For the Children - Yeah Right

My wife and I were listening to the Glen Beck show just a few minutes ago and I had to push the pause button on the Tivo and come write this. The bottom line of this entry is that even Glen Beck does not get it!

Here is how -
Beck started his show this evening making a big deal out of how the meaning of words really matters (duh!) , and taking Obama to task for Obama's Orwellian use of words and phrases that really mean the opposite of what they would mean to most people. For example Glen Beck says that he [Beck] "wants a responsible government", but that when Obama says the same thing, Obama really means the opposite. To make his point he played a clip of Obama saying "Lets build a government that's responsible to the people."

Building a government that's responsible to the people sounds good to the likes of you and me. Why?

• Because we know what a government responsible to the people is. A government responsible to the people is one that lives within the deliberate confines of the Constitution, a document which was deliberately crafted the way it was to impose shackling limitations on government power in light of the fact that men are corrupt, and in light of the fact that if all men were angels there would be no need for government.

• Because we know that a government responsible to the people would not introduce fascism into our society and would uphold the traditions of a person's ownership of that which he created.

• Because we know that a government responsible to the people is one that understood that "No, It does NOT take a village. It takes a Mommy and a Daddy working for themselves and instructing their children in morality and the ethic of work."

But, this is not what Obama means. What he means by "a government responsible to the people" is a government that will rob me and 92% of others like me to make sure that the deadbeat that took out a loan on a house that he never should have gotten a loan for in the first place can keep that home instead of getting removed, forcibly if necessary, to other accommodations. What Obama means is that it is not my job to do anything for myself, but that of my neighbor to pay to have someone else do it for me.

Beck was going apoplectic over this as he rightly should. So far so good then - up until the point where Beck, in talking about all the party faction and the statist craziness on both sides, says "I'm not here for anybody's party, I'm here for my children."

It is at this point where I come unglued, for that kind of thinking and dumb statement making is exactly an example of the muddled thinking that gets people into trouble and it exposes the fact that even Beck in unable to connect the dots.

Not to put too fine a point on things and just to make things clear (connect the dots) - I am not here for my children ... or your children, and every time I hear someone use this maudlin sop I want to vomit.The reason is that if your idea can't stand on its own two feet and has to be cloaked with the shroud of "the children", then it is an idea that is unworthy of being put into practice.

To make an example, the reason not to rob people is because it is just plain wrong, and the reason that it is just plain wrong is that without private property and ownership that is secure, the society breaks down into chaos. (Oh my, am I speaking here of 2009?) There need be no plea to "the children" or "my children", or "your children" to make or prove the point, and the kernel of truth is that if I take care of myself, and if you take care of YOURSELF instead of asking me to do it, then I won't have to worry about my children, you won't have to worry about yours, and I will not have to look over my shoulder to make sure that you not using the power of the state to "worry" about mine.

(In Beck's defense, it can be said that at least he referred to "his" children, and not children in general. But, even at that, use of any term having the word "children" in it is dangerous becasue that very word is the raw material that will be picked up by your opponent and used against you as it is used to whip the mob up into a feeding frenzy at your pocketbook's expense.)

So then, leave "the children", especially my children, the hell out of it. First, because they are not the basis for why we have a government founded on the principles of individual responsibility and consequence, and second because once YOU start politicizing "the children", using terms like "my children, "your children", or "the children", then ANYTHING can be justified by ANYBODY, using them , the children as pawns. (Why do you think that "the children" are constantly referred to in collectivist's attempts to shakle us with State run health care?)

Need to turn the country onto a gulag by implementing another unsustainable system (health care) that will go broke in 20 years from being robbed for other "social" programs like social security was? No problem, because, after all, its being done "for the children", those poor little urchins who do not have health care [because their parents either did not want it or because they were too lazy to get a job and pay for it, or because they spent the money on a bigger house]. If you do not have health care for your children so what? That should not be my problem? Care for YOUR children is YOUR responsibility, not mine, whether directly or through what you want to use as a proxy - the government.

A closing point - I am not my brother's keeper, and neither is he mine. I am my own keeper. Any other view of the proper state of things puts both feet firmly on the slippery slope leading directly toward the collectivist state.

Powerful - Oh, Really Now

To corrupt thought you must first corrupt the language. Once the language becomes corrupt you can then mainline any drug you want to push.
~ Seneca 2009 AD

You are Powerful?

Because you live in a mud hut, is this how you are powerful?

Because the society in which you live has not, in the 2000 years it has been around, been able to create a societal system such that you can live in something other than a mud hut?

Because your country is ridden by disease, poverty, starvation, warfare, illiteracy, tribal fighting where your brothers and sisters are hacked to death in the still of the night by machetes,
and a host of other things indicative of the very lack of power?

Because you have your picture posted as part of a campaign for others to send you money?

Yeah, Right. You Are "Powerful".

To corrupt thought you must first corrupt the language. Once the language becomes corrupt you can then mainline any drug you want to push.
~ Seneca 2009 AD

Message from Seat 29e

Hello all you boys and girls,

Today's story is about how being asleep at the wheel generally leads to nasty results.

And remember, when it comes to government meddling, those that do the meddling never have to sit in a Seat 29E of their own making.

http://www.xgeltesting.com/messagefromseat29e.php

Winners, Losers, and Bullies - Which One Are You?

We have all seen those books on negotiation. One such book, for example, is "Getting to Yes", others have titles such as, "Bargaining for Advantage", "Getting Past No", etc.

On inspection of most all of these books one will usually find some text along the following lines indicating that if you and the other party can just talk and air things out that you can reach a good result.

"Joint problem solving revolves around interests and positions,. You begin by identifying each side's interests - the concerns, needs, fears and desires that underlie and motivate your opposing positions., You then explore different options for meeting those interests, You goal is to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement in and efficient and amicable fashion." ~ From "Getting Past No"

What constitutes a good result? Well, most books will tell you that a good result, indeed the best result, is what is called a Win-Win. This is where both parties walk away with something that they think is good for them. The case where one party says "Wow, I can't believe I got this cool talking frog ..and for so cheap [from that other guy]."; while at the same time the other party is saying "Wow, I am sure glad I have the money now .... and I can't believe I got somebody to buy that thing [at such a high price] that was taking up space in my garage."

This then brings up an interesting philosophical point about a free economy. That point is this - In the ideal free-will transaction, each side is getting more from the other side than he feels that he is giving up to get what he got. Another way to state this is that the thing that Party A gets from Party B is felt by Party A to be more valuable that what he had to give Party B to get what he got. Likewise, the thing that Party B gets from Party A is felt by Party B to be of more value than what they had to give to Party A to get what he got. This, indeed is the basis for all free-will/free-economy exchange and an important outcome of it (a free-will/free-economy exchange) is that it results in a net increase in value. There is no winner for every loser. EACH party GAINS.

Here is an example. Party A and Party B are neighbors and live in a cold yet fertile climate. Party A has land on which grow a lot of trees. Indeed, he has so many trees and his land is so fertile that within 2 years of cutting one tree down, another is ready for harvest. Party B has NO trees but he has open land on which grows a lot of food. It is winter and Party A, while having all the trees in the wold, is starving, while Party B, having all the food in the world, is freezing. At this point trees are not really "worth much "to Party A. I mean, he has trees coming out the ears - but his belly is empty. Conversely, food is not really "worth much" to Party B. I mean, he has food coming out his ears - but his ass is freezing off.

So here we have 2 people having something that is not "worth much" to them, yet at the same time having something that is worth a hell of a lot to the other party. Thus it is that as rational people, Party A trades what to him are "worthless" trees (firewood) for "more valuable" food, while Party B trades what to him is "worthless" food, for "more valuable" firewood.

It is important here to understand that neither party is trying to "help the other guy out" and to understand that each party, from the perspective of standing in his own shoes thinks that he is getting the "better" end of the deal. Indeed, they both are getting the better end of the deal because EACH is trading something they hold at one level of value and getting, in exchange, something that they hold in higher value. THIS perceived gain at both ends (the pain of starvation on the one hand and pain of freezing on the other) is what motivates the transaction and is what motivates all free-will/free-economy transactions. Essentially, these are transactions where both people walk away thinking "Man , I sure got the better end of that deal because what I gave up less that what I got", and indeed BOTH are right.

Another way to think of this is to consider that Party A has 5 one dollar bills, while Party has 5 one dollar bills. One guy says to the other - "Hey, I'll give you my five bills for your five bills."
Why in the world would they make any exchange of something that they considered equal in value? The fact of the matter is that they don't. Unless both, of course, just like joking around with each other. Indeed, if they made a transaction for this purpose it would prove up the point that they are doing it because they are BOTH getting something out of the transaction - a feeling of joking around.

In summary then, the ONLY thing that makes the exchange happen in a free-will/free-economy transaction is if the parties viewed from their standpoint make a "profit". Now, the bleeding hearts would say that somebody got something at somebody else's "expense" and try to make out as if somebody took advantage of somebody else, when the fact of the matter is that both take advantage of each other. This is called win-win.

Having outlined the ideal case and the general principle, we now can turn to corruptions of the fabric and discuss two other kinds of exchange. One is the I Win- You Lose exchange. This is the kind of exchange that the bleeding hearts love to tout, for to them every exchange, even the win-win exchanges that make up the bulk of exchange, have to be painted with this brush because it advances their agenda of collectivism; i.e., collectivism needs a victim.

In an "I Win-You Lose" exchange, the point of the negotiation from the standpoint of the "Winner" is that not only that he truly gets something that is of greater value than what he gives up (just like in a win-win ) but also that he gets the feeling that "I really screwed that guy". Indeed, in many cases, the deal will not be done if this psychological superiority cannot be felt by the "Winner". To these kinds of people, it is NOT so much about getting the physical object what they are bargaining for, but more about getting the mind-game payoff that they are superior and better that the other guy. This kind of psychological world view can be seen in certain poker players and other gamblers (or businessmen), where the object of the game is not to make money or to have a fun time with the other guy, but by winning, validating that they are "better than the other person."

Indeed, going into the game, the desired outcome is the "I Win By You Losing" outcome.Another way to state this is "I win by me knowing that I am better that you, and this is how I prove it (by taking your money off the table)" In couples counseling they call this the One-Up, One-Down communication style.

Thus it is that for some, THAT (the need to feel superior) is the entire point of the transaction. For these type, the ideal transaction is the "I Win- You Lose", and a Win-Win transaction will be avoided.

This then, brings us to the third type of negotiation outcome that is desired. I call this the "Bully End Game", or by the more lengthy but more descriptive term of:

"I Win-You Not Only Lose, But I Know That You Know That You Lost to Me"

This is the most corrosive kind of negotiation style as it leaves one party nursing his wounds and, with good cause, looking for revenge even if it is of the smallest import. A good example of this can be seen in some of the romantic tragedies where the yeoman and the peasant girl fall in love and are to be married, but the prince of the manor, on seeing this love between two of such pure heart, arranges, through the power of the king, for the peasant girl to be married to him instead and then abandons her to his knights. In such a case the entire point is not the girl - but to take the girl from the yeoman, and for the prince to know that the yeoman knows that he (the yeoman) is powerless to do anything about it.

A point here - The phrasing - "I Win-You Not Only Lose, But I Know That You Know That You Lost to Me", is deliberately crafted as it is, as it is different than what some would perhaps restate as the "I Win-You Not Only Lose, But You Have to Know (Admit) That You Lost to Me". Essentially, the crafting is as it is because the latter does not capture the full aggressive nature of the former.

In business, you will occasionally come across The Bully, and when you do, if you have not read this first, you will be caught unawares and your mind will be reeling with trying to understand what is happening during the negotiation. In your mind, you are just trying to do a business deal, while in the other party's mind the entire point of the "negotiation" is for them to come away with the belief that "I Won-You Not Only Lost, But I Know That You Know That You Lost to Me. "

This "lesson" was taught to me, during one on my attempted negotiations with a colleague of mine, and it took me a while to understand that to him the end game was not both of us winning (both of us coming away with a good economic result), but for me to lose ... and for him to know that I knew that I lost to him.

Producers, Not Looters

I wear one of those screen printed tee-shirts that has some nice logo-looking artwork on it. Around the logo art is the tag line "Rearden Steel - Producers, Not Looters" and from time to time as I am out and about, I am asked if Rearden Steel is the company that I work for.

Now, those that know me know that I do not work for Rearden Steel - and those that really know me know that indeed in a way I do.

I especially like getting this question from the young people who are clueless about the past and therefore about the present, and , if I am lucky, and one of these seems a likely candidate for rehabilitation, I proceed to ask them they have ever heard of Hank Rearden. If they say that they have not, then I tell them:

"Hank Rearden was a fellow that believed that the money he earned belonged to him, and not to you".

When their eyes go big, and if I sense a glimmer of intelligence, I bring it home to them by asking, direct to their face, as they are standing there handing me my triple grande venti vanilla mocha Frappuccino sissy-boy drink:

"You have a job, right?"
"You work hard at your job and earn money, right?"
"You do not think that the money you earn belongs to me, right?"

Seeing in their eyes the beginnings of understanding, I then close the deal by telling them:

"Ah, I can see that you are getting it. OK - Hank Rearden was a fellow that believed that the money that YOU earn belongs to YOU, not him, or anybody else, and especially not to the government so that they could go out after confiscating it from you to give to some lazy bum on the street that did not want to work to earn it."

With that, they give me my drink. Another one saved!

~ PS - Blame this one on my friend Rick - he made me do it.

Liberalism - Truly A Mental Disorder

2/21/09

From the News Headlines

Truly this man has a mental disorder. I had to ask my brother in all seriousness if Obama is ill. No Really.

______________________________
One Big Ass Mistake America
______________________________

Who are the Racial Cowards?

A sign at Emory University in Georgia ....

The following are excerpts from a February 18, 2009 address made by Eric Holder ~ Attorney General of the United States in commemoration of Black History Month . Thereafter follows commentary in line with Mr. Holders desire to "talk" about race.

....."Every year, in February, we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the contributions of African Americans to this great nation are numerous and significant."

...."Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards...."

... "....we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race

.... "And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."

..."And so I would suggest that we use February of every year to not only commemorate black history but also to foster a period of dialogue among the races. "

..."We know, by “American instinct” and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character."

..."it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated."

..."Imagine if you will situations where people- regardless of their skin color- could confront racial issues freely and without fear."

.."The potential of this country, that is becoming increasingly diverse, would be greatly enhanced.."

..."Black history is extremely important because it is American history."

..."For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. "

..."Some may consider me to be a part of black history. But we do a great disservice to the concept of black history recognition if we fail to understand that any success that I have had, cannot be viewed in isolation."

..."I stood, and stand, on the shoulders of many other black Americans. "

Commentary

______________________________

Hummmm ....... Concerning the true racism in this country I could not have said it better myself than this sign is doing. So then, Mr, Holder, let's then indeed have one of those frank discussions about race that you are so desirous of having.

First of all, you make a point that you are Black. That very thing is racist, as YOU yourself are making a distinction founded on race! How is it, I ask, that you chose that classification when obviously you are not from Africa, and indeed, you are of mixed ancestry. Why is it that people that are ½ white and ½ black call themselves Black, or African-American? That is racist. Thus Halle Berry is being a racist when she refers to herself as Black. Do you think of barrack Obama as America's first Black President. Why? Why the appellation "Black"? Why do you not say that he is "White", especially when actually he is half and half, and indeed was raised by white grandparents? Thus I ask why it is that 1/2 white and 1/2 black = black instead of white or something else. Is it because choosing "Black" gives a special protected class status? Or, is it that it allows you to flail the whip against the imagined White Satans?

The fact of the matter, Mr Holder, is that neither you, nor any of the other people that are exhorting the majority of us to talk about race, want ANY discussion on ANY terms other than chosen and dictated by you.

Turning to other matters, and of course the point of the picture at the head of this op-ed, you yourselves, the American Black, have segregated yourselves from society. Look at the sign. Do you think that it was the white students that clamored for this edifice of racism and exclusion?? Do you think that this Black Student Association has any outreach to get incorporate the whites into its exclusionary, racist, and discriminatory clique? What would the reaction be if others wanted to build themselves a "White Student Alliance"? If you can organize against Whitey, why then are you offended when Whitey organizes against you?

Still on segregation , look at any school cafeteria, and you will see that the blacks self-segregate, so please spare me the maudlin histrionics over how race still divides us in America and that is bad and all whiteys fault, because it is not the whites that are segregating you, it is the black race that is segregating itself and the black race is just a racist as, I suppose, any other race. This animates my mind to ask where it is that you live, Mr Holder? Have you segregated yourself and your family from the truly black neighborhoods? The ones where the majority of the black population lives? WHY?

This discourse now turns to the term "African-American" and how part of that self segregation you yourself speak of, is induced by its use. Indeed, you yourself use the term in the second sentence of your remarks. Sorry, Mr, Holder, it can't be had both ways. Either you are an American, or an African, or a German, or a Pole, or a Jew, or an Arab. African-American in your sense of the word is NOT American - it is something else - that is why you use the term. The fact is that much of the militant black community does not want to melt into anything - does not want to assimilate to the prevalent society. It wants to maintain itself as an enclave within that which prevails.

Now, in the sense of full disclosure, my ancestors came from Europe, and although themselves were persecuted by Whitey, they never referred to themselves as European Americans. They were in ghettos and they were persecuted, yet they did everything they could to ASSIMILATE. Indeed they were forced to assimilate. That was a good thing. Children caught speaking the native tongue at home or at school = many spankings. Thus it is that today, although there are in America, Americans of German, Italian, Polish, and Russian ancestry, they do not run around referring to themselves as German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Russian-Americans. They refer to themselves as Americans, and they are considered as Americans.

Not to put too fine a point on things, hyphenated-Americans are not Americans - they are something else, and your continued use of the term, motivated by the big chip on your shoulder, calcifies your race in the past. Lets talk now about slavery. You, my friend fail to want to recognize in your black history that it was the whites that freed the slaves. You also fail to acknowledge that in other countries of color, slavery STILL exists. Another thing you gloss over is that whitey is the only race that did anything to abolish the practice of slavery. So, if you want to talk about black history, you need to talk about THAT. You need to talk about 600,000 white people, ½ of which owned NO slaves, died setting your ancestors free.

Another thing that you submerge is the fact that it was not the whites alone that practiced slavery; that it has existed for 10,000 years; and that slaves were commonplace IN AFRICA. Indeed, you gloss over the fact it was not the whites that delivered up the African Negroes to the hands of the slavers but was the Black Africans themselves that delivered up their brothers. Would you be surprised to find that in times before yours that the slave trader's prime hunting ground was White Europe and that the raiders would take my ancestors, men women and children, to the slave markets in AFRICA? How about including this in your "Black History" studies.

Turning now to the very concept of Black History. No, Mr Holder in the sense of overall history, that of the "Blacks" is of but a minor component, just as is the history of the Lithuanians, or the Germans, or the Poles, etc, and in your constant drumbeat you are attempting to rewrite the contributions of the black man and woman. If you really want to get into such things, then please provide a list of names of those you consider "Black"; tell me of their contribution; and then we will start the weighting process. I will start - Martin Luther King; McCoy; Carver;..... you go ahead and fill in the rest. Then, let's start a list of the non-blacks that made a contribution. After this is all done, I do believe that you will come to find that the black contribution is but a small part. This is as it has to be simply because of the numbers involved and your attempts to elevate the Black contribution to such prominence is sophistic. The point of things is that YOU, in your gravitation toward the Black part of the History part , are focusing on the Black, and I ask what the hell difference does it make that someone was Black. Are you saying that no one else in the history of the world has had hardship that had to be overcome before they or their race could make their contribution?

I will end this with a true story. Recall above that the name Carver was mentioned. (Quick, who was he and what did he do?) The reason he was mentioned is because in my elementary school days, I came across a series of books about great people, inventions and events in our history - a "Great People" of American History series if you will - all, of course, written before the "age of guilt".

When I read the book, I was excited to learn about Carver's childhood exploits and about Carver's later research concerning the peanut and how he was the one that discovered that the peanut can be used not only peanut butter, but for oil, and other foods ..... and antibiotics as well. Essentially, if it was a peanut, Carver knew about it. Now, here comes the point. Recall my question above "Quick, who was he and what did he do?" MY answer to this would be "He was the person that unlocked the knowledge of the peanut", while YOUR answer would be along the lines of "He was a black man that......".

See the point? To me, it is the accomplishment - to you it is the race. For you ,everything is about race - to me everything is about accomplishment and merit.

So then, in closing, it is odd and distressing to me that we have the following,

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

No more beautiful words were ever written, yet , for you, everything begins and ends with the color of your skin ..... and the color of mine.