Loyalty, bad - Every man for himself, good. Is that what political correctness is all about?
During a recent “meet and greet” I met a gentleman who relocated from Utah. He was not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) aka “Mormon” as most Utahans are. In fact, he was a Unitarian – an organization that institutionalized the celebration of anything from the spiritual belief or disbelief menu that fits their member's fancy. This provision makes cafeteria Catholics and cafeteria Presbyterians appear to be exceptionally uncreative. He was also a senior manager of a company who hired many LDS employees for their well known characteristics of “dependability, respect for authority, and work ethic” - traits he admitted benefitted his company greatly.
His next comments had a surprisingly negative twist. He complained that the Mormons in Utah were predisposed to not question authority - too obediant, and were excessively “clickish”, not inviting their non-Mormon boss to social events for the umpteen years he worked there. He did admint, however, that LDS outside of Utah are much more socially inclusive of people of other faiths.
What was fascinating to me about his complaint is he appeared to want to have it “both ways”. He wanted obedient rebels. He wanted people who would do the work given to them and at the same time he wished they were more independent-minded and strong-willed “like folks in the rest of the country.” But then, would his company be able to stick to its strategic plan through unity and teamwork? Probably not.
The opposite scenario is the several Republican Sarah Palin handlers being upset for her being a "maverick." They want her to be a maverick at the same time they want her to be a "yes" woman.
Anyway, back to my Utah acquaintance. This gentleman’s critique is an apt representation of how far our nation has strayed from being “E Pluribus Unum” – “out of many, one.” Even though his company benefited from its’ employees respect for authority and related traits, he felt individuals practicing such traits were flawed in some manner - that their loyalty and obedience were oddly extreme. Well, in our society, respect for authority, dependability and the like are out of vogue. No wonder this individual thought it “unnatural.” These have become peculiar and uncommon traits. He is caught up in our “every man for himself” culture.
The Utah LDS he disdains for their “excess loyalty” reflects the character that could reunite the people of this nation. Their perceived “clickishness” is a cultural safeguard against being sucked into the larger devisive morass of our society. Or is our growing devisive, self-absorbed disdain for our cultural heritage and national goals seen as one of our nations' strengths? Hmmmm. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case.
We as a nation have strayed far afield from being united, with a common purpose. We have strayed from stressing things we have in common to "celebrating our differences." We have evolved into a nation that cherishes diversity (read: differences and disunity) above all. Why don't we identify and celebrate things we have in common with one another? Wouldn't that enhance chances of unity? Ahh, but it cuts against our rebellious grain. We disdain unity.
A poignant speech a la Thomas Paine and his “Common Sense” eloquently describes what we have become in this short video titled "The Ghost of Thomas Paine and the Second Revolution." View it here.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
All About Race
How on earth can can anyone claim with a straight face that support for a black presidential candidate who has indoctrinated himself in Black Liberation Theology, is buddies with radicals, and endorsed as "the Messiah" by the leader of The Nation of Islam (which has declared the white man is the devil) that their support is not "all about race." The Obama campaign is all about the pot maliciously and erroneously calling the kettle white. Charles Krauthammer has it nailed here.
And the polls? 93% of blacks support Obama while 43% of whites support Obama (Quinnipiac University Poll - September 2008). I was unaware that such a super-majority of blacks were super-liberal. What other reason might there be for such a lopsided 93 to 2 (remainder not responding) poll among blacks? Could it possibly mean that blacks are more racist than whites? If so, will folks now start arguing that racism isn't such a bad thing - in defense of their racist preferences? That would certainly fit the mold of Obama's Black Liberation indoctrination he received throughout most of his life.
Colin Powell's disclaimer that his Obama endorsement is not about race is as phony as Obama's claim he was never a Muslim. While it may be true he is not now a Muslim, two things are certain: 1} He was a Muslim and he is likely a sympathizer with that violent, deceitful anti-American religion today, and 2) He is a racist and is supported by racists. Can you imagine the appointments he is likely to make? Consider his past associations and where his support is coming from: Middle east funding, black liberation racists, Muslims and their sympathizers, socialists and anti-Americans. Some federal government we are likely to have. That's all this county needs - a new dive into the abyss of public racism.
You think the ratings of the Bush presidency are low today? I cannot fathom the depth of discontent and dysfunction an Obama presidency will bring to this nation.
And the polls? 93% of blacks support Obama while 43% of whites support Obama (Quinnipiac University Poll - September 2008). I was unaware that such a super-majority of blacks were super-liberal. What other reason might there be for such a lopsided 93 to 2 (remainder not responding) poll among blacks? Could it possibly mean that blacks are more racist than whites? If so, will folks now start arguing that racism isn't such a bad thing - in defense of their racist preferences? That would certainly fit the mold of Obama's Black Liberation indoctrination he received throughout most of his life.
Colin Powell's disclaimer that his Obama endorsement is not about race is as phony as Obama's claim he was never a Muslim. While it may be true he is not now a Muslim, two things are certain: 1} He was a Muslim and he is likely a sympathizer with that violent, deceitful anti-American religion today, and 2) He is a racist and is supported by racists. Can you imagine the appointments he is likely to make? Consider his past associations and where his support is coming from: Middle east funding, black liberation racists, Muslims and their sympathizers, socialists and anti-Americans. Some federal government we are likely to have. That's all this county needs - a new dive into the abyss of public racism.
You think the ratings of the Bush presidency are low today? I cannot fathom the depth of discontent and dysfunction an Obama presidency will bring to this nation.
One big happy radical neighborhood...
Portions of an old Bill Ayers book was posted on Michelle Malkin's web site. It fondly notes the close proximity of the homes of Bill, Barack, Muhammad Ali, and the another Muhammad supporter, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam - the same Louis who recently declared Obama to be "the Messiah." Not that neighborly proximity indicates mutual admiration. But in this case, expression of mutual admiration by the noted parties indicates mutual admiration - unless this is another case of, as Obama puts it, they are not the Bill or Louis I used to know. It makes no difference to him that they were anti-American radicals at the time he "used to know" them.
While on the topic of Luigi, did you know the Nation of Islam is nearly identical to mainstream and radical Islam except for one thing? The Nation of Islam is considered apostate by Islam because it differs in one respect: The Nation of Islam considers the white man the devil - Islam does not.
Jeremiah Wright. Tony Resko. Bill Ayers. And now Louis Farrakhan. Will non-racist America wake up to the fact that Obama was indoctrinated by, relates to, supports, and is embraced by America-hating racists?
While on the topic of Luigi, did you know the Nation of Islam is nearly identical to mainstream and radical Islam except for one thing? The Nation of Islam is considered apostate by Islam because it differs in one respect: The Nation of Islam considers the white man the devil - Islam does not.
Jeremiah Wright. Tony Resko. Bill Ayers. And now Louis Farrakhan. Will non-racist America wake up to the fact that Obama was indoctrinated by, relates to, supports, and is embraced by America-hating racists?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Anything but...
Neel Kashkari - as in "cash 'n carry", the "back in the day" throwback expression used to describe a cash transaction for merchandise - is the Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability in the United States Department of the Treasury. God has a dry sense of humor. This is too funny. The man placed in charge of the greatest credit binge in this nation's history is called Cash N. Carry.
Another not so funny thing, though. I don't see anything in his bio that qualifies him for this critical economic policy implementation task. He designed latches for TRW.
Another not so funny thing, though. I don't see anything in his bio that qualifies him for this critical economic policy implementation task. He designed latches for TRW.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Christian Representation in Iraqi Councils?
Increased Christian representatin on Iraqi Councils? Snowball's chance in hell.
Christians are being massacred in Iraq because they peaceably demonstrated for representation in the Iraqi government. So much for the promise of Iraqi democracy. As common sense and history should teach, there will be democracy in Iraq long enough for their leaders to fully implement Sharia law. For those not understanding that implication, Sharia law does not tolerate other religions very well.
There is a better chance that Obama will find a pro-American mentor than there is for the Iraqi government to tolerate demonstrations, never mind representation of Christians in their "democratic" government.
Democracy, by the way, is a two-edged sword: The majority can represent tyranny. Tolerance and liberty are much better ideals. But, unfortunately, the great majority of folk in Iraq are Muslim. 1,400 years of Islamic influence doesn't allow Muslims to tolerate. McCain's suggestion that it might take 100 years to achieve US objectives in Iraq might not be long enough to reverse 1,400 years of ingrained intolerance and violent habits.
We as a nation, especially our leaders, haven't yet grasped the fact that Muslims aren't Christians. They have a different value system. Their Koran is closer to our Old Testament on steroids without the New Testament. Legalism and vengence prevail. Grace, forgiveness, and tolerance are foreign to those folk. It is a safe bet that democracy is the wrong goal for us in Iraq. And I don't hold out much hope that the US will stomach devoting several hundred years of our resources to try to instill "grace, forgiveness, and tolerance" in that land.
Christians are being massacred in Iraq because they peaceably demonstrated for representation in the Iraqi government. So much for the promise of Iraqi democracy. As common sense and history should teach, there will be democracy in Iraq long enough for their leaders to fully implement Sharia law. For those not understanding that implication, Sharia law does not tolerate other religions very well.
There is a better chance that Obama will find a pro-American mentor than there is for the Iraqi government to tolerate demonstrations, never mind representation of Christians in their "democratic" government.
Democracy, by the way, is a two-edged sword: The majority can represent tyranny. Tolerance and liberty are much better ideals. But, unfortunately, the great majority of folk in Iraq are Muslim. 1,400 years of Islamic influence doesn't allow Muslims to tolerate. McCain's suggestion that it might take 100 years to achieve US objectives in Iraq might not be long enough to reverse 1,400 years of ingrained intolerance and violent habits.
We as a nation, especially our leaders, haven't yet grasped the fact that Muslims aren't Christians. They have a different value system. Their Koran is closer to our Old Testament on steroids without the New Testament. Legalism and vengence prevail. Grace, forgiveness, and tolerance are foreign to those folk. It is a safe bet that democracy is the wrong goal for us in Iraq. And I don't hold out much hope that the US will stomach devoting several hundred years of our resources to try to instill "grace, forgiveness, and tolerance" in that land.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Known by the Company You Keep...
But who really cares? Apparently, not many.
Ever since Jeremiah Wright's rabid feelings and philosphy about America became widely known last year, there has been radical after radical revealed as having been Obama's mentors, friends, and associates. Here are some of those associations along with some of his decisions based on those associations...
First his Muslim father,
...Then his Muslim stepfather,
...Then his aetheist mother,
...Then his decision to change his name from Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama
...Then his not-so-hot-on-America wife,
...Then Rev. Wright,
...Then his personal and business relationships with Tony Rezko, the corrupt Syrian Chicago developer,
...Then his expression that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
...Then his personal and community organizer relationships with Bill Ayers, the terrorist, which certainly went well beyond "just being in his neighborhood."
...Then the many associations with and support from leaders of the Nation of Islam, Islamic front groups, welfare, Communist and socialist organizations...
Is there any non-radical, non-socialist, non-Black Liberation thologist, non-Islamic, non-America hating, pro-American individual that has mentored Barrack Hussein Obama over the years?
The sad reality is, even if supporters of Barack Hussein Obama were convinced beyond any doubt that the above is all true, none of this would matter to them.
Why?
Because none of those "radicals" are radical or distastefull in the eyes of those who support Obama. There is such a lack of appreciation - not just lack of appreciation, but disdain for our culture and political system that none of Obamas' associations are seen as a negative. In fact, I would guess that while a small minority of his supporters may be put-off by these associations and influences, the greater majority are either indifferent or energized by them.
Note that most of Obama's supporters are from among Generation Ys (age 20-35 group) with a strong showing from the Xs (35 to 50).
A disproportionately large number of these folks are the ones who have slouched into becoming liberal (takeoff of William Bennett's "Slouching Toward Gommorrah") out of ignorance of our Christian heritage, and the history of our nations' struggles over the last couple of generations with their inherent sacrifices. They have no point of reference to what has made America great, most conspicuously, our founding sense of self-control and sacrifice.
So, it is only natural that these ignorant and deprived souls support a candidate who promises the easy way: fewer taxes and a massive increase in federal programs and entitlements. This is Obama's claim to fame - where his heart is - providing entitlements to those who lounge in their comfort zone of being the "oppressed" and "disadvantaged", mostly at the hands of the "enablers." Yes, the "enablers" - the well-off among us who have such pity for the "entitled" that they deprive them of the will to be self-sufficient by providing esteem and incentive squealching government handouts. There is much self-esteem, power and immediate gratification garnered by the enablers by arranging for these handouts.
After the "boomers" quit producing and paying taxes, the Gen Y/X liberals will go from feeding off the old folks to feeding off themselves - sort of like eating their young.
The election may or may not be a sqeaker - depending on the degree "the Bradley effect" is at play. But there is a growing liberal population who sees nothing wrong with radical causes and behaviors, and thus sees nothing wrong with associations with radicals.
Ever since Jeremiah Wright's rabid feelings and philosphy about America became widely known last year, there has been radical after radical revealed as having been Obama's mentors, friends, and associates. Here are some of those associations along with some of his decisions based on those associations...
First his Muslim father,
...Then his Muslim stepfather,
...Then his aetheist mother,
...Then his decision to change his name from Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama
...Then his not-so-hot-on-America wife,
...Then Rev. Wright,
...Then his personal and business relationships with Tony Rezko, the corrupt Syrian Chicago developer,
...Then his expression that the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."
...Then his personal and community organizer relationships with Bill Ayers, the terrorist, which certainly went well beyond "just being in his neighborhood."
...Then the many associations with and support from leaders of the Nation of Islam, Islamic front groups, welfare, Communist and socialist organizations...
Is there any non-radical, non-socialist, non-Black Liberation thologist, non-Islamic, non-America hating, pro-American individual that has mentored Barrack Hussein Obama over the years?
The sad reality is, even if supporters of Barack Hussein Obama were convinced beyond any doubt that the above is all true, none of this would matter to them.
Why?
Because none of those "radicals" are radical or distastefull in the eyes of those who support Obama. There is such a lack of appreciation - not just lack of appreciation, but disdain for our culture and political system that none of Obamas' associations are seen as a negative. In fact, I would guess that while a small minority of his supporters may be put-off by these associations and influences, the greater majority are either indifferent or energized by them.
Note that most of Obama's supporters are from among Generation Ys (age 20-35 group) with a strong showing from the Xs (35 to 50).
A disproportionately large number of these folks are the ones who have slouched into becoming liberal (takeoff of William Bennett's "Slouching Toward Gommorrah") out of ignorance of our Christian heritage, and the history of our nations' struggles over the last couple of generations with their inherent sacrifices. They have no point of reference to what has made America great, most conspicuously, our founding sense of self-control and sacrifice.
So, it is only natural that these ignorant and deprived souls support a candidate who promises the easy way: fewer taxes and a massive increase in federal programs and entitlements. This is Obama's claim to fame - where his heart is - providing entitlements to those who lounge in their comfort zone of being the "oppressed" and "disadvantaged", mostly at the hands of the "enablers." Yes, the "enablers" - the well-off among us who have such pity for the "entitled" that they deprive them of the will to be self-sufficient by providing esteem and incentive squealching government handouts. There is much self-esteem, power and immediate gratification garnered by the enablers by arranging for these handouts.
After the "boomers" quit producing and paying taxes, the Gen Y/X liberals will go from feeding off the old folks to feeding off themselves - sort of like eating their young.
The election may or may not be a sqeaker - depending on the degree "the Bradley effect" is at play. But there is a growing liberal population who sees nothing wrong with radical causes and behaviors, and thus sees nothing wrong with associations with radicals.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
God: Why Science Exists
As I was reading the introduction to The Shack by William P. Young, this thought about those atheists and agnostics who have a narrow but abosolute faith in Science crossed my mind. I thought I'd share...
It is this: There would be no need for science if there were not an unlimited number of undiscovered, unexplained, unknown, and seemingly unknowable things for science to prove or disprove. God fits in the category of things that science hasn't figured out. If it ever did, there would be no need for science. In the meantime, it would serve devotees of science well to accept the fact that God exists. Some scientists know him; some consider him unknowable. But to assert he does not exist is foolish - and unscientific.
It is this: There would be no need for science if there were not an unlimited number of undiscovered, unexplained, unknown, and seemingly unknowable things for science to prove or disprove. God fits in the category of things that science hasn't figured out. If it ever did, there would be no need for science. In the meantime, it would serve devotees of science well to accept the fact that God exists. Some scientists know him; some consider him unknowable. But to assert he does not exist is foolish - and unscientific.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
In Bed...
Here's the picture:
Wachovia, a large "plum" financial institution in trouble.
Merger with a healthier institution required by FDIC.
FDIC arranges a $2.1 billion purchase by Citi Bank.
Wells Fargo offers $14.8 billion, which is favored by Wachovia stockholders and would not cost the taxpayers anything.
FDIC objects and files an injunction against the $14.8 billion deal. Further background is explained here.
This is a snapshot of the FDIC in bed with Citi Bank, ya' think?
Wachovia, a large "plum" financial institution in trouble.
Merger with a healthier institution required by FDIC.
FDIC arranges a $2.1 billion purchase by Citi Bank.
Wells Fargo offers $14.8 billion, which is favored by Wachovia stockholders and would not cost the taxpayers anything.
FDIC objects and files an injunction against the $14.8 billion deal. Further background is explained here.
This is a snapshot of the FDIC in bed with Citi Bank, ya' think?
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Weird Presidential candidate pleas about economy
Both presidential candidates and many in Congress are pleading to pass the $700 billion bailout to enable Americans to get more credit to keep the economy going. In their next breath they bemoan the fact of our excessive national and personal debt. Isn't there a disconnect here?
Am I the only one confused by this?
From Wikipedia: "As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion[2], about $31,700 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] Adding unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar obligations, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household.[4] In 2007, the public debt was 36.9 percent of GDP [5], with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[6]"
Consumer debt alone is nearly $2.6 trillion dollars. This is about $8,500 in debt for every man, woman and child - not including mortgage debt.
We have been warned for decades that this magnitude of national and consumer debt is excessive and will come back to bite us some day. While that debt is in the midst of biting us (it is the root cause for the current failure of our financial system), our leaders are in the process of getting us $700,000,000,000 MORE in debt so that that consumers can get themselves more in debt.
What am I missing here. I know there are two theories of national fiscal policy. One is that we ought to avoid "excessive" quantities of national and personal debt. The other, and the one that we are told we need to follow to "survive" is that national and personal debt are essential (without limit?) to maintain our national and personal prosperity.
Have we, as a nation, passed the fiscal "point of no return" whereby we have no choice but continue to embrace suicidal economic policies to prolong the agony? Or does someone really know what they are doing and things are not as bad as they seem?
Am I the only one confused by this?
From Wikipedia: "As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion[2], about $31,700 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] Adding unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar obligations, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household.[4] In 2007, the public debt was 36.9 percent of GDP [5], with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[6]"
Consumer debt alone is nearly $2.6 trillion dollars. This is about $8,500 in debt for every man, woman and child - not including mortgage debt.
We have been warned for decades that this magnitude of national and consumer debt is excessive and will come back to bite us some day. While that debt is in the midst of biting us (it is the root cause for the current failure of our financial system), our leaders are in the process of getting us $700,000,000,000 MORE in debt so that that consumers can get themselves more in debt.
What am I missing here. I know there are two theories of national fiscal policy. One is that we ought to avoid "excessive" quantities of national and personal debt. The other, and the one that we are told we need to follow to "survive" is that national and personal debt are essential (without limit?) to maintain our national and personal prosperity.
Have we, as a nation, passed the fiscal "point of no return" whereby we have no choice but continue to embrace suicidal economic policies to prolong the agony? Or does someone really know what they are doing and things are not as bad as they seem?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Announcing: The Politically Correct Bill Marriott
Last night I viewed the Marriott Hotel web site and noticed a blog by the firms president, Bill Marriott. Here it is, along with comments he invites from others who offered their condolences and heartfelt expressions of how terrible the tragedy was.
I similarly responded, expressing my sincere condolences along with my concerns about how long it took for firefighters to respond to contain the blaze - which they never did. I commented with words similar to my previous blog on this topic, below. I followed up by adding that my hope is that this terrible event should not dissuade democracies from asserting our efforts for freedom to overcome worldwide Islamic fascist terrorism.
Mr. Marriott chose not include my comments among the responses to his blog. Let me speculate as to why my comments were not included.
In his politically and corporately correct style which is shared by many of his American corporate cohorts, he chose not to call a spade a spade for fear of offending someone. He is not into feather ruffling. He wouldn't want to turn the Pakistani government, or, Allah forbid, the Islamabad Fire Department against him. He wouldn't want his hotel to burn to the ground. Oh, wait, it already did!
He is, obviously, taking the "long view." He will continue to be "easy to get along with" and "not easily offended" so he can get back to making the big bucks in a nation that is likely to kill his employees, a nation whose firefighters and top leadership are likely secretly wallowing in the success of their retribution.
This priority is consistent with Mr. Marriott's other top buck making priorities of continuing the policy of showing porn throughout his hotel chain, despite his purported religious beliefs.
This is so typical of our political and corporate "leaders." Their personal beliefs mean practically nothing in the practice of their governmental and business affairs. This is true whether the personal belief is "pro-life" or "pro-morality". If the belief doesn't get them elected or does not enhance "the bottom line" then to hell with it - literally.
For anyone who wonders why we are a declining nation, this is as good a starting point as any.
I similarly responded, expressing my sincere condolences along with my concerns about how long it took for firefighters to respond to contain the blaze - which they never did. I commented with words similar to my previous blog on this topic, below. I followed up by adding that my hope is that this terrible event should not dissuade democracies from asserting our efforts for freedom to overcome worldwide Islamic fascist terrorism.
Mr. Marriott chose not include my comments among the responses to his blog. Let me speculate as to why my comments were not included.
In his politically and corporately correct style which is shared by many of his American corporate cohorts, he chose not to call a spade a spade for fear of offending someone. He is not into feather ruffling. He wouldn't want to turn the Pakistani government, or, Allah forbid, the Islamabad Fire Department against him. He wouldn't want his hotel to burn to the ground. Oh, wait, it already did!
He is, obviously, taking the "long view." He will continue to be "easy to get along with" and "not easily offended" so he can get back to making the big bucks in a nation that is likely to kill his employees, a nation whose firefighters and top leadership are likely secretly wallowing in the success of their retribution.
This priority is consistent with Mr. Marriott's other top buck making priorities of continuing the policy of showing porn throughout his hotel chain, despite his purported religious beliefs.
This is so typical of our political and corporate "leaders." Their personal beliefs mean practically nothing in the practice of their governmental and business affairs. This is true whether the personal belief is "pro-life" or "pro-morality". If the belief doesn't get them elected or does not enhance "the bottom line" then to hell with it - literally.
For anyone who wonders why we are a declining nation, this is as good a starting point as any.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Slowest Response to a Major Fire I've Ever Seen
I was watching live scenes of the Islamabad, Pakistan, Marriott hotel fire this morning. The first scenes broadcast on Fox cable appeared to be about 30 minutes or so after the initial Islamic terrorist bombing occurred. No fire fighting was in sight. Only after 30 to 40 additional minutes of broadcast time (well over an hour after the initial blast) did any visual of firefighting appear - one lone stream of water aimed erratically at the hotel.
Like Saudi Arabia, one has to wonder about the dedication of this "significant ally" toward the defense of American interests. I would not be surprised if there was a purposeful deference toward allowing the hotel to burn - a show of Pakistani and radical Islams' disdain toward American efforts to thwart Islamic "extremism" (or Islamic "mainstremism" is perhaps more accurate) in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Pakistan appears to have gotten a bit edgy since the US has become more effective in thwarting al Quida activity in the border regions between itself and Afghanistan. This is our "slap on the wrist" for daring to be effective - which Pakistan does not have the will to be.
Like Saudi Arabia, one has to wonder about the dedication of this "significant ally" toward the defense of American interests. I would not be surprised if there was a purposeful deference toward allowing the hotel to burn - a show of Pakistani and radical Islams' disdain toward American efforts to thwart Islamic "extremism" (or Islamic "mainstremism" is perhaps more accurate) in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Pakistan appears to have gotten a bit edgy since the US has become more effective in thwarting al Quida activity in the border regions between itself and Afghanistan. This is our "slap on the wrist" for daring to be effective - which Pakistan does not have the will to be.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Stockholm Syndrome and Trickle Down Theory
As a conservative, a blasphemous thought has encroached into my mind concening the benefits of the "trickle down" theory we often hear about during discussions of how to stimulate the economy. I wonder whether most of us might be subject to the Stockholm Syndrome in this regard.
The conservative's solution to economic woes is usually centered around "the trickle down" theory. The opposite solution embraced by most liberals and many moderates is "tax the rich and tax big business" because they can afford it.
In an article entitled "Trickle-Down Ignorance" by Thomas Sowell (April 2, 2005) he states:
"What is often confused with a trickle-down theory is supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer. That theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place, leading to more taxable income, as well as a faster growing economy.
Sowell continues: "Whether it will happen in a given set of circumstances is what is controversial, but none of this has anything to do with money trickling down from the rich to the poor. It has to do with the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole."
The question I am plagued with: Does "the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole" necessarily mean that the middle and lower classes benefit? Or do we just hope we will benefit? Does this merely result in the rich just getting richer and the middle and poor getting poorer?
Turning to the "Stockholm syndrome" for a moment, as Wikipedia defines it, the
"Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which they have been placed. The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal."
The Stockholm Syndrome is "Loyalty to a more powerful abuser — in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in — is common among victims of domestic abuse, battered partners and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. This mental phenomenon is also known as Trauma-Bonding or Bonding-to-the-Perpetrator."
I wonder if the poor and middle classes who support the idea of the "trickle down theory" are subject to the Stockholm Syndrome?" Out of years of conditioning, are we being loyal to a more powerful abuser - in spite of the disadvantages we might reap from buying into the alleged benefits of trickle down theory espoused by the wealthy and big business (the "abuser")?
Before we buy into the alleged benefits of the trickle down theory with its' tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, let's understand whether or not there are any real economic benefits for the rest of us. Let's dare to step out of the shadow of the abuser and look at objective evidence. As Sowell wrote, all too often we take one side of an issue for granted and blindly accept it as fact without bothering to understand the other side.
It is way too easy for us to feel excessively dependent on the wealthy to make our economy work as the easy way to continue feeling comfortable and taken care of.
Let's not be intimidated by those who might be abusers who use us to further their quest for tax-free and often obscenely excessive wealth.
The conservative's solution to economic woes is usually centered around "the trickle down" theory. The opposite solution embraced by most liberals and many moderates is "tax the rich and tax big business" because they can afford it.
In an article entitled "Trickle-Down Ignorance" by Thomas Sowell (April 2, 2005) he states:
"What is often confused with a trickle-down theory is supply-side economics, such as that advocated by Arthur Laffer. That theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place, leading to more taxable income, as well as a faster growing economy.
Sowell continues: "Whether it will happen in a given set of circumstances is what is controversial, but none of this has anything to do with money trickling down from the rich to the poor. It has to do with the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole."
The question I am plagued with: Does "the creation of more wealth in the economy as a whole" necessarily mean that the middle and lower classes benefit? Or do we just hope we will benefit? Does this merely result in the rich just getting richer and the middle and poor getting poorer?
Turning to the "Stockholm syndrome" for a moment, as Wikipedia defines it, the
"Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which they have been placed. The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28 in 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal."
The Stockholm Syndrome is "Loyalty to a more powerful abuser — in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in — is common among victims of domestic abuse, battered partners and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses. This mental phenomenon is also known as Trauma-Bonding or Bonding-to-the-Perpetrator."
I wonder if the poor and middle classes who support the idea of the "trickle down theory" are subject to the Stockholm Syndrome?" Out of years of conditioning, are we being loyal to a more powerful abuser - in spite of the disadvantages we might reap from buying into the alleged benefits of trickle down theory espoused by the wealthy and big business (the "abuser")?
Before we buy into the alleged benefits of the trickle down theory with its' tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, let's understand whether or not there are any real economic benefits for the rest of us. Let's dare to step out of the shadow of the abuser and look at objective evidence. As Sowell wrote, all too often we take one side of an issue for granted and blindly accept it as fact without bothering to understand the other side.
It is way too easy for us to feel excessively dependent on the wealthy to make our economy work as the easy way to continue feeling comfortable and taken care of.
Let's not be intimidated by those who might be abusers who use us to further their quest for tax-free and often obscenely excessive wealth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)