Mikey and Me

It isn’t a secret nor should it be a surprise that i am not a fan of Michael Moore. As a Documentary artist… i find him to be more of a skilled propagandist. His deft approach to issues being so blatantly one-sided that nobody would ever suggested his work be considered fair and balanced. But i don’t begrudge anyone their biases.

Agendas on the other hand…

A friend encouraged me to watch Piers Morgan interview Mike regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Aside from the 45 minutes of my life i’ll never get back, i must confess it wasn’t a total waste of time. Mike was very casual yet passionate, affable and engaging – very hard to dislike. But very easy to disagree with.

It’s been almost a week since i watched but i remember one thing i found objectionable, and one thing indicative of our broader problem of being narrow minded and incurious:

Piers asked Mike who he blamed for our current financial crisis and predictably he answered, “Corporations”. i suppose it would first be  helpful to define what one means by “corporations”. A simple search of the word reveals that there is far more corporate activity than most would be willing to admit. It has become vogue to assault the “big corporation” (BC) these days as a greedy, deeply flawed, self-interested, zealot bent on getting ahead at the expense of all those outside its family. On some level that describes every group or legal gathering of humans under the sun. We gather for a cause usually recognized as bigger than ourself, more important than ourself, and requiring more membership than ourself to accomplish goals. But at the heart of every corporation is self-interest.

Piers probed a little by asking Mike if he blamed at the government or the individual for any of our problems and he emphatically said, “no”. This was my biggest point of disagreement with Mike. His agenda – whatever it is – is as shifting and muddled as OWS save for this one ax to grind with BC. One can only assume Mike’s goal, given his penchant to espouse the glorious egalitarian impulses of Communist Dictatorships, is to remedy our current woes by growing and empowering the biggest BC in the western hemisphere. It would be terribly inconvenient to cast any blame on his savior of choice or on the populist machinery he masterfully manipulates. So the government and the individual are out-of-bounds categorically regardless of their obvious complicity.

It would have been sweet if Piers had the acumen to push this issue, you know, like ask a follow-up by injecting some information into the conversation. People make up the groups and corporations and they usually get what they ask for either directly or through the law of unintended consequences. Since it is people – in the U.S. – who have the power and the prerogative to elect government representatives to set the boundaries of commerce, it is we through our own ignorance or misguided self-interest who are mostly to blame for our present predicament. If you have a 401k or are using the stock market in any way to pad your retirement years, to possibly bring them sooner, you’ve taken the bait of entitlement, envy, and the kind of greed that when multiplied produces money-making juggernauts and Wall Street money changers.

My second issue is that a person in the audience brought up a great point that went by the way-side – again – because of its utter logic and disutility. We are victims of our own advancement. Remember when we used to dream of an age when life would be simpler and a lot less sweaty? The prospect of robots and devices to free us from toil was laughably distant. Yet here we are. We are there.

Industry that has benefitted so much from information processing and delivery has been able to shrink so much, so rapidly that its ripple is producing a wave of discontent. It has freed us from half our work effectively making only one man productive and the other… unnecessary.  This isn’t like the automobile; when the horse-and-buggy industry went caput people moved to the assembly line. There was a time when folks lived on less and weren’t so close to the guilded sidewalks of Easy Street. Today we are fat and lazy and view what was once a priviledge as a right. No matter what action is taken to right the listing ship there will be winners and losers and you don’t have a right to be either.

But that second point is secondary to the broader, more salient aforementioned one. Mike wants to be able to pick winners and losers by rigging the game. We are suffering now because that is the status quo and more of it will cause greater and perhaps permanent ruin. He sounds like he’s advocating a different path, but he’s really just suggesting we dismount our limping steed and saddle up a bull. i expect nothing less from him.

Appropriate.

SOMETIMES IT PAYS TO BE WRONG

Do you ever wish you’d written something down when you thought of it?   Welcome to my world.   i wish i could say i’m just too busy or handicapped or something that sounds like a good excuse for being just plain lazy.   If you prefer – as i do – “undisciplined” is a kinder description.   Yet there’s another reason i don’t write stuff down: 

i’m afraid people will think i’m crazy.

There are people out there who don’t give a wit about what others say and think about their ideas.   Unless you’re a real close friend of mine, i’m not one of those people.   Sadly (in a pathetic way), that holds me back… but not today.

Today I’m taking a risk.   Today I’m going to make a prediction for which one day I’ll be apologetic, or prescient.

For those of us who have been locked in verbal combat over “health care reform” I warn you ahead of time that what you are about to read may further polarize you.   For all the arguments we’ve been making, and for all the rhetoric and hyperbole we lobbed at each other like grenades, we’ve been wasting our breath and energy over “apples and oranges” in some twisted cultural cockfight. 

Many of us have been reduced to labeling arguments as “hate” and people as evil not for the purpose of elevating a position, but in an attempt to convince ourselves that we on this side or that side are better humans.   Let me dispel any confusion about that at the outset:  there are no “good” humans.  We often do “good” things with “good” results, but ultimately they are to serve our interests  in the end.

Our shared affliction is that we’re terminally selfish and chronically judgmental.  There are the remnants of something good in each of us, but absent the proper transformation and spiritual alchemy we are forever scratching and clawing and biting and acquiring at the expense of others.

Enter…the point.

Anybody who has a business or runs a household will confess that debt is a killer.  The constant struggle to live within your means is just part of the equation.  When faced with the prospect of increased costs there are basically two options:  decrease spending, or increase revenue.

Quality, affordable healthcare does not exist.

Healthcare reform is going to cost a bundle and it does little to nothing by way of increasing the quality or availability of healthcare.    Usually, anything of measurable quality is reflected in its cost – that’s just axiomatic.  The reasons this new system will be costly are simple, basic:  delivery of services has an actual cost and the insurable pool is larger.   That is the quintacential actuarial rule.   There are solid reasons an insurer drops or denies coverage and none of them are because they’re greedy, callous or evil.   If they didn’t, they’d go broke.   The necessary consequence of attempting an end-around these rules will result in higher premiums, fees and/or taxes levied on the present payers into the system.   More importantly, increasing the pool of “insured” without increasing the number of health-service providers will result in shortages, long waits,  and arbitrary rationing – the feared decrease in quality.

What we’ve just done as a country to ensure that everybody is insured is a bit of a ruse.  By law, everybody already has access to healthcare; you show up at a hospital, they have to treat you.  The problem with that system is that it’s an unfunded, pay-as-you-go plan with no measures in place to limit access or to increase revenues to pay for it without borrowing.  Much of the reimbursements to that system come from the general coffers or are borrowed from other funds.   This equals debt.

By insuring everybody up front, the government has in essence decided to fund the previously unfunded mandate.  But how?

That’s a great question.  The answer to which is still unclear.  But what is clear is that by passing the law, the government now has permission to raise those revenues in whatever manner they wish.   Where do YOU think they’re going to go to get it?

Here’s what I think.

The perfect storm of a Recession and the ensuing “jobless recovery” coupled with our national debt and continued deficit spending has produced a mandate in the minds of a certain ideological ilk.  They just happen to be running the country at the moment and for better or worse they believe a few things ought to be.  

They profess to believe… life should be fair and that anybody who has more than somebody else should be liberated from their excess by a hero.  And they believe this NOT because it’s moral (and they will tell you it is), but because those who are on the receiving end of that exchange will forever owe their champion.

 This is why Amnesty is in the works.

 Oh, they’ll tell us it’s about raising revenues by getting “undocumented immigrants” “out of the shadows and on to the books”.  But in reality it’s about tapping into an ever-expanding and grateful constituency. The net effect of Amnesty upon which they’re counting is that those new citizens will vote their saviors back into office, first to offset the disgruntled shift in the populace, and next to provide leadership in perpetuity.

 In the end it won’t begin to fund the lofty goals brandished in these intermediary steps and the huge debts will remain.   Amnesty is a one way ticket to bankruptcy.   Draconian steps are on the horizon to “balance the books” unless the door slams shut on this big government foot.   If the whole camel comes in the tent… well, use your imagination about living in a tent with a camel.

The golden goose will be chained to the radiator and forced to lay more golden eggs on a diet of gruel… or be gut to reveal its secrets.

 And we all know how that story ends.

FROM THE DEVIL’S HANDBOOK

i love all this talk of “social justice”.

i’m a big fan of Glenn Beck.  No, it doesn’t make me an idiot nor does it enhance my appetite for puppies.  There are plenty of folks who for a variety of disagreements with Mr. Beck consider him an idiot.  He may be many things, but idiotic isn’t one.

If a person were to set aside their visceral hatred and examine the research he and his staff do to uncover meaningful and salient historical connections, they might be able to accept the fact that someone without a college education is capable of learning and teaching.   Beck’s most recent examination has unearthed the variety of intentions held by people and movements that use the term “social justice” (SJ).

A friend of mine defines SJ as, “afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted”.   It sounds at first blush to be reasonable.  However, if you unpack all the possibilities of that statement it becomes rather scary.   The first thing it does is assume that there’s some moral arbiter deciding what is “comfort” and then assigning this judge the power to “afflict”.   The second thing is more of the first only in reverse.   The whole definition is some cheeky axiomatic palindrome around which the rabble can be roused.

This may not be your definition, but at the heart of anything SJ is a fierce moral component and an inescapable religious overtone.   i personally didn’t hear Beck’s radio show on March 2nd where he supposedly told people to sound the alarm if their church espouses SJ or economic justice.  i did watch his cable show on the same date where he deftly contextualizes the use of those terms by Socialist zealots of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  i’ve also read a great deal of commentary consequent to his remarks and have found something of a consensus of opinion that Beck’s “idiocy” is steeped in the ignorant insult that the inherent “goodness” of religious people who practice SJ might in some way be Communist!

As usual, people are missing the point.

It isn’t that religious people who ascribe to principles of SJ are also Socialists or Communists or Nazis or Fascists or any other pejorative…

the point is that Socialism in its many forms is a religion.   It is humanism.

We live in a country that possesses a proud tradition of heralding the virtues of prohibiting our government from establishing a religion.  It’s enshrined in the very 1st amendment to the Constitution.   For most of the previous century Americans have been on high alert to undo such government affirmations in the classroom and courts so that people of all faiths can be secure in the knowledge that one religion isn’t elevated at the expense of the others.   But this battle of “separation of church and state” has been a giant distraction intended to confuse.   

Instead of continuing this protection from intrusion, the movement of SJ has been adopted and become a principle around which all people can rally in unity of faith and practice effectively becoming the new gospel of civic culture with the government its seat of earthly power.   For those of us who practice God centered faith (and mercy on you if you practice the old Gospel) our beliefs aren’t just being marginalize, they’re being replaced.

The danger of which Beck spoke concerning churches that use the term SJ is in further confusing our traditional doctrines through dubious associations and increasingly weakened, blurry lines of meaningful separation.   Christians ought to be aware that Jesus did not teach a social justice administered by a big, gun-wielding government.   

That’s a new gospel.

That’s a different gospel.

And while you may be driven to comfort the afflicted, run far and fast from anyone who suggests afflicting others is a moral means to that end.

THE TROUBLE WITH SOCIALISM II

George Bernard Shaw once said this:

“A government that takes from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul”

i suppose this is true in whatever circumstance. It doesn’t have to be a government. It could be a parent or a teacher, but it must always be a third party with authority over Peter. If you’re like me, you’re probably tempted to empathize or sympathize with either Peter or Paul because you’re driven by some deeply held principle of justice. If we look a little closer at the machinery though, its insideous trap is that the conflict is about neither of these men.

The party with the authority to instigate, facilitate, and perpetuate the conflict between Pete and Paul is the real winner.   Because we’re using names, i think it best to call the third party, Mike.   Mike is uniquely self-interested as long as he’s human and motivated at least by self-preservation.   And think about this: in the senario whereby a third party finds its worth in choosing sides is no arbiter, but an advocate.   In the case of Peter and Paul this third party’s (Mike) goal is to first redress the situation as Peter V. Paul, pick a pugilist, and knock out the opposition.

That’s not much of a fair fight. Especially since Mike (as the government) has a gun.

(We’ll get back to that  reality a little later even though it’s probably the most important point.)

The issue at hand that makes it especially noteworthy that Mike has a gun is that Mike is also Paul.    Let me explain…

The governement is a consumer.    In the best of circumstances it is rarely a good investor and only by accident.    It doesn’t invest in markets but in visions and ideologies, and it does this by spending – other people’s money.   A government has no money to spend save for that which it gleans from it’s people/producers or by minting it.   When it’s acting responsibly and ontologically (according to its nature) it carefully motivates its producers to do what they do by their nature.    A government which excessively interferes with that process will gum up the works and suppress the will and nature of its greatest asset (the people).   This is what we have going on right now.

We can argue in another post about motive, details and specific actions.   The salient point in the present moving toward the future is that OUR government is taking action that will further suppress the producers of this country.   It is doing so by becoming the largest consumer of goods, services,  and commodities to supply the basic needs of its people.   And to make matters worse, it’s doing so by propping up market failures and rewarding cheaters in an effort to cover up its own market tampering.    This tampering has been going on for some time by fomenting an otherwise healthy relationship between Peter and Paul into an artificial conflict.   Most recently with Community Reinvestment, TARP, and the purchase of two auto-makers.  

If healthcare falls into the hands of meddlesome Mike, Peter is going to need life-support.

The gross result of the current trend is that the government will ultimately need to step in and become a – or THE – major producer of the things it is now consuming because of the damage being done to the real producers (Peter).   What we’re marching toward is Socialism.   The frightening consequence is the necessary end game of that march.  

It’s called Communism.

HATCHET MAN II

i remember when Mitt Romney came to town.   The first time he came to MA to make his mark, he ran against the Kennedy legacy.   He tried, unsuccessfully, to unseat the Prince of the Bay State who through no fault of his own is the sole heir to the immediate family legacy of his rock-star brothers.   After losing to Teddy, he successfully became governor of the state against all odds and a one-party legislature.

Mitt’s public record isn’t the focus today.   i’m more interested in the irony of the campaign against him.   At the time it was a very real assault on the man’s character that he had amassed his fortune as a Hatchet Man.   For those of you who don’t know what that is; see pretty woman.   The essence of what a Hatchet Man does is saving or liquidating failing businesses by breaking them up and selling assets and/or making the smaller parts more productive and salvageable.   By all accounts he was quite good at it.

Of course, being good at that sort of thing requires an obligatory ideological and ad hominim attack from the left.   Mitt was portrayed as an enemy of the ‘regular guy’ and of the ‘middle class’ and of unions because of the residual effect restructuring has on labor contracts.   Say what you want about that.   You might be inclined to agree or disagree – it doesn’t matter.

What does matter is that if you are opposed to people like Mitt because they “side” with business owners at the expense of their workers (not customers) you must be deeply troubled – or at least conflicted.

No doubt you voted for and are in deep support of President Obama.   Notice something though if you haven’t already: 

he is the new Hatchet Man.

HERE WE GO

So, our reckless government just officially took over feckless GM.   In case you’re wondering what that means; it means that the President’s critics – you remember the ones who received savage ad hominim attacks because of their “tired rhetorical”, “partisan”, “mean-spirited”, “premature” criticism of Mr. Obama’s policies – were right. 

If you’re wise you’ll pay attention to the rest of their warnings.   Government Motors (formerly General Motors, but still conveniently GM) is a harbinger of things to come.   GM is largely in the tank because no one is buying new cars and if they do they definitely aren’t going to throw their hard earned money at a losing investment when there are much better values on the market.   Now that the government is running the show and ostensibly making cars, you can bet the product isn’t going to improve much.   Nothing is going to change for the better at GM.

i wonder if AIG would let me take out a policy on GM still sucking?   That sounds like a good bet.

What i really want to know is why you and i, Joe-taxpayer, have all vicariously thrown in and bought a car and won’t be receiving one.   Heck, i’d take a “free” GM auto.   Can i put in an order for a Sierra Super-Crew with a long bed?   Somebody should take the time to figure out how many new cars you can buy with 50 billion dollars.

If anyone doubts that this move is about saving union jobs -ergo Democrat constituents- you must live in a yurt in the Canadian woods.

(Sorry Canada)

RALLY TIME?

Is anyone really suprised that GM is shutting down for the summer?

Frankly, i’m a bit insulted that the government and its many sycophantic ‘news’ outlets have been drilling us with demoralizing reports that the nations largest automaker is in the tank because of bad leadership.    GM, like every other car company, is faltering because NOBODY IS BUYING CARS!

Sure, GM probably isn’t the best run of the auto giants, but expecting the Federal Government to improve on the situation is laughable.   i’m inclined to stand up and applaud Ford Motor Co. for not taking the mob money and selling out (i actually did stand and clap for a moment).    The kind of rally we need right now is the one that gets behind people, institutions and ideas that are uniquely American.    Big, intrusive, power grabbing centralized government is not a worthy cause for me to don an inside-out ballcap.

The Flex is really cool…

Buy FORD.

PUBLIC ENEMY #1

A friend asked me today why everybody’s so pissed at Rush Limbaugh.     His greater question was “why are the Democrats and the press attacking him?   What did he do?”

Well, it’s important to first recognize that the Democrats and the press are the same thing – or as is classically referred to as a ‘distinction without a difference’.   To the point though, it is a very good question with a number of possible answers.

The first thing you have to do is recognize that this is politics, at least for the politicians.   There’s only one reason a politician would give anybody or anything any attention at all…for political gain.   So given that fact the real question is “what is the political gain the President is seeking by attacking a private citizen?”

He obviously thinks Mr. Limbaugh is a threat to him or his plans.    Limbaugh’s on to him, or on to something.   The criticism of Rush has largely been ad hominum based on comments taken out of context.   No surprise there.   That’s really all you need to know to be sufficiently suspicious that President Obama isn’t the ‘new’ agent of “change” in the attitude and character of government.

If you are brave enough to listen to the Limbaugh radio program, you’ll hear him assert that the bail-out is a purposeful tanking of our economy.   It makes perfect sense if you believe that Obama and his ilk are willing to let or make things get so bad they can ride in on their big government white horse and save the day.   Everything about the stimulus plan defies every predictable precept of economics.   Everything about it makes no sense. For someone as smart as the president to suggest that bottom up stimulus actually grows an economy staggers the mind.    It makes so little sense that I can’t help but agree with Rush’s assessment.

Think about it, if you wanted to “change the face of America” how would you do it?       

DENOMINATIONAL DISCOURSE

The new morality is here.

 

President Obama and his team are busy trying to sell the new Theocracy to the American public and the world.   The god of ‘fairness and equity’ is the new sovereign and President Obama is its priest and prophet.  

 

Underling Geitner was on the Hill yesterday on an apostolic mission of dispensing the good news – the Gospel according to Geitner – that the “rich” are going to bear the entire financial burden for the basic needs of Americans.   What he forgot to mention is that they pretty much already do.

 

Evidently it isn’t enough for successful, hardworking, prosperous types to be paying 1/3 of their income to support our societal structures.   Though the increases are modest at the moment, one might argue, any reasonable person can project that if a little more is good now, a lot more will be better later.   And let’s not forget that it isn’t just income that the government taxes; every time money changes hands some is skimmed – or gouged – off the top.   Would you invest now if you had the money?

 

Let’s say you did have the money:  are you confident that the investments you chose will be safe?    Sure there’s always risk with investments, but in the current fiscal climate being engineered by the Feds the greatest risk is that your choices will be targeted for destruction.  

 

For all of you who thought the Bush plan to go out and shop was a bad idea, have you noticed that it’s being recycled?   The issues that got us into this economic mess in the first place are being expanded.   In short, the government made it too easy for under-qualified consumers to borrow by underwriting the risk to lenders (this is the part where you yawn), and they’re doing it all over again; this time by bypassing the lenders and giving out newly minted money to spend.   If any of it happens to trickle down to your hands are you going to buy stock?

 

Brilliant analyst and House representative Jim McGovern from MA has suggested that the Obama plan is the “tow-truck” to pull our economy out of the ditch Bush ran us into.   It’s actually more like a bulldozer pushing dirt over the wreck driven by bad lending policies.   Any expanded criticism of Mr. McGovern would also be gratuitous piling on.

 

There’s a part of me that wants the “haves” to hold on to their money out of spite.   It isn’t really their fault we’re in a fiscal crisis – unless you consider taking your money out of the stock market to avoid losing it a crime – but their going to act in their own self-interest and do what’s best for themselves and their businesses and families.   That ‘part’ of me is irrelevant because I have no control over the ‘haves’.   I’ll tell you who does have control or soon will assert it; Barack Obama.   If the “rich” decide they don’t want to cooperate i fear they will be “persuaded” to acquiesce.  

 

It’s the new religion, much like the old religion of indulgences.   You’ve got to ‘pay to play’.   If you want to get in the good graces with god you’ve got to pay up.   If the priest and the prophet were telling you the only way to appease god was to pitch in ‘X’, would you give?   After all it is the right thing to do.      

BRIEF INTERLUDE FOR A SERIOUS CHALLENGE

Before i publish the second installment of “THE TROUBLE WITH SOCIALISM”, i want to take a moment and a few days to encourage everyone who’s trying to get their minds around the economic crisis.

i have at least three friends who are incorrigible about Rush Limbaugh.   Be honest with yourself, what was your visceral reaction at reading the name?   What was the first word that came to mind? 

Now, does it apply to your reaction as well?

The people i know that despise him usually find his style a bit insufferable and terribly jingoistic.   Yet, i rarely if ever hear them have a salient thing to say about any of his substantive show content.  

Yes, he’s an entertainer.    By virtue of this fact not everyone is going to find him entertaining.   But these are perilous times which require us all to take a step back from our feelings about people and things in an effort to understand the substance of the situation.    If you’re content to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to your education, perhaps there’s little hope for you.

i challenge you to listen for a week.   Don’t be afraid!

For my part, i’ll continue to present as best i can (which is quite lame comparitively) the immutable principles and historical facts that have measurably fed our current national/international crisis.

STOP THE HATE!