It seems that the last few years of my life have been spent lamenting the death of one hero after another. To be fair, most of these "deaths" are not physical meet your maker type deaths in the true sense of the word but rather moral or ethical failings that bring the person down from their lofty pedestal. It seems our heroes are not living up to their hero stature and are more and more regularly falling from grace to rejoin us common men.
The first such hero that comes to mind is one of my boyhood favorite sports figures, Roger Clemens. Clemens has been accused of cheating on baseball by using performance enhancing drugs ("PEDs"), cheating on his wife with a teenage country singer, and cheating on his oath by lying to Congress. To my knowledge, none of these accusations have been conclusively proven to date, but yet they create doubts in my mind about the integrity and honesty of this man who I so admired. As a lawyer I am compelled to say in our nation we are innocent until proven guilty and we should withhold judgment until actual proof is put forward and judgment is rendered, but as a mere mortal myself, I can't help but have my doubts.
The list could go on and on, from the Lance Armstrong doping allegations to the most recent scandal to rock the sports world, how Penn State football botched handling the Jerry Sandusky allegations, our heroes are dropping like flies. Even those heroes who are dead and gone cannot escape the bring down of modern journalism and media. Just this past year in a new biography of the late Walter Payton, Sweetness as he was known, was turned sour by nasty allegations of extramarital affairs, emotional abuse towards his wife, and addictions to painkillers and laughing gas.
I sometimes think that perhaps we were better off as a society in the days when we didn't know so much. When Mickey Mantle was famous few people knew of his penchant for late night gallivanting and being a booze-hound. This may be a ostrich with its head in the sand mentality, but perhaps there is some truth to the adage what you don't know can't hurt you. I wonder if we didn't know the sordid details of every celebrity's dirty laundry if we would feel better about the country we live in. Would our sense of the moral and ethical state of our society be different if we didn't see so much scandal?
As I think of these scandals and others involving the political candidates, movie stars, and musicians who we as a society elevate to hero status I cannot help but think about what a real hero is and who we should really be worshiping.
The second part of that question is easy; we should worship God the father and Jesus our savior. As the good book instructs, there shall be no other gods before Me. Maybe if we placed more of our focus on God and our relationship with Him while attempting to live a just and moral life ourselves we would be less focused on placing our hope and faith in worldly heroes who so often fail us.
The first part of the question is more complex. What makes someone a hero? A true hero is someone who lives a right, decent, and morally just life. A true here is a person who serves others and leads with strength and compassion. A true hero is someone who respects others and themselves while being humble and gracious. A true hero suffers hardship and indignity with grace and nobility. A true hero not only rises to the occasion when required, but also shows up everyday. A true hero gets up after being knocked down and takes responsibility for their actions.
When looking at the road ahead I fear that in our society today we have too few people struggling to be the everyday heroes the nation needs to survive. In today's me first, self-centered, entitlement society we have too few people trying to do what is right and too many people trying to get theirs. If more of us do not step up to become true everyday heroes, we could witness the death of our heroic American society.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Friday, December 2, 2011
Cool Video
Check out the video posted
In case you live under a rock and have not heard about this yet, the$11 billion by 2020for failure to perform to contractual requirements, the collapse of the housing market, a postal system that is considering closing down locations and limiting service to fewer days a week because they cannot operate effectively and efficiently, numerous other scandals, inefficiencies, mistakes,
and growing.
"Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem". It's too bad President George W. Bush hadn't followed that same course of thinking and vetoed this nonsensical bill, but he didn't and he signed it, and it will be one more example of his big government styled republican socialism.
72% of Americans believe the government has no right to dictate which light bulb they may use.
In case you live under a rock and have not heard about this yet, the$11 billion by 2020for failure to perform to contractual requirements, the collapse of the housing market, a postal system that is considering closing down locations and limiting service to fewer days a week because they cannot operate effectively and efficiently, numerous other scandals, inefficiencies, mistakes,
and growing."Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem". It's too bad President George W. Bush hadn't followed that same course of thinking and vetoed this nonsensical bill, but he didn't and he signed it, and it will be one more example of his big government styled republican socialism.
72% of Americans believe the government has no right to dictate which light bulb they may use.
Friday, November 18, 2011
If you only knew what you didn't know...
Recently Alec Baldwin, left wing actor, wrote an op ed piece for the Huffington Post discussing the Occupy Wall Street ("OWS") movement. (here)
I find this article interesting because I think it shows that if your underlying premise and understanding is wrong, you can't see the real problem and therefore are blind to the solution as well. Unfortunately for Mr. Baldwin, his political ideology prevents him from really understanding the underlying foundational causes to the problems he sees as the root of the OWS movement.
For instance, he says the oil companies manipulate how much oil to produce, this is fundamentally incorrect. First, OPEC, not the oil companies controls how much oil they pump out of the ground. Second, President Obama has issued an executive mandate through the EPA and other federal agencies controlling domestic oil production to shut down the oil rigs in our country. Moreover, in order to appease the environmental wing of the Democrat party he recently declared that no decision will be made Canadian oil pipe line that is proposed to bring oil from Canada to the US until after the 2012 election. Third, the Congress and Federal agencies have refused to green light or approve new oil refineries in this country since the late 70's/early 80's. These refineries would increase output and be more efficient, but they cannot be built without government approval. That approval will not happen when the government continues to interfere in the market place in its attempt to push "Green Energy" to the forefront. What this all represents is governmental interference with the market, not the oil companies being evil. Mr. Baldwin is blinded by an ideology that believes government is the answer, so when what there is a problem, Mr. Baldwin has a hard time accepting that it is precisely what the government is doing that is the issue. Therefore, he lashes out at the business entities in an effort to blame someone. Speaking of those big evil oil companies, lets ask Mr. Baldwin who those corporations actually are. Most people do not stop to realize that those companies are you and I. Companies are made up of stock holders. Almost anyone with a 401K is likely to have energy stocks and oil stocks are part of the portfolio of stocks that the 401K owns. So every time you attack a corporation, you are really attacking yourself. In Mr. Baldwin's case perhaps he is so wealthy that he doesn't have a 401K but instead has individual investments and doesn't own oil stock, but the majority of the rest of us do.
Mr. Baldwin also discusses the Protestant work ethic. Does he realize where that comes from? It comes from a society rooted in the foundation of God and morality. He says nothing about the fact that since the 1960's the Baby Boomers and the generations that have followed have been farther from God and religion than ever before. While religion is attacked daily in our schools and universities and groups like the ACLU are attempting to ban religion and God from the public square completely, is it any coincidence that the Protestant work ethic has been lost? In fact, I would be shocked if Mr. Baldwin would defend expressions of God in the public schools or square. The Constitution grants freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion. We cannot have a Protestant work ethic as a nation if we undermine the idea of Protestantism which is God's law and morality expressed through religion. The Founding Fathers of our nation realized the importance of God and His place in the public square. They prayed to God for guidance, providence, and hope. George Washington famously stated that the foundation of the republic was God and religion and that the republic could not stand or last without God's morality. (paraphrasing) The fact that we as a nation have divorced ourselves from God is a major reason why we are in the problems we are in. Without a recognition of God's law, moral standards, and a clear right and wrong, it is no wonder we've become as Mr. Baldwin labels it, "the Greediest Generation". I find it wholly ironic that Mr. Baldwin references the Protestant work ethic without also advocating for Protestant values and morality which create that work ethic.
Mr. Baldwin also touts the holy grail of high speed rail, (rhyme honestly not intended). High speed rail is a great concept in theory. However, if it were a viable idea the market would have capitalized on it already. Mr. Baldwin says we bail out the oil companies and the airlines every time we fill up or fly the friendly skies instead of demanding high speed rail. Well, Mr. Baldwin, I suggest this to you, if this is such a great idea, why not put your money and efforts where your pen is and invest in creating a high speed rail system that is privately owned and not funded by the tax payers. If you can make it work and make it profitable do so. Otherwise, what you are suggesting is that the taxpayers (the 1 percent, since over half of all American's don't pay federal income taxes) subsidize or bail out your failing venture of high speed rail that cannot make a profit. If you don't want to bail out the car companies and the banks, why should we bail our high speed rail?
I could go on with what is wrong with this article, but I'd rather find the common ground and say I completely agree with Mr. Baldwin when he says we should not bail out corporations that fail. We should have let all those banks and car companies go bankrupt. Sure there would be short term pain, but the long term benefit would have been greater. Allowing those companies to fail would have allowed the market to correct itself and reallocate capital to profitable uses. If those entities were in a market sector that still had viability and was not overly saturated then someone with a better idea or business model would have filled that void and provided a better product to the market in a profitable manner. Instead we see that the Treasury Department is finally admitting that we will likely never be fully repaid from what we gave General Motors (here) and do not even get me started on Solyndra.
I also agree that there are many many people in Congress who need to go, both Democrats and so called Republicans. We need to get people into Congress who are more willing to have fidelity to the Constitution and realize that the government that governs best is that which governs least. Most governing decisions should be done at the local level. Local control allows for much greater influence over your government. You will have much more sway at the local level with your mayor and governor (if you want to be involved) than you ever will over someone in Congress.
I leave you with this, things are likely to get worse before it gets better. I have empathy for those who are jobless and struggling. I have family who are similarly struggling and I hope more people have empathy for them. However, the answer is not more government rules and regulations and meddling, it's less.
I find this article interesting because I think it shows that if your underlying premise and understanding is wrong, you can't see the real problem and therefore are blind to the solution as well. Unfortunately for Mr. Baldwin, his political ideology prevents him from really understanding the underlying foundational causes to the problems he sees as the root of the OWS movement.
For instance, he says the oil companies manipulate how much oil to produce, this is fundamentally incorrect. First, OPEC, not the oil companies controls how much oil they pump out of the ground. Second, President Obama has issued an executive mandate through the EPA and other federal agencies controlling domestic oil production to shut down the oil rigs in our country. Moreover, in order to appease the environmental wing of the Democrat party he recently declared that no decision will be made Canadian oil pipe line that is proposed to bring oil from Canada to the US until after the 2012 election. Third, the Congress and Federal agencies have refused to green light or approve new oil refineries in this country since the late 70's/early 80's. These refineries would increase output and be more efficient, but they cannot be built without government approval. That approval will not happen when the government continues to interfere in the market place in its attempt to push "Green Energy" to the forefront. What this all represents is governmental interference with the market, not the oil companies being evil. Mr. Baldwin is blinded by an ideology that believes government is the answer, so when what there is a problem, Mr. Baldwin has a hard time accepting that it is precisely what the government is doing that is the issue. Therefore, he lashes out at the business entities in an effort to blame someone. Speaking of those big evil oil companies, lets ask Mr. Baldwin who those corporations actually are. Most people do not stop to realize that those companies are you and I. Companies are made up of stock holders. Almost anyone with a 401K is likely to have energy stocks and oil stocks are part of the portfolio of stocks that the 401K owns. So every time you attack a corporation, you are really attacking yourself. In Mr. Baldwin's case perhaps he is so wealthy that he doesn't have a 401K but instead has individual investments and doesn't own oil stock, but the majority of the rest of us do.
Mr. Baldwin also discusses the Protestant work ethic. Does he realize where that comes from? It comes from a society rooted in the foundation of God and morality. He says nothing about the fact that since the 1960's the Baby Boomers and the generations that have followed have been farther from God and religion than ever before. While religion is attacked daily in our schools and universities and groups like the ACLU are attempting to ban religion and God from the public square completely, is it any coincidence that the Protestant work ethic has been lost? In fact, I would be shocked if Mr. Baldwin would defend expressions of God in the public schools or square. The Constitution grants freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion. We cannot have a Protestant work ethic as a nation if we undermine the idea of Protestantism which is God's law and morality expressed through religion. The Founding Fathers of our nation realized the importance of God and His place in the public square. They prayed to God for guidance, providence, and hope. George Washington famously stated that the foundation of the republic was God and religion and that the republic could not stand or last without God's morality. (paraphrasing) The fact that we as a nation have divorced ourselves from God is a major reason why we are in the problems we are in. Without a recognition of God's law, moral standards, and a clear right and wrong, it is no wonder we've become as Mr. Baldwin labels it, "the Greediest Generation". I find it wholly ironic that Mr. Baldwin references the Protestant work ethic without also advocating for Protestant values and morality which create that work ethic.
Mr. Baldwin also touts the holy grail of high speed rail, (rhyme honestly not intended). High speed rail is a great concept in theory. However, if it were a viable idea the market would have capitalized on it already. Mr. Baldwin says we bail out the oil companies and the airlines every time we fill up or fly the friendly skies instead of demanding high speed rail. Well, Mr. Baldwin, I suggest this to you, if this is such a great idea, why not put your money and efforts where your pen is and invest in creating a high speed rail system that is privately owned and not funded by the tax payers. If you can make it work and make it profitable do so. Otherwise, what you are suggesting is that the taxpayers (the 1 percent, since over half of all American's don't pay federal income taxes) subsidize or bail out your failing venture of high speed rail that cannot make a profit. If you don't want to bail out the car companies and the banks, why should we bail our high speed rail?
I could go on with what is wrong with this article, but I'd rather find the common ground and say I completely agree with Mr. Baldwin when he says we should not bail out corporations that fail. We should have let all those banks and car companies go bankrupt. Sure there would be short term pain, but the long term benefit would have been greater. Allowing those companies to fail would have allowed the market to correct itself and reallocate capital to profitable uses. If those entities were in a market sector that still had viability and was not overly saturated then someone with a better idea or business model would have filled that void and provided a better product to the market in a profitable manner. Instead we see that the Treasury Department is finally admitting that we will likely never be fully repaid from what we gave General Motors (here) and do not even get me started on Solyndra.
I also agree that there are many many people in Congress who need to go, both Democrats and so called Republicans. We need to get people into Congress who are more willing to have fidelity to the Constitution and realize that the government that governs best is that which governs least. Most governing decisions should be done at the local level. Local control allows for much greater influence over your government. You will have much more sway at the local level with your mayor and governor (if you want to be involved) than you ever will over someone in Congress.
I leave you with this, things are likely to get worse before it gets better. I have empathy for those who are jobless and struggling. I have family who are similarly struggling and I hope more people have empathy for them. However, the answer is not more government rules and regulations and meddling, it's less.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Inflation, Price Fixing & Consequences
Due to the Fed having kept the interest rate at 0% for over 17 months, the destructive effects of inflation are now being felt all across the world. International stock exchanges, commodity prices, costs of housing, education and healthcare, all continue to rise despite massive unemployment, lack of capital investment and no shift in the fundamentals of the international economy. Unfortunately, since people perceive a rise in the stock market as the prophetic sign of good things to come, regardless of cause or context, most Americans remain oblivious to the other side, the dark side, of the inflationary coin that now swells like a tidal wave out on the open ocean: unnoticed, but inevitable and fast approaching. Soon, all time highs on the gold market will be joined by all time highs on the food market, and it is these price rises that will “cause” heartache and demands for federal action.
But since the average American politician or commentator is unable to think beyond the range of the moment, it is likely that the most simplistic, immediate, short-sighted solution will be put into effect – criminalize price increases, i.e. fix prices.
At first, this may appear to be a truly egalitarian policy. After all, what is the argument against price fixing? It is that if a price is set too low, then there will be more buyers than sellers and there will be a shortage. Yet, if prices are “allowed” to rise, or sky rocket, then only the wealthy can afford their bread, and why should we, the American people, allow only the wealthy to eat? Isn’t that also a shortage?
Leaving aside the moral questions here implicated, the answer lies in the long term inner workings of the pricing mechanism. When a price rises it sends a signal to the market that people “demand” a certain good and that they are willing and able to pay for it. Thus, when the price of bread sky rockets past the cost of say, yodels, food producers, and others looking to make the proverbial “buck”, enter the bread industry in order to “exploit” the people’s need for bread. Consequently, there will be a flood of new bread makers, the supply of bread will increase and the shortage will be solved or at the very least softened.
But under the alternative approach of price fixing the shortage is never solved and, more often than not, is worsened. Since the price is set artificially low, no one ever receives the signal that the people need bread. Thus, no “selfish” capitalists respond by “exploiting” the bread market and the people go hungry to a greater extent than they otherwise would have under “the corrupt, profit driven capitalist system”. Furthermore, those already in the bread industry now receive the signal that the people no longer want their product. After all, if they really wanted bread, would they refuse to pay for it? If you were told that the amount of money you make today is the most you will ever be paid until the government says so, how long would you remain in that profession? Thus, the shortage worsens and the government faces a new dilemma: “unleash” the market or make slaves of men.
But since the average American politician or commentator is unable to think beyond the range of the moment, it is likely that the most simplistic, immediate, short-sighted solution will be put into effect – criminalize price increases, i.e. fix prices.
At first, this may appear to be a truly egalitarian policy. After all, what is the argument against price fixing? It is that if a price is set too low, then there will be more buyers than sellers and there will be a shortage. Yet, if prices are “allowed” to rise, or sky rocket, then only the wealthy can afford their bread, and why should we, the American people, allow only the wealthy to eat? Isn’t that also a shortage?
Leaving aside the moral questions here implicated, the answer lies in the long term inner workings of the pricing mechanism. When a price rises it sends a signal to the market that people “demand” a certain good and that they are willing and able to pay for it. Thus, when the price of bread sky rockets past the cost of say, yodels, food producers, and others looking to make the proverbial “buck”, enter the bread industry in order to “exploit” the people’s need for bread. Consequently, there will be a flood of new bread makers, the supply of bread will increase and the shortage will be solved or at the very least softened.
But under the alternative approach of price fixing the shortage is never solved and, more often than not, is worsened. Since the price is set artificially low, no one ever receives the signal that the people need bread. Thus, no “selfish” capitalists respond by “exploiting” the bread market and the people go hungry to a greater extent than they otherwise would have under “the corrupt, profit driven capitalist system”. Furthermore, those already in the bread industry now receive the signal that the people no longer want their product. After all, if they really wanted bread, would they refuse to pay for it? If you were told that the amount of money you make today is the most you will ever be paid until the government says so, how long would you remain in that profession? Thus, the shortage worsens and the government faces a new dilemma: “unleash” the market or make slaves of men.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)