Rhetoric counts.
I guess if you can advance an idea that sounds really good, people will keep buying it, even after it is proven wrong. To me, that seems to be the case with communism. Karl Marx suggested a world where everyone produced and everyone equally shared, so there was no more poverty... everyone lived in comfort and security.
That idea has been tested over and over and has always failed. In those few places where it persists, Cuba and North Korea, for example, poverty is the worst in the world. Never mind the corrupt leaders that always emerge, communism as an economic system just won't work. Not with humans, anyway. Inevitably the lazy say, "Why work? I'll still get my share." While the true workers say "Why work? No matter how hard I try, others refuse to work and my share is always diminished." Then the system collapses - unless, of course, those corrupt leaders build an Army to force people to keep grinding away in poverty. (Ala Kim Jung il and Fidel Castro)
On the other hand, capitalism and the free market have succeeded everywhere they are allowed to flourish. Compare the two Koreas. Take a look at tiny Japan. The system is very simple. Work hard, be thrifty and you can improve your own life. Be lazy and wasteful, and your life will not improve.
Yet, many people persist in promoting the Marx "feel good" idea while rejecting the proven success of capitalism.
Following the recent protests against the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity interviewed a couple of the protesters. Both bright young, well educated women. One asked "Why would anyone need to earn more than 500 thousand dollars a year?" Hannity didn't really know how to answer them, so I will. It doesn't matter if a person needs to earn that much money. The need is on the part of the employer. Obviously the person getting the big pay has a skill, a talent, a certain knowledge that the employer needs badly enough to pay.
And what about the athletes, the actors and musical performers who are paid millions. Do they need that kind of income? Irrelevant. The need is on the part of millions of adoring fans who happily shell out the bucks to see them perform.
Does Bill Gates need to be the richest man in the world? Hardly likely. But he developed a company which produced products needed by millions of people around the world who bought the products.
Has there been fraud in the capitalist/free market system? Yes, but most often in those organizations where the government is involved. Names like Fannie Mae and Franklin Raines come to mind.
In the above mentioned interview, one of the interviewees said her father worked his fingers to the bone and never made more than $10,000 a year. I wanted to ask, "Did he have a color TV and other luxuries of the day?" In other words, did he just consume everything he earned? Did he take advantage of the opportunity to advance a new idea or develop a new skill that could enhance his income potential? My father never made as much as $10,000 a year, but he raised five children through the depression and we never missed a meal, because he managed his earnings carefully, eschewed all luxuries, and used the money instead to develop other ways to better support his family.
But.... hard work and sacrifice don't sound very appealing, so few promote that!
Maybe we need to find a way to describe those virtues that will make the lazy as well as the highly educated say, "Hey, that sounds great!"
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
It's Time to Serve
the other white meat!
Due to the stupidity of whomever and the ignorance of the public, the new strain of flu, that H1N1 thing being called the "Swine Flu", a large segment of the public assumed that you could catch it from eating pork.
Wow!
So, people in great numbers quit buying pork and pork producers have suffered mightily. How sad!
My wife served pork chops for dinner. So good! So tender! She also made a great salad, and I embellished mine with bacon bits!
For breakfast I had pork sausage! Such great flavor!
Pork is a wonderful, tasty treat. It is not connected to H1N1.
Go ahead. Serve pork!
If your religion forbids eating pork, sin a little. It is a lot less troublesome than adultery!
the other white meat!
Due to the stupidity of whomever and the ignorance of the public, the new strain of flu, that H1N1 thing being called the "Swine Flu", a large segment of the public assumed that you could catch it from eating pork.
Wow!
So, people in great numbers quit buying pork and pork producers have suffered mightily. How sad!
My wife served pork chops for dinner. So good! So tender! She also made a great salad, and I embellished mine with bacon bits!
For breakfast I had pork sausage! Such great flavor!
Pork is a wonderful, tasty treat. It is not connected to H1N1.
Go ahead. Serve pork!
If your religion forbids eating pork, sin a little. It is a lot less troublesome than adultery!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Arguing With Idiots
Glen Beck has a new book with that title. It is something I have always advised against, so I will read Glen's book to see what he suggests.
You've seen some of the idiots interviewed on the street by the likes of Jay Leno and Sean Hannity. (Glen, himself, had a Fox producer asking questions of students on the campus at Berkley. Idiots, all!) You've encountered the idiots yourself. We - you - have always just dismissed them. But now, we are seeing them taken seriously, deadly seriously, in the highest levels of government. They are no longer being dismissed.
Attorney General Eric Holder is listening intently to the idiots. He says he will prosecute the intelligence people who, oh so criminally, poured water up the noses of people who gleefully murdered thousands of innocent Americans. President Obama said he will not stand in the way of law enforcement people, if they are enforcing the law against those law breakers: the waterboarders, not the waterboarded!
What is next? Will the idiots direct their outrage to those World War II veterans who, it turns out, actually shot at people for the singular reason that they wore the uniform of Japan or Germany and were shooting at them first? If waterboarding is criminal, what should we say about the GIs who used flame throwers to rout Japs out of a machine gun nest on some Pacific island?
Do you think I am crazy? Pay attention to what the idiots are saying and you, like I, will shiver.
What say you, Glen?
Glen Beck has a new book with that title. It is something I have always advised against, so I will read Glen's book to see what he suggests.
You've seen some of the idiots interviewed on the street by the likes of Jay Leno and Sean Hannity. (Glen, himself, had a Fox producer asking questions of students on the campus at Berkley. Idiots, all!) You've encountered the idiots yourself. We - you - have always just dismissed them. But now, we are seeing them taken seriously, deadly seriously, in the highest levels of government. They are no longer being dismissed.
Attorney General Eric Holder is listening intently to the idiots. He says he will prosecute the intelligence people who, oh so criminally, poured water up the noses of people who gleefully murdered thousands of innocent Americans. President Obama said he will not stand in the way of law enforcement people, if they are enforcing the law against those law breakers: the waterboarders, not the waterboarded!
What is next? Will the idiots direct their outrage to those World War II veterans who, it turns out, actually shot at people for the singular reason that they wore the uniform of Japan or Germany and were shooting at them first? If waterboarding is criminal, what should we say about the GIs who used flame throwers to rout Japs out of a machine gun nest on some Pacific island?
Do you think I am crazy? Pay attention to what the idiots are saying and you, like I, will shiver.
What say you, Glen?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
As Pogo 'Possum Once Said...
We have found the enemy - and it is us!
You hear rants and raves about the First Amendment... always in some sort of reference to freedom of the press. Actually, the subject is in the Constitution as what almost seems an afterthought. The exact pertinent wording is "Congress shall make no law -- abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Pretty simple.
That "right" from the Bill of Rights has been well-preserved so far as Congress is concerned, largely because the press is itself a most powerful lobby. As has been famously said, one should not argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Today, "press" often means people who set no type and buy no ink. And one might well advise against arguing with a man who can speak into a radio microphone and be heard by twenty million pairs of ear.
As one time Republican Presidential candidate Wendell L. Willkie once said, "Freedom of the press is the staff of life for any vital democracy." To me, that trumps the ability to win an argument on the strength of numbers alone.
I am okay with defending freedom of the press, because we so desperately need a free press. But what are we to do when the press commits suicide? The true strength of a free press is the ability to spread the truth. Why have millions of Americans picked up their daily newspaper? Why have millions tuned their television or radio to a favored news program? Because they seek the truth. My mother, a sincere but lightly educated person, believed what was written in the newspaper. Really believed it. Somehow, major newspapers missed that. They ceased to understand that it was printed because it was true, and started believing that it was true because it was printed.
When the press, now more commonly known as "News Media" no longer tells the truth, circulation and audience ratings sag. Today, nearly every major newspaper is losing circulation. Every major television news department is watching their audience ratings plummet. They certainly cannot blame the Congress. They may blame their competition... the internet, or whatever is handy. But the real problem is that the readers and the viewers are beginning to doubt the truth in what they read in their newspapers and see on their television.
Readers and viewers have good reason to be doubters. The September 12 anti-big government protests in Washington, D.C. is a textbook illustration. Photos of the crowds sent home by participants clearly show hundreds of thousands of participants, perhaps a million or two, but editors at the major media outlets just cannot put their political bias aside and report that truth.
Will we reach the point where newspapers are no longer printed? Will television broadcasting one day become solely an entertainment and sports medium?
Will our democracy survive without that staff of life that is a free press?
We have found the enemy - and it is us!
You hear rants and raves about the First Amendment... always in some sort of reference to freedom of the press. Actually, the subject is in the Constitution as what almost seems an afterthought. The exact pertinent wording is "Congress shall make no law -- abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Pretty simple.
That "right" from the Bill of Rights has been well-preserved so far as Congress is concerned, largely because the press is itself a most powerful lobby. As has been famously said, one should not argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Today, "press" often means people who set no type and buy no ink. And one might well advise against arguing with a man who can speak into a radio microphone and be heard by twenty million pairs of ear.
As one time Republican Presidential candidate Wendell L. Willkie once said, "Freedom of the press is the staff of life for any vital democracy." To me, that trumps the ability to win an argument on the strength of numbers alone.
I am okay with defending freedom of the press, because we so desperately need a free press. But what are we to do when the press commits suicide? The true strength of a free press is the ability to spread the truth. Why have millions of Americans picked up their daily newspaper? Why have millions tuned their television or radio to a favored news program? Because they seek the truth. My mother, a sincere but lightly educated person, believed what was written in the newspaper. Really believed it. Somehow, major newspapers missed that. They ceased to understand that it was printed because it was true, and started believing that it was true because it was printed.
When the press, now more commonly known as "News Media" no longer tells the truth, circulation and audience ratings sag. Today, nearly every major newspaper is losing circulation. Every major television news department is watching their audience ratings plummet. They certainly cannot blame the Congress. They may blame their competition... the internet, or whatever is handy. But the real problem is that the readers and the viewers are beginning to doubt the truth in what they read in their newspapers and see on their television.
Readers and viewers have good reason to be doubters. The September 12 anti-big government protests in Washington, D.C. is a textbook illustration. Photos of the crowds sent home by participants clearly show hundreds of thousands of participants, perhaps a million or two, but editors at the major media outlets just cannot put their political bias aside and report that truth.
Will we reach the point where newspapers are no longer printed? Will television broadcasting one day become solely an entertainment and sports medium?
Will our democracy survive without that staff of life that is a free press?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Medical Mistakes???
Shoot the bastards!
The very idea of medical malpractice lawsuits has always mystified me. No... it has angered me.
There's a joke floating around the Internet about a heart surgeon who owned a motorcycle. One day he took his bike into a garage. A mechanic said, "Doc... you and I do the same kind of work. You get into a person's heart and repair a problem. I do the same thing with motorcycles. I get into a bike's heart, it's engine, and repair a problem. Why should you get paid more than I?"
The surgeon replied, "Try doing it with the engine running."
For me, this "more truth than fiction" story perfectly describes the difference between a medical professionals job, and the job of folks like me, who fix things when the "engine" is not running.
Do medical doctors make mistakes? Are they human? Everyone makes mistakes. I have made some whoppers. Once I made a direct response TV commercial for a client in Philadelphia. I will always believe that I did it well. But when we made a tape of the commercial to send to a TV station, someone transposed the figures on the 800 response number that appeared on the commercial. The commercial aired several times on a Philadelphia TV station, but no calls came to our 800 number. In a panic, I called the TV station and asked that someone view the tape and tell me the 800 number they saw. The mistake was discovered. Any viewer who may have responded to our commercial would have called a wrong number... perhaps hearing a message that the number they dialed was "no longer in service."
I paid for that mistake. I was not paid for my work. I had to pay the TV station's charges for airing the commercial, and I lost the client. But I was not sued! Should I have paid the client for the loss of time in getting his advertising campaign underway? Perhaps. Should I have paid one lawyer a big paycheck for dragging me into court and paid another a fee for keeping me out of jail? Well, I didn't have to.
But, if I had been a medical doctor, I well may have had to pay the client tens of thousands of dollars, and paid the lawyers many more thousands.
There are some crazy things accepted as "the way it is done" in America. None are crazier than medical malpractice lawsuits. Do doctors sometimes become careless and negligent? It is possible. But, should the "harmed" patient receive a huge payday, vastly greater than his actual losses? Should all other patients contribute to that big payday and simultaneously make a trial lawyer wealthy? Like it or not, that is what is happening. and we are paying twice because doctors are then forced to practice "defensive medicine".
Okay... maybe defensive medicine is a necessary step in protecting us. But should insurance company profits and obscene legal fees also be piled on?
We all know that the government fails miserably when it comes to running things. Be it the postal service, Social Security, Amtrak, even Cars for Clunkers. The reason they fail is because decisions are made for political reasons: To gain votes. To shift the blame. To make an opponent look bad or make a friend look good, or, as in the case of trial lawyers, to make a payback for earlier support.
Maybe it will take an uprising of the population. Maybe a new, powerful leader will emerge to do the job. But if this government of, by and for the people is to survive, the job of running things must be forever taken out of the hands of politicians.
Shoot the bastards!
The very idea of medical malpractice lawsuits has always mystified me. No... it has angered me.
There's a joke floating around the Internet about a heart surgeon who owned a motorcycle. One day he took his bike into a garage. A mechanic said, "Doc... you and I do the same kind of work. You get into a person's heart and repair a problem. I do the same thing with motorcycles. I get into a bike's heart, it's engine, and repair a problem. Why should you get paid more than I?"
The surgeon replied, "Try doing it with the engine running."
For me, this "more truth than fiction" story perfectly describes the difference between a medical professionals job, and the job of folks like me, who fix things when the "engine" is not running.
Do medical doctors make mistakes? Are they human? Everyone makes mistakes. I have made some whoppers. Once I made a direct response TV commercial for a client in Philadelphia. I will always believe that I did it well. But when we made a tape of the commercial to send to a TV station, someone transposed the figures on the 800 response number that appeared on the commercial. The commercial aired several times on a Philadelphia TV station, but no calls came to our 800 number. In a panic, I called the TV station and asked that someone view the tape and tell me the 800 number they saw. The mistake was discovered. Any viewer who may have responded to our commercial would have called a wrong number... perhaps hearing a message that the number they dialed was "no longer in service."
I paid for that mistake. I was not paid for my work. I had to pay the TV station's charges for airing the commercial, and I lost the client. But I was not sued! Should I have paid the client for the loss of time in getting his advertising campaign underway? Perhaps. Should I have paid one lawyer a big paycheck for dragging me into court and paid another a fee for keeping me out of jail? Well, I didn't have to.
But, if I had been a medical doctor, I well may have had to pay the client tens of thousands of dollars, and paid the lawyers many more thousands.
There are some crazy things accepted as "the way it is done" in America. None are crazier than medical malpractice lawsuits. Do doctors sometimes become careless and negligent? It is possible. But, should the "harmed" patient receive a huge payday, vastly greater than his actual losses? Should all other patients contribute to that big payday and simultaneously make a trial lawyer wealthy? Like it or not, that is what is happening. and we are paying twice because doctors are then forced to practice "defensive medicine".
Okay... maybe defensive medicine is a necessary step in protecting us. But should insurance company profits and obscene legal fees also be piled on?
We all know that the government fails miserably when it comes to running things. Be it the postal service, Social Security, Amtrak, even Cars for Clunkers. The reason they fail is because decisions are made for political reasons: To gain votes. To shift the blame. To make an opponent look bad or make a friend look good, or, as in the case of trial lawyers, to make a payback for earlier support.
Maybe it will take an uprising of the population. Maybe a new, powerful leader will emerge to do the job. But if this government of, by and for the people is to survive, the job of running things must be forever taken out of the hands of politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)