The New York Times recently published an editorial by Nicholas Kristof citing several studies showing that conservatives not only give more money to charity overall, but give a greater percentage of their income to charity (“Bleeding Heart Tightwads,” Dec. 20, 2008). And lest anyone makes assumptions that people with more money need tax write-offs and are more likely to be conservative, let me add that the studies also concluded that: the working poor give a greater percentage of their income to charity; conservatives more often volunteer to help charitable causes than liberals; and conservatives donate more blood than liberals. Thus, the amount of money one has is not an accurate proxy for calculating how charitable one is.

To anyone but a conservative, these findings are probably a surprise. That is because there is a world of difference between what political conservatives and political liberals regard as “compassion.” In a nutshell: to the conservative, compassion is simply helping a poor person in need; to the liberal, it is telling someone richer than he is to help a poor person in need.

For many years now, the liberals have been able to bank, politically, on the notion that you can be “compassionate” simply by wanting to help the poor—whether or not you actually help them. Thus, the liberal Congressman casts himself as compassionate because the liberal wants to give one person’s money to another person under the mistaken notion that the other person deserves it more than the person who had it in the first place. In comparison, the conservative politician is cast as a stingy, greedy, heartless individual simply because he does not see why the government should be allowed to take one person’s earnings and give it to another person.

This has translated down into our culture as well, so that one can call himself “compassionate” not because he himself shows compassion, but simply because he votes for liberal politicians and favors liberal causes. The essence of the liberal’s position vis-à-vis the needy is not, “I will help you,” but instead “I will force someone else to help you.” Through this subterfuge, the liberal can rationalize to himself that he is doing his part to help the needy. Thus, Mr. Kristof casts Democrats as those “who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless,” and Republicans as “the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.” But what Mr. Kristof fails to appreciate is that he is merely exposing his own impoverished viewpoint. To him, government policy, alone, constitutes the sum of America’s social conscience.

Time and again, I am confronted by this crabbed imitation of true compassion. What the liberals fail to realize is that you can neither stimulate nor salve a conscience through enforced “charity.” It is neither “compassionate” nor “charitable” to compel a wealthy person to give portions of his bounty to the downtrodden. It is nobler and more rewarding to give freely—something that conservatives apparently understand better than liberals, judging by the studies.

But even more, compassion is not about money, and money is not how to measure moral obligation. In the end, the only rational assessment of the liberal-inspired masquerade of compassion is that it has nothing at all to do with true compassion, but is simply a sterile and completely misguided egalitarian notion of wealth redistribution. Compassion is a human virtue, and a human emotion. The government, being an institution, is not capable of bestowing compassion. It is neither “compassionate” nor “charitable” to give a poor person a government-issued check or voucher to which he is entitled simply by virtue of meeting a laundry list of objective criteria.

This is precisely why the liberals cling to government handouts rather than encourage and rely upon private charities. Their own elitist pride cannot entertain the idea that anyone might have to entreat anyone else for charity. Instead, it is much more comfortable to submit a form to a cold and faceless institution under the pretense that you are entitled to it, where you will not be subjected to anyone’s judgment or pity.

Granted, it is difficult for those in need to ask for help; it is humbling and, occasionally, humiliating. But I wonder: is it really better to sanitize our society of experiencing these less enjoyable aspects of our own humanity? Having to humble oneself may not be fun, but it is self-enlightening. And it is tremendously motivating. Confronting our own weaknesses is one of the ways we develop character.

But under the current system of government-sponsored “compassion,” we have fostered an environment where no one has to deal with his own weaknesses. Thus, everyone, including corporate America, is lining up at the government trough as though their well-being is an entitlement owed to them not through any merit or worthiness, but simply because they have suffered a setback and are more shameless in their pursuit of government handouts. The notion of entitlement even saves them from the inconvenience of having to feel or express any gratitude. Is this really an adequate substitute for dignity?

It is not that liberal individuals themselves are all stingy. In fact, as a general matter, all Americans are very generous when it comes to helping people all around the world, particularly when natural disasters strike. But there is a problem with the liberal concept of what constitutes compassion. They convey the completely mistaken notion that, somehow, one person’s financial well-being alone creates an obligation to give money to others, as though only the wealthy bear responsibility for society’s social problems and that the wealthy therefore need to feel guilty about their good fortune or success. The liberal is more apt to behave as though giving up your money is how you can prove to them that you are not a greedy, selfish jerk. But a bank account is not the same thing as a conscience.

In the end, the liberal’s concept of compassion is a tremendous insult to mankind, and demonstrates a decided lack of respect for his fellow man. It is based on a belief not in man’s goodness, but in his baseness. Thus, “charity” must be mandated by the liberal because he does not trust people to do what is right through the force of their own consciences. Instead, people are compelled to be “good” in spite of themselves, and those with more money have to be “better” than everyone else. And there’s the rub: forcing someone to do anything is to remove all human will, good or bad. In short, the liberal concept of compassion is the antithesis of real compassion, because it removes volition from the equation completely.

And that is the ultimate irony. Perhaps what the charity studies cited by Mr. Kristof really demonstrate is that liberals simply ignore the promptings of conscience that should motivate them to shoulder moral obligations themselves. Instead, they translate those pangs into railroading the rest of America into succumbing to a raft of government mandates according to what they deem is “fair.” They believe that this counterfeit compassion is a sufficient surrogate for the character and conscience that they lack, but that most other Americans possess in abundance. If liberals truly understood dignity, they would feel humiliated by what their politics say about them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Red Cross: Free Travel for Lucky Blood Donors
• Facebook Inspires Donor Drive

No related posts.

Well, isn’t it a relief that everyone has now woken up to the fact that our irresponsible government is being . . . irresponsible. Our lovely Uncle Sam, that freeloading sponge of a relative absconded with our national credit card and gave $700 billion to failed banks that loaned money to people whom anyone with sense would not have loaned a dime in order for them to purchase properties for which anyone with sense would not have paid that much. (Okay, it is a little more complicated than that . . . but that’s the bottom line, isn’t it?)

That bit of legislative mischief was rammed through like lightning, when all of us taxpayers were still reeling from the fact that our retirement funds suddenly took on the appearance of a Christmas club account. In our shock, few Americans were able to completely digest the full idiocy of the government’s assurances that such a step was “necessary” to shore up our ailing economy.

With this track record, it is no wonder the heads of GM, Ford, and Chrysler decided to try their luck at bellying up to the public trough. In round one, the Big Three came to Congress with their expectant hats out, asking for a measly $25 billion. Of course, we might ask: why come to Congress? Just borrow some money from AIG and Citibank! However, round one did not go their way, so they have now jumped into the ring for round two. This time, apparently, they are actually presenting a plan to Congress for what they are going to do with the money—what a concept!

But of course, the cat is out of the bag now. America has thrown a handful of cold water on its face and slapped itself on the cheek a few times and wants some answers. So those same Senators and Congressmen who handed out our children’s soon-to-be hard-earned cash to a slew of failed banks with nary a second thought are now behaving as though they are incensed . . . outraged . . . shocked . . . that these irresponsible companies have been . . . irresponsible. Amazingly, Congress has suddenly become very tightfisted with our money.

I can’t help but marvel at the irony of the whole situation: who is Congress to get uppity and holier-than-though about fiscal irresponsibility, lack of prudence, and squandering of revenues? If ever there was a group that has no call to throw stones, it is Congress! In fact, Congress should be enormously flattered. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Big Three simply emulated their model: spend more than you bring in, and hope the future takes care of itself! The only problem is that automobile manufacturers must unfortunately depend upon the market for cars to support their companies. Unlike Congress, they don’t have an endless stream of hapless taxpayers being forced to support their lavish habits. At least, not yet.

But there is even irony upon irony, because a good number of these same spend-happy Congressmen and Congresswomen have shamelessly pandered to the autoworker’s union, the UAW, in an effort to harvest their votes and volunteerism. All this time, these legislators have sided with the UAW, supporting through legislation the means by which the union could hold the Big Three management over the barrel, forcing them to meet every demand or face the closing of their factories. “Never mind that there is foreign competition!” “Never mind that sales are down!” “Give us what we want!” And they did: to the tune of over $70 as average hourly compensation. Nice work, if you can get it. To put this in perspective, Toyota’s U.S. workers have an average compensation just over $40 per hour. But Congress not only cheered on the UAW, they aided and abetted them; it was a mutual palm-greasing relationship. It’s no mystery why the Big Three needs Congress to bail them out: these congressmen and congresswomen would not be where they are today without the whole machine in motion. They OWE them.

So the spectacle of our Congress demanding accountability and prudence is frankly sending me into fits– as they say in the text-world, ROFLMAO. Exactly what leg is Congress standing on? What shred of integrity or honor can these legislators draw upon? It is not that I am in favor of an auto industry bailout, mind you, I just want to know: what is the overriding guiding principle that inspires our esteemed Congressmembers? I mean, other than, “Oh, crap, guys. America’s paying attention. I think the jig may be up.”

I anticipate that there would be a tremendous and negative effect on the American economy overall if the Big Three actually go under, and it is certainly not a spectacle I relish witnessing. But as bad as things may get, I cannot help but feel a certain satisfaction that the UAW and the executives who run these U.S. automakers may finally be getting a lesson in basic market economics. Unlike the stockholders who actually owned these companies, the fortunes of these employees did not rise and fall on the performance of the company. No, following the socialist model, they simply united in the mistaken belief that it is possible to establish the value of labor without regard to whether they could sell the cars they were building at a price that would support it.

I truly feel sorry for those who are facing layoffs and unemployment, but had these companies shown the slightest inclination to work within the limits of what the market was dictating, autoworkers and the companies that have paid their extortionate demands would not now be facing a dire future. And now, rather than face the reality they created, they want to cement their erroneous beliefs by having the U.S. taxpayer bail them out—essentially, forcing us all to further subsidize the cost of the cars simply to meet their compensation demands. That, America, is a brand of socialism we must not tolerate. No, it is high time that everyone at the Big Three ran smack dab into reality.

My only regret is that we cannot similarly force Congress to file Chapter 11. After selling out our future to their prep-school pals on Wall Street, they should be hanging their heads in shame, not puffing themselves up and acting as though they are miserly guardians of our well-being. If we really wanted a just world, nearly every member of Congress for the last 30 years would be facing the same fate confronting so many other Americans today: unemployment. How much do we plan to put up with, America?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Democrats Ask Automakers for Way Forward
• UAW Chief: Auto Bailout Is Necessary
• Obama, UAW weigh in on auto industry crisis

No related posts.

There is an awful lot of talk these days about rights. Every group claims to have “rights”—homosexuals, women, children—and we all claim to have rights to all sorts of things: clean air, quality childcare, and so on. But most of the time, the term “right” is a complete misnomer.

A “right,” as it is used in a political sense, means the freedom to do something without the government interfering in the exercise of that freedom. For example, the right of free speech means that one has the right to say what one wants, without fear of legal repercussion. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution, this right encompasses the right to voice any political opinion or even to burn a flag (strangely enough, since this is not, as I understand the term, “speech”). While the free speech right does have some limits, for the most part, the term “right” applies quite correctly.

But the other day I was talking to someone who expressed the opinion that everybody ought to have a “right” to medical care. Well, the right already exists; the government is not hindering anyone from obtaining medical care. But of course what they were really talking about was not a right at all, but an entitlement: “free” medical care. But medical care is patently not free; on the contrary, it is tremendously expensive.

Consequently, this loose use of the term “rights” is, in fact, destructive of real rights. By applying the term “rights” to what are entitlements, people are demanding all sorts of things that must come from somewhere. We are not talking about freedom at all. Instead, we are talking about an encroachment upon freedom: all of society must pay for these programs, thereby limiting the freedom we have to choose other ways to spend our money—privately or publicly. In the end, universal healthcare is the antithesis of a “right.”

And let’s take a look at the implications of this program even more closely. President-elect Obama wants a nationalized system in which everybody, regardless of resources, is entitled to adequate health care. Fine. Sounds dandy. But there are 305 million people in America. So where are we going to get this care, and how are we going to ensure its adequacy? According to the AMA, we can expect to have a shortfall of 85,000 to 200,000 health care providers by the year 2020. How do you provide everyone with something that there is not enough of?

This is the problem with nice-sounding pie-in-the-sky ideas that are spouted so glibly by politicians, and in particular by left-leaning politicians like Obama. Gosh, everyone should have a house; everyone should have plenty of food to eat; everyone should have a college education. Of course, nobody in politics has the huevos to say, outright, “Are you insane?” Because if you express any opposition to these programs, you are “insensitive” and “greedy.” Just because Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have a few billion dollars does not mean that, if they handed their wads over to scads of poor people, there would be enough of everything to go around.

Of course, the promise of universal health care is a message deliberately aimed at people who never think beyond the surface. Voters who favor these ideas would never vote for them if they ever seriously contemplated (or researched) what would be required to create such programs as a practical matter. How do you design a program intended to serve 305 million people who all have a different conception of what they want and need? How do you promise a limited resource to everyone, when American schools are not producing enough doctors and nurses, let alone individuals willing and able to empty a bedpan? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg; forget hospital beds and drugs. I am awestruck at confronting the bizarre reality that people who want free medical care for all hold a sincere and deluded belief that 535 members of Congress, only a handful of whom can even spell “MD,” will actually come up with a plan that even remotely fills every American’s medical care needs (not to mention, of course, all those illegal aliens whom our leftist brethren will not forsake). What is this judgment based on? Our government’s stellar record? Can American voters really be that willfully ignorant? What scares me is: apparently.

I oppose these grandiose programs because they are utterly unrealistic and simple-minded, and because, like every other government boondoggle, they are destined to be wasteful, inefficient, mired in bureaucracy, outrageously costly, ineffective, and destructive of our social fabric. I know that is a little redundant . . . have I left anything out? And what chaps me even more is: THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED BEFORE, AND IT HAS NEVER WORKED. Do people really think a 100% failure rate is just chance, or is that just because whoever tried it before didn’t do it right because they weren’t as smart as Americans are? The problem with socialist programs is not that they are ill-intentioned, it is that THEY DON’T WORK!

I sympathize with people who need medical care but cannot afford it. But how about taking a realistic assessment of what is going on in the current system, fixing what’s broken with the cost and delivery of services (like lawyers, malpractice insurance, and government paperwork), and finding a way to provide services to those who need them? How about just providing a lousy $10 billion in the federal budget to provide 1 million people with $10,000 worth of services per year? That ought to cover most of the problem. Because, if you get right down to it, it would be cheaper for all of us tax-paying Americans if we just up and paid the medical bills of those who cannot afford them, rather than hand over the whole shooting match to the federal government to screw up. How about it, anyone? Should I just start up a charitable organization that agrees to pay these bills? Okay, done. Problem solved.

By instituting a national one-size-fits-all system, we will encounter the same problems that every other country has encountered, only probably worse, because this is America, and we like to do things on a big scale, especially our failures. Because any time a privilege is free, it is abused, folded, spindled, and mutilated. Try this on for size: you exercise every day, keep your weight down, and eat your fruits and veggies. Your next door neighbor watches television all day, smokes, drinks, and eats junk food. Here’s a swell idea: why don’t you and he enter into a contract to share your medical costs, 50/50? Sounds fair, right? Uh huh. Welcome to socialized medicine.

No related posts.

Okay, I am still steamed. This whole mess is a sad, dirty joke being perpetrated upon the American people. Here are a few more thoughts.

So Congress put a limit on executive salaries. This is supposed to make me feel better? If I had run my company into the ground, I would not encounter a pay ceiling, I would be out of a job. Come, on, America, these are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, we are talking about: the crème de la crème, the elite. Look, I’m a relatively bright individual—I have a college degree and a law degree (whoopee, for all that’s worth). But even I have a hard time really understanding derivatives and so forth . . . and it turns out that these geniuses didn’t really understand them either, apparently. (I am being nice, and not claiming they are out and out crooks.)

Lots of Americans—in particular, people with retirement funds—relied on these geniuses to understand all these sophisticated security products, things that us poor benighted fools were too ignorant to bend our minds around. America trusted a bunch of self-aggrandizing politicians and Harvard MBA’s and Wharton grads to protect and invest their money wisely, even conservatively. But no, they are just too smart for the rest of us. And now we’re bailing out these jerks, letting them keep their jobs . . . and trusting them again with $700 billion more! Gosh, there’s no limit to how stupid we are! Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, . . . ?

It turns out they were all weaving The Emperor’s New Clothes. Then they turned around and sold them to pensioners, China, Europe, anyone who had a buck. If I had raided my grandmother’s pension, I would be in jail, but the silver-spoon set are running around scot free and getting more money from you and me.

So, what, instead of making $2 million plus, these executives are making $250,000? Don’t kid yourself. I bet it’s not even that low. And are they working somewhere on the Jersey turnpike now, or do they still have swank offices in downtown Manhattan? Expense accounts? First Class airfare? All the nitwits in Congress think that is perfectly reasonable, since they all belong to the same Big Bucks Club. You see, Congressmen and Senators are Masters of the Universe, too. They don’t seem to realize that you and I meet all our families’ expenses at less than half these amounts. But then, we’re just ignorant peons.

These people should get zilch: if they can still afford to eat and keep their homes in the Hamptons or the penthouse on Central Park West, they should get nothing. Their entire compensation packages should be tied to performance. Note to the wary: if you don’t vote your stock proxy according to who owns the biggest piece of the stock pie, you are a fool. Executive fortunes should ride with yours.

And while I am at it: the same is true with all the members of Congress. Heck, make it the whole federal payroll. They should not make a cent unless it is from a budget surplus. Then you might see them be a little more responsible about spending our tax dollars—the way you and I have to be responsible about our own family budgets. In fact, let’s do it department by department, agency by agency: compensation comes out of what they saved from the budget. Then, instead of budgets growing every year, they would shrink, because suddenly everyone would work their asses off being more effective and more efficient, and they would cut the dead weight.

Oh, and thank you, Congress, for revising the bailout bill to increase the amount of federal deposit insurance to $250,000. That sure was a deal breaker. You see, the idea is that this gives people much more confidence in the banking system. Yeah, okay, so when the bank goes bust . . . oh, I get it. You and I, as taxpayers, now get to pay out to people who had a quarter mill in the failed bank. THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Never mind that neither I nor anyone else I know has even $100,000 (the former limit) in a bank account anyway . . . I would be happy to insure the wealthy!

HOW STUPID ARE WE? The only source of revenue for the feds to insure these funds is you and me, the taxpayers. Here’s another idea: for every bank that fails, the very first place we should go to for insured funds is the pockets of the Senators and Congressmen who voted for this moronic piece of legislation.

Oh, and that federal deposit insurance sure makes those banks accountable . . . yes, sir . . . now, when they screw up, they don’t even have to pay the piper. You and I do. Why not force insurance onto the private sector? Like lawyers who obtain malpractice insurance. If banks are run well and conservatively, then a private insurer would be happy to collect a hefty premium to cover depositor’s insurance, and the bank has an incentive to run itself well to keep its premiums down. And we can be sure that the insurer would audit the you-know-what out of that bank. And if the bank has no insurance: well, they need to disclose that to depositors, and all bets are off. (Sure . . . yeah, I’d bank there.)

But no, we have a smarter idea. Let the taxpayers insure the depositors, no matter how lousy and lavishly a bank is run and no matter how foolishly they risk depositors’ assets, and trust the government to watch out for our interests by providing adequate oversight for these institutions. Yeah . . . that works for me. Duhhhhhh.

WAKE UP! Yes, the world is in a terrible credit crisis, but this piece of garbage legislation was rammed through by people who don’t know what they are doing. This is the definition of insanity: people who do the same thing over and over and expect different results. I know . . . let’s give a lot more money to the same people who failed before, because THIS time, they’ll get it right. And that trust is based on . . . what, again? I kind of missed that.

These government big wigs and Wall Street whizzes really do think they are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. But I suppose if we were stupid enough to elect the one lot and give our money to the other, maybe they are, because we are so foolish that we gave them our money once, we are giving it to them again, and we still let them take more of our money from us. For whom are we working? I thought the 13th Amendment outlawed involuntary servitude. Hmmm. Must be mistaken.

And let’s all get our minds around that number, America: $700 billion. If you had spent $2 million every day since the year of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 . . . you would ALMOST have spent $700 billion by now! (You would only have 16 more years left to spend $2 million a day.) Ponder that, America.

It’s time for some leadership. Anyone? Anyone? Because it is not going to come from our next president. They believe that the government not only can, but will, save us. And anyone who really believes that is a certifiable idiot.

Related articles by Zemanta

• No Bailouts for Jobless or Homeless
• Bush appeals to Congress to reverse bail-out rejection
• ‘Wanted: Bank failure specialist.’ Pays $156K

No related posts.

American society is suffering in the youth department. America’s young people do not seem to know what it means to be courteous, how to listen, or how to carry themselves comfortably among people they don’t know.

What has happened? It is getting so that you are surprised—and enormously pleased—when you are able to carry on a meaningful, intelligent, and pleasant conversation with anyone who is under 25.

Over and over, I will walk into a shop, go into a restaurant, or attend some social event, to find that I am surrounded by young Americans who don’t have the faintest idea how to behave toward their fellow Americans. “Good Morning!” I might say, as I walk into a shop, and the young clerks give me a blank look, like I invaded their space. And when I need to ask them for help . . . watch out! They skitter away like frightened mice. Gee, I hate to interrupt you while you count hangers or fold shirts, but, aren’t you being paid to, um, excuse me, actually help customers?

Or I meet someone’s teenage son or daughter, and try to strike up a conversation by asking them questions about themselves. They look at you— if you are able to get them to look you in the eye at all—as if you are a lab specimen (or maybe, like they are the lab specimen), and it is difficult to get anything more than a conversation-stunting monosyllabic grunt.

Forget smiling or laughing. Forget even being able to talk about the weather: they have no notion of small-talk. Yes, I know small-talk is not particularly interesting, but a person should nevertheless be able to engage in it, if only to have decent social intercourse with an individual with whom you have absolutely nothing in common.

Maybe it’s because these kids have never had many opportunities to talk to other humans face to face. Here’s what I imagine: they have grown up in homes where both parents work, and they were stuck in a room with 20 other screaming kids all day. They have no brothers or sisters, or maybe one sibling. When their parents picked them up from daycare or school and came home, the children were put in front of the television or at the table, while the parents tried to do all those things that have to be done to keep a home and a family running. And as they grew up, these children occupied themselves with computers, computer games, television, cell-phones, and text-messaging. But they rarely got to actually engage another human being in social interaction.

I don’t mean this to be an indictment against parents for working; people will do what they feel they have to do. And in a lot of ways, the working parents of today have no choice but to curb their children’s outside activities—after all, it’s not like when I was a kid, where I could just ride my bicycle to a friend’s house or go to the park or playground by myself.

But if a child’s life develops a pattern in which he has severely limited opportunities to interact with different people, there has to be some extra effort to instill in him good social skills. Without them, a young person is facing a terrible disadvantage.

It is not that these kids do not have friends, but they seem to be comfortable only with other kids who “speak their language.” When confronted by someone outside of their limited social sphere, they have a difficult time adapting, and they lack the rudiments of basic polite intercourse that can help them overcome social hurdles.

I am absolutely sure they have personalities . . . somewhere . . . but they haven’t been trained to direct those personalities outward, to project who they are and what they think positively and respectfully. They lack confidence in an unfamiliar situation, and they lack perception in judging what social skills need to be applied in a given situation. Mostly, they seem to lack the knowledge that there is such a thing as a social skill.
Someone who does not know how to read social situations and adapt to them by employing the appropriate conduct is usually doomed to live within the confines of one social sphere. That is not an evil, in itself, but it limits life’s possibilities. You cannot fault a person for being reluctant to place himself in a situation where he is acutely uncomfortable. Worse, it is hard to fault someone who hasn’t been trained to sense when everyone else is uncomfortable with him.

And it is not that everybody has to be a society gadabout. Someone who has good manners, is comfortable in his own skin, and is genuinely congenial can usually handle himself equally well at a country barbecue or the royal opera, no matter what his social background.
But in my observation, not enough young people are being given the tools they need to feel at home in any situation, and, furthermore, I don’t think they are even taught that social skills are as important—and in some cases, more important—than other skills they may need in life to succeed.

To some Americans, this may seem like a trivial thing. But the quality of life—our happiness—usually hinges upon how well we interact with other people: our family members, our spouses, our friends, our communities. If we cannot open ourselves up to find new friends and new experiences by developing healthy and productive relationships with a broad range of people—at home, at work, in our communities—we stunt our own opportunities to live a full life.

America has traditionally been the land of opportunity; it would be a shame if America’s young people never saw life’s opportunities, let alone allowed those opportunities materialize into the fulfillment of their aspirations. Americans need to work on developing American youths into happy, confident adults who can relate well to other people.

The well-being of America’s youth is not someone else’s responsibility. It is yours. Be an American.

Related articles by Zemanta

• “Are computers and the Internet making people a little bit autistic?”
• Study: On Teens, Games, & Civic Engagement

No related posts.

I don’t know why so many Americans keep demanding that the government solve their problems. The United States government doesn’t work. Time and again, American politicians have demonstrated their utter incompetence at even understanding problems, let alone actually solving them.

There are some things a government must do—it is the reason we even consent to be governed. (Pssst . . . it’s in The Declaration of Independence.) But most of the time, when the U.S. government gets a hold of a problem, it’s like asking your dentist to design a house.

Here’s how the U.S. government works: You’re hungry, and you ask for a ham sandwich. Your pig congressman proposes it as the Ham Sandwich Bill. Of course, not wanting it to look like simple pork, he broadens it a bit: it includes Black Forest Ham, Smoked Ham, Honey Ham, and mustard. Terrific. So far, so good. But now, it has to go to the House Lunch Committee.

Now, some other congressman from a cow district wants it to be a roast beef sandwich—or, at the very least, that it includes some roast beef, or maybe corned beef, or pastrami. Then the poultry congressmen have their say. The dairy congressmen demand that it have cheese, and, of course, since you can’t have a sandwich by itself, you also need a glass of milk.

And then the wheat congressmen debate with the rye congressmen what kind of bread it ought to have, and they compromise by deciding that both must be included. And then come all the vegetables and condiments. By then, the nut and fruit congressmen are asking why the bill fails to address nuts and fruits.

Eventually, it comes out of committee, and in the floor debate, members say that there is so much stuff here, that it should not be a sandwich at all, it ought to be a buffet.

But if it is a buffet, it needs to be a matter that is placed within the purview of the United States Buffet Agency. So now, the bill is renamed as an Amendment to the American Buffet Act. It goes to the Senate. They debate even more, and, after a few more changes, everyone is finally happy. They add another $20 billion to the federal budget. The bill is passed, and the President signs it at a press conference with everybody smiling.

Now you ask the U.S. Buffet Agency about your sandwich. But they have just started. They decide that in order to effectively administer this program, they need to enact some regulations. They propose regulations stating that you need a permit. They define the permit requirements, citing to appropriate sections of the American Buffet Act.

Then they solicit comments, and get them from activist groups like Americans Who Hate Sandwiches, the American Society for Vegetarian Sandwiches, and Pork is Murder. The agency considers all of the comments and 90 days latter it issues regulations that incorporate all of the comments into their final regulations.

You then spend hours filling out reams of paperwork applying for your Ham Sandwich permit. The agency gives you a permit, but what you get is a fruit platter, because the Agency concludes that the 2008 Amendment to the American Buffet Act does not include provisions for a ham sandwich, and, besides, the Buffet Agency concluded eight years ago that a ham sandwich is not as healthy as a fruit platter. It costs you $1,200.
The American government is a cumbersome, inefficient body. Most of the time, that’s a good thing, because we would really be in trouble if America’s politicians could exercise their power effectively. You see, they pretty much don’t know anything about anything—that is, anything real. They know how to blather on and spend money, though.

If Americans want something done, if America has a problem that needs to be solved, the last thing Americans should do is to go whining to the U.S. government. Take a look around. Problems are solved by individuals who have an acute need or desire to solve them. Most of the time, it is the government that is getting in the way of a solution, not providing it.

Americans cannot and should not expect problems to be solved by a group of people who have no direct interest in an efficient and useful outcome, especially when they are spending someone else’s money—yours—to accomplish it.

Be an American. It is not someone else’s responsibility; it is yours. And if ever America needed Americans to accept the challenges America faces, it is now.

American Ideals Freedoms | Individual Rights | Customs and Traditions

No related posts.