parents who have to double and triple shift, taking on two, three jobs, working all the time, and feeling like they're failing because that bar is moving, because how on Earth are you going to work as hard as you need to to pay the bills and be at parent/teacher conferences, and sit down and do homework when a kid has trouble? How are you going to manage all that? Well, folks are not, and they're doing it suffering in silence, blaming themselves for the fact that they're not working hard enough. Maybe something's wrong.
Ooh boy - time for some insensitivity. I agree, something's wrong. People in this country have lost their backbone to stand up and say that single parenthood is not the ideal child-rearing environment! This isn't a knock on single parents per se, but most of the single parents I know would agree that it is not the ideal environment. But since no one will say that, and we've elevated our own self-centeredness to such an extent that people just get out of their marriages if they're not happy instead of working on them, we get this. The people I feel sorry for in single-parent households are the kids. Men and women both bring different styles and aspects to the parenting table, and the presence of both has the best opportunity to produce a good result.
This also comes back to the whole “living within your means” thing. It doesn't take three jobs to support a family - I've got three kids and a wife living on one enlisted military salary, and we get by just fine. No, we don't have a new Toyota Sienna (much to my wife's dismay), but we have what we need.
And [Barack] has spent every ounce of his time running over the decisions in his head - do I...when graduating from college, do I work on Wall Street? Make a lot of money, that'd be better for me, or do I go work in a community as an organizer? Well, what did Barack do? He became a community organizer, working in some of the toughest neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago, worked for years in neighborhoods where people had a reason to give up hope, because their jobs had been lost, steel mills shut down, living in brown fields left by those closed steel plants, unsafe streets, schools deteriorating, grandparents raising grandkids. Barack spent years working with churches, busing single mothers down to City Hall to help them find their voice, building the kind of operations on the ground just like he's doing in this race, block by block, person by person. Now you tell me whether there's anybody in this race who can claim to have made the same choice with their lives. You tell me, but I think that Barack Obama is the only person that can claim that kind of choice.
And, were he running for Humanitarian of the Year, this might be a good thing. But he's not - he's running for President of the United States of America. He wants to be the CEO of one of the largest economies on the planet, yet he has no experience in managing anything, even a non-profit. (If you're on the ground, house to house and driving buses, you're not managing.) People don't just “get” to be CEO because they're a nice person. They start in lower management, working out their inevitable neophyte mistakes and gaining experience as to what does and doesn't work. Then they move up and prove their abilities at a higher level. Even then, things don't always go smoothly. Carly Fiorina, the HP exec who “broke the glass ceiling,” was supposed to take HP to heights previously unknown. As it turns out, her ideas didn't match up with what the market wanted, and she left a few years later, much more quietly than she arrived.
The job is President of the United States is a tough one, but it's not the President of the World. Sometimes, what's best for the USA is not what's best for some other countries. I don't want my President making decisions for the betterment of other countries to the detriment of this one. You may think that's why we should all be opposed to the Iraq war, but that's why I'm for it. I believe that instilling a representative form of government in that area of the country will help stabilize that region, which will in turn stabilize our nation. That way, we can have the time to deal with the people here that need attention.
So, there you have it - several reasons I'm not supporting Barack Obama.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
10:30 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Here's part 2 of the 3-part series “2006 Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.” While part 1 dealt with items that are bad on a ridiculous level, there is nothing humorous about these happenings during 2006.
Congress Goes Democrat
(Link: CNN)
I covered this in depth with my post “Why the Republicans Lost” earlier in the year. Now, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to be in control of the legislative branch. While our nation can survive, this does signal the end of many meaningful reforms. Immigration enforcement, strict-constructionist judicial nominees, and meaningful energy reforms are all distant memories. In their place we'll get amnesty for illegal aliens, judicial activists, and economy-crushing minimum wage increases.
The majority of Americans don't seem to understand that the latter is a ploy by union workers, who want raises but are contractually tied to a level above minimum wage. When it goes up, their pay goes up. However, businesses only have money as they collect it from their customers - increased payroll expense will only drive prices higher, at which point the buying power of the new minimum wage is about the same as the buying power of the old. Higher minimum wage levels also reduce the number of entry-level jobs held by students and retirees - I'm really surprised that the same party who panders to seniors and says that everything they want to do is “for the children” is in favor of such a move.
Hey, Terrorists Have Rights, Too!
(Link: Wikipedia)
The Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld established that military tribunals could not be used to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This ruling, in effect, gave unlawful combatants official status, and required that they be given access to our justice system. President Bush asked Congress to clarify rules for detainee treatment, leading to what some have dubbed the “Terrorist Bill of Rights.” During debate on this and other bills throughout the year, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and others were adamant about adding “no torture” language into bills. Techniques such as water-boarding (where a person feels like they're drowning, but they really aren't), which had been used to extract intelligence that prevented attacks, were now no longer allowed.
This is a trend that I hope and pray does not continue into 2007. We Americans are gracious to our enemies, sometimes to a fault. But, there comes a point when we need to realize that they are our enemies. When they take up arms against us, when they align themselves with organizations that have, as their stated goals, the destruction of our nation - if we capture you, expect to be made to talk.
We Support Prosecute the Troops
(Link: Euphoric Reality)
Eight Marines have been charged with murder and other charges relating to an incident in the Iraqi town of Haditha. These men were part of a patrol in this city, when their patrol was attacked with an IED (improvised explosive device). After the IED went off, they were also receiving hostile fire from both sides of the street. As their training taught them, they laid down suppressive fire to remove the casualties that they had taken, then launched a counter-offensive to kill the insurgents that had inflicted this attack on them.
Once the shooting had stopped, some of the Iraqis in that town began complaining about the counter-offensive, saying that the people who had been killed were innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the attack. These stories were often contradictory, but that didn't matter to the folks here who never miss a chance to broadcast bad news. The link above is very lengthy (and the other information it links are also lengthy), but it is a detailed analysis as to what happened that day, and how it is being prosecuted. Even an embedded CNN reporter does not believe these allegations.
This is disgraceful, and I hope that the court-martial comes out in favor of these dedicated Marines. “War is hell” isn't just a quip - it's reality.
Iran and North Korea Go Nuclear
(Links: Federation of American Scientists | Sign on San Diego)
With current concerns over terrorism, and nukes that Russia can't find, two nations hostile to the United States declared their nuclear capabilities this year. North Korea has been testing missiles (although these tests were, by all accounts, an abject failure) and nuclear warheads. Iran claims that their nuclear capability is only to be used for power. Why do I not trust Iran? Let me count the ways… They are the primary supplier of personnel and weapons for the insurgency in Iraq. They teamed up with Syria to support Hezbollah in their attacks on Israel earlier this year. They hosted a holocaust denial conference. And that was all this year!
All nations have a right to defend themselves. However, when these nations have proved themselves hostile to us and friendly to our enemies, we must demand that they pursue their defense using conventional weapons.
That is certainly not all of the bad things that happened this year, but I believe they are some that will have the most enduring impression on our world and our nation. Next up - the good!
Sunday, October 17, 2004
9:25 pm
Daniel J. Summers
John Kerry and John Edwards (“Kedwards” hereafter) are making some significant claims about their plan for this country, and using some pretty strong but rather hackneyed rhetoric to get their point across. The term “demagoguery” is defined as “impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace.” Democrats are renowned for this, from the “New Deal” to Clinton's famous “I feel your pain,” Democrats base a lot of their policies on what they can spin to appeal to emotions, rather than facts. Let's take some of these areas, specifically some of those having to do with economics, and see why, I believe, Kedwards is wrong for America.
Tax Cuts for the Rich
This has been a favorite claim of Democrats for ages, and it shows a basic lack of understanding regarding basic economic principles. The biggest thing that Democrats have wrong is their belief that taxes are the governments, to be “given back” to the people. Taxes are the people's money, given to the government to fund needed programs, such as national defense, highways, etc. Tax cuts are not “giving back,” they are letting people keep more of their money.
Another problem with their rhetoric is that speaking of taxes in dollar amounts is inherently going to sound skewed to someone who isn't paying attention (which, sadly, represents a lot more of our current electorate than we'd like). Imagine that there are two people - one makes $10,000 a year, and the other makes $200,000 a year. In this imaginary world, everyone pays 10% taxes. This means that person A pays $1,000 in taxes a year, and person B pays $20,000. Now, here come the media reports about a budget surplus, and Congress and the President decide to cut taxes by 1%. Person A saves $100, and person B saves $2,000 - in both cases, a 10% reduction in the total amount of taxes they have to pay. If you use Democrat thinking, person B got 95% of the tax cut.
Tax cuts benefit everyone. Those who make more, by virtue of simple mathematics, will receive a larger amount reduction whenever tax rates are lowered. However, these are also people who will use this money to reinvest in our economy, either through business expansion (which leads to more jobs), investments in stocks and bonds (which helps fund the economy), or through charitable donations (which improves the quality of life in local communities).
Another point on tax cuts - sometimes a reduction in the tax rate can actually increase tax income. If done correctly, tax cuts don't have to be “paid for,” they pay for themselves. If a gas station lowers its price for unleaded gasoline by $.02 a gallon, they will more than make up for their $.02 loss with their increase in volume. Taxes work the same way - when the rates are reduced, the economy grows; so, while we all pay less rate-wise, we pay more in real dollars. Everyone wins.
Minimum Wage Increase
Yet another favorite topic, and another place that Democrats don't understand economics. A wage is a negotiated contract between employee and employer. Most often, all negotiating is done on the part of the employee, as an employer would say “Here's a job, and here's the pay - want it?” Very few people are raising families on minimum wage, and in their “average annual minimum-wage salary” statistics, the Democrats are including teens, college students, and spouses who work as secondary wage earners in their household. When the government interferes in business by forcing them to pay their entry-level workers more, what do the businesses do? There are either fewer entry-level jobs, or the products and/or services the company produces begin costing more.
There is one segment of the population who benefits from minimum-wage increases - union members. Many union contracts stipulate their wage in relation to the minimum wage - when it increases, their wages increase as well.
Corporate Tax Loopholes
Again, more cries of how these evil corporations are trying to get out of paying their taxes. And, yet again, this is a place that the Democrats don't just get it. They miss it because, economically, there is no such thing as a “corporate tax”. There is a finite amount of money in this country, and corporations only have money if they extract it from the general public. The most common method is by providing a good or service for which people will give their money. With this money, they have to cover their operating expenses, the cost of the good or service itself, the cost of paying their employees, and what is left is called “profit.” Under the current structure, they also have to pay taxes with that money, which eats into profits. The company sets their price based on a few factors, two of which are desired profit, and the market value of their good or service.
With that, what happens when the government takes more money from the corporation? Who pays that tax? The general public, that's who. Corporate taxes make everything cost more, while giving no benefit to the economy whatsoever. All they do is penalize success.
(Things have been pretty crazy here lately - lots of work and family events, with little free time. I hope to have time to attack some other lines from Kedwards in the next few days.)