It's so easy to stand out!

My son uttered that phrase during his first year in graduate school. "Dad", he said, "I am surprised at how easy it is to stand out." Well, easy or not, he did stand out and is, today, doing extremely well as a tenured professor at a major university.

Good for him. Sad for society. If it is easy to stand out, what does that say for the population?

Some 50-plus years ago, I stumbled across a book titled "How To Retire At 35." Since that time, there have been numerous writings on the subject, pro and con, and there is even a coming TV series by that name, scheduled to appear on TVLand cable channel.

The gist of that 1950s book was, indeed, the fact that it is easy to stand out. The author suggested that one decide the field of work in which he believes he will be happy. Then, get a job in that field. Start on the bottom rung of the ladder. That's okay. Then, be the very best employee the company ever hired. That's the "Stand out" part. If, within a reasonable period of time, your efforts are not recognized, look to another company in that field. Eventually, hard work, loyalty, honesty and devotion to your duties will be recognized and you will move up. The one constant then, must be, to be the best employee ever.

That is such a simple and effective plan. Yet, in some of the offerings since the 1950s, people have demonized the idea. A Google search of "How To Retire At 35" found some 72 million results. Some despaired over the idea of early retirement leading to a life of boredom with dire results. What a crock.

In recent years, liberal politicians have been wringing their hands over "the poor", as though large segments of the population are doomed to be stuck in a life of want. Yet, the renowned economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell has offered proof that many among "the poor" are only temporarily struggling economically. Large numbers of yesterday's poor are today's middle class and will be tomorrow's wealthy. It happens, because it is so easy to stand out.

Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said "Never make poverty comfortable." Perhaps if today's policy makers would heed that advice, hunger pangs would make more "poor" wake up to the fact that it is easy to stand out and will stand out themselves, rather than sit at home and beg for government help.

How To Learn

There are, basically, two ways to learn about a person, an event or an era. One way is to read what someone else has to say. The problem here is that you cannot always trust what someone else says.

The other way is to have lived through the era or the event, or lived during the period of the person's influence. The problem there is that you may have not been able to see the 'big picture'. Maybe you just were not privy to the rest of the story.

I am reminded of the World War II story from the Pacific. The War Department supposedly said a certain tiny, remote island was not important in the war effort. An individual soldier said "What do you mean this island is not important... I'm on it!"

I was born in the waning days of the Coolidge Administration. I have no first hand knowledge of Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, but I did live through the administrations of F.D.R., Harry Truman, J.F.K. and Jimmy Carter.

Teddy Roosevelt was a man of small stature and was such a wimp that when he first appeared in the legislature in a purple velvet suit, the other lawmakers all snickered. So he manufactured an image of a tough warrior which has stuck with many to this day.
    
For decades I've heard tell of the greatness of F.D.R.! I remember only the grinding poverty of the 1930s. I recall his failed programs - some even overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent attempt to pack the Court with six additional, new, hand-picked and like-minded justices.

F.D.R. was a horrible president. He set America on a path to destruction with bad fiscal policy. It will be nearly impossible to ever erase all the wrong F.D.R. gave us. Still, many - including our current failed president, Barack Obama - insist F.D.R. was a great president.

Finally, someone, Dr. Thomas Sowell, has eloquently made my case in a three-part column which he titled "The Progressive Legacy". Read all three parts here. 

I wish every American would read Dr. Sowell's explanation of how Progressives could advance such destructive policies periodically throughout the 20th Century, while hoodwinking the American Public into believing they were the 'party of the people'.

One may find it amazing that the Progressives never seem to learn. Obama is, today, making the same mistakes as his predecessors. We know he wasn't around to witness Teddy, Wilson, F.D.R., Truman or J.F.K. It is obvious, then, that he never read the truth about their serial failures.

Who will do the dirty work?

As someone who has been a hunter since my pre-teen years when my father took me rabbit hunting with an old .22 caliber rifle, I have always taken issue with anti-hunter types who enjoy their well-marbled steaks so long as someone else bloodies their hands killing and butchering the steer. Their concern is not for the animal, at all. They just don't want to be accused of the killing.

The Obama Administration has now jumped on their bandwagon with their free contraceptive mandate compromise. While professing to oppose abortion, the Administration is happy to provide "Plan B", morning-after abortion pills while assuring America that neither they nor faith based institutions will be pulling the trigger.

Kinda like the guy who hires someone else to murder his wife.

Is Obama non-partisan???

It wasn't that long ago when President Obama was taped at a West Coast fundraiser, accusing we peasants of "clinging to our guns and God".

 Well, now... the Administration certainly was not "clinging to their guns" when Fast & Furious was going down. Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to purchase high-quality weapons to give free to Mexican drug cartels. We know, of course, that grateful druggies made use of those guns in killing at least one Border Patrol agent, hundreds - maybe thousands - of Mexican citizens, and perhaps a few of the Americans murdered while south of the border on some sort of humanitarian mission.

But, the Administration is most certainly clinging to its guns in the case of Syrian civilians begging for arms to protect themselves from their own government. Obama says 'no' to smuggling arms into Syria.


Is that Fair and balanced, or what?


Now we see that the Administration is not "clinging to God" as they walk all over the religious beliefs of American citizens. Does your conscience oppose the use of contraceptives? Doesn't matter, you may be forced to pay for contraceptives to be given free to persons with different beliefs.

So... in the aforementioned spirit of being fair, should we not expect from this president a show of strong support for God's followers in some coming issue?