What is the function, goal, or purpose of our public education system? Is it to ensure that every American child is educated and knowledgeable enough to compete in today’s technological age? Or is it to simply move students though an antiquated system which hemorrhages money from tax payers while supporting a massive, ineffective, bureaucratic white elephant which produces results that can only be graded as failure?
Regardless of any official response by the NEA, the public school system or any other public school organization, the actual answer is the second. Currently in the US, over fifty percent of students leave school classified as functionally illiterate, with an education level less than the fifth grade. In poorer urban areas, such as Detroit, the number soars to seventy-five percent. Blaming lack of funds is pointless since we already spend more per student than other industrialized countries with superior educational records. Even within the US there is no correlation between spending per student per state and performance results. Private schools and charter schools generally cost much less per student than public education yet they also yield far better results.
Our public schools are bleeding us dry economically and leaving our children completely unable to compete in a modern society. Is it any wonder that American companies turn to foreign labor for computer programmers, engineers and technicians when our children leave school unable to do basic math and write simple sentences. What jobs await a generation of illiterate Americans in an age which demands specialized knowledge instead of merely a strong back for the plowing and harvesting of fields? Yet even in our colleges and universities, the emphasis is on liberal arts, humanities, and racial and gender studies – course work which leads not to in-demand, high-paying jobs, but jobs in education or, for most, as clerks in department stores.
The question that should be asked by our school system is, “What is the most effective method to teach?” This question should be the basis of our educational system. Not only do our public, and even many private, school systems not ask this question they have in fact, continued to teach in the same way as when this country was founded over 200 years ago. We continue to throw a mix of students into a classroom with a textbook and a teacher and expect that nine months later the students will have learned and will retain what is necessary to advance to the next grade and on to succeed in life.
Each element, the teacher, the textbook, homework and the class structure all ensure failure. And failure we have seen. Sadly, the comment I’ve heard from more than one teacher is, “the public has to understand that some children simply can’t learn.” Not only do the methods of teaching employed by our school system guarantee failure, but many teachers have been institutionalized to believe that the onus for education is solely on the student and not upon the teachers and the school system.
Let’s look at each element of our current system and why it should surprise no one that our school system has failed us and will continue to fail us unless radically changed.
Teachers
Excluding a child's parents, teachers are probably the most important link in education. Yet, as humans, they too fall under the bell curve of performance. Five percent will be outstanding, the next ten percent will be very good and the rest fall quickly into mediocrity and on into incompetence. Even those who may have once been great teachers can easily become bored, indifferent and ineffective. Excellent, motivated teachers become frustrated with a system that does not allow change and creativity nor rewards them for successful results. With tenure and the protections provided by the teacher’s unions, these numbers could actually be worse as it is almost impossible to weed out bad instructors in the system.
The better the teacher – the better the education. Yet statistically a student is likely to encounter only 5 to 7 great teachers in their lifetime. This is exactly the number I came up with in looking back at my time from elementary school through college and the number is right on the 5% mark as stated above.
Are the best teachers even in the education system? Some of the most knowledgeable and exciting educators are likely in private enterprise. They have a wealth of knowledge to share but choose not to enter teaching as a full-time profession.
But even with the best teachers, they are not necessarily the best or most effective teachers for each student nor can any one teacher meet every student’s learning needs.
Textbooks
Textbooks are probably the weakest link in our education system. They are written, evaluated by teams of editors and educators, used for a few years, discarded and then new textbooks become available. Yet, as far as I can tell, there has never been a system to evaluate a textbook’s effectiveness. Did it actually engage and teach students? If not, then how can it be changed so as to become effective?
Sadly, this question doesn’t even seem to be on the radar screen of the educational system. Sadly also, this is a great opportunity that is missed in education. As someone who enjoys reading, I know that text does not have to be dull to contain and teach important information.
Structure
This is probably the most antiquated element of our school system. We place our students in a classroom from September until June, break the year down further into semesters and quarters and from 8:00am to 3:00pm hope for the best. All based on a farming schedule that no longer exists for almost anyone in the US.
We all learn at different rates and even those that may learn quickly in math may at the same time learn much more slowly in English or history. Does the structure allow for this? No, there are few allowances. It is the same structure for each student in each subject.
Homework
Homework is definitely an important part of education. Working through problems, researching information and writing essays are all important methods of learning. Yet, homework in our school systems has become too much of “busy work” in which nothing is learned.
Another problem with homework is, who exactly is doing the work? The student? The parent? The tutor? I’ve seen tasks assigned to third graders that no fifth grader could accomplish. Only with the intervention of parents can the assignment be completed. Presently in the school system, homework is routinely not returned to the student for evaluation. If I cannot see what I have done wrong, how can I then know what I need to go back and learn or review? Writing is learned almost exclusively through writing, editing, re-writing and then re-writing again. Not being able to review what is both correct and incorrect with assigned work does not lend itself to education.
What is the objective of education?
Shouldn’t the objective of education be to ensure that all students excel to the best of their abilities? That each student, regardless of their IQ, their parent’s abilities, their economic background or even their language skills, has the best opportunity to learn and be educated? We cannot have a great society if our citizens are illiterate. We continue to move into a technological age that demands scientists and mathematicians yet we turn out students who cannot read, write nor even add and subtract.
The complaint of the public school system is primarily money, although I have heard teachers also blame society, the media, music, etc., etc. All of this finger pointing is a complete waste of time. The tools are available to ensure that each student receives the best education possible, yet, with the exception of some home schooling tools, no large education system is even bothering to move in this direction. Not only is it possible, it is inexpensive.
What is possible?
The answer to our educational problems lies in a virtual internet classroom. The internet possess the power to be the greatest educational tool ever available, a virtual classroom which can reach every student in the world. A tool, if used properly, which can reach and educate every student, addressing their individual learning needs and evaluating each teaching method implemented. And – when methods are not effective, change instantly.
Let’s first start with education objectives – measurable objectives. What should every student know at the end of their formal schooling? What level of reading and comprehension should they achieve? What about math? History? Writing? What tools and knowledge do they need to succeed in society and in higher education?
Once these objectives are defined, the second goal is to determine the best method to teach these objectives to each student. I don’t have to be a teacher to know that some mix of audio and visual is probably the most effective. Start with a great teacher, a great communicator and put him or her on video. Start adding other visual and audio tools to determine what mix effectively impresses the information into a student’s brain. If we are talking about the civil war, show photographs and videos of the battlefields, the people involved, and maps of the region. Produce films that engage students while teaching them facts, not Hollywood pseudo-history. The presentation may not even include a human teacher – animation or computer generated graphics may be what is most engaging. Instead of casting effective teachers aside, as the public school system did with Jaime Escalante, analyze and duplicate their methods and reward those teachers financially for their innovation.
Homework need no longer always be separate from the lecture. It can be integrated into the flow. Learning can become entertaining or even a game with problems to solve and text to read as part of the lecture-type presentation. This not only helps the student to learn but allows the teaching programs to evaluate their progress. A method to track progress, to discover where the student’s learning is deficient and re-present the same material in possibly another more effective format for this student.
If one student requires more video stimulus, the course can automatically adjust to meet that student’s needs. If a student learns and retains more from reading than from audio, the tool can shift again. We know many of us quickly retain information presented in rhyme or song format. This is how most of us learned our ABCs. Employ song writers to compose learning tools, especially incorporating what would be considered dry information such as dates of significant events. We all know when “Columbus sailed the ocean blue” because of a rhyme. Yet most Americans cannot even place the civil war in the correct century.
If students finish a presentation and cannot meet the minimum requirement of a review exam, they can not only go back and re-take the course but can also consider alternative options for this particular coursework. Maybe another program, teacher or virtual classroom is clearer and more effective. Also, those producing the material can change and edit the material should their internal auditing of student progress show that the coursework is not effective in thoroughly teaching the students the required material. These techniques can be analyzed, quantified and duplicated so that every student has access to great educators and excellent teaching methods. The methods can be constantly refined and improved, working toward 100% education of all students. Students no longer need to be afraid to raise their hand in class when confused. The virtual classroom works with them, providing more information as necessary in a variety of formats to ensure that each student understands and retains the material. A student is not locked into one classroom, one teacher or one school.
Education does not need to be dull to be effective, in fact, the opposite is true. We are more likely to learn and retain information when we are entertained and engaged. In college, I had two professors in whose classes I rarely took notes. They were such effective speakers that they impressed the information upon me without my writing anything down on paper. In some cases it was entertaining, such as my economics professor standing on his desk singing, “Look for the union label” to introduce the effect of unions on our economy. In another situation, it was a passionate educator who knew how to speak effectively and impress his knowledge upon our class.
Students with a passion in one course can then have access to further information. Instead of ending the class at the end of the text, he can explore and learn beyond the curriculum, as long as, of course, he continues to do well in all other courses. The programs can even evaluate and use those courses a student finds especially interesting as a carrot to entice them to work through the more difficult subjects.
The programs can even evaluate a student’s strengths and interests and begin suggesting possible careers that would interest a student. The average high school graduate is usually only familiar with one job, that of a teacher, since it is the only profession he or she has witnessed. Programs can introduce students to a myriad of occupations which they likely, never knew existed.
What about those people in private enterprise, the ones actually building the buildings, the bridges, developing software or researching new drugs? Without leaving their laboratories or offices they too can reach millions of students and enlighten them with their knowledge and experience. It can be complete course work or lectures on just one or two topics.
There are no time constraints with such a system. The student can log in and work through each course at his or her own pace. Unlike the current classroom, a student can review any topic that is not clear. Further examples can be presented to clarify the subject. Students who excel in one subject can move quickly, at their pace, through the material, eliminating the problem of a good student being bored by classroom progress while slower students struggle. Which is more important, having students finish school in 12 years and be illiterate, or having them finish in 14 years and be fully educated? Realistically, a system like I propose would most likely greatly reduce the time necessary for education, for both the gifted and the challenged student.
Political indoctrination has become an issue in education. Leftist teachers with captive audiences rant daily about their political beliefs with no opposing view opined to give the students a balanced view. I was also subjected to such bloviating in high school and would not hear any opposing view point until much later in my life. This issue would quickly become a non-issue as parents can review and rate educators in the virtual school. Parents can not only review the material presented to their children but can also become quickly involved in their education as they too can log on and work along with their diminutive scholars.
Evaluation of the current system is almost impossible. Even if it could be properly evaluated, it cannot be effectively changed as teachers are in their own classroom each day, each using their own, unique methodologies. Their weaknesses cannot each be realistically addressed and their strengths cannot be brought to other classrooms.
What of the cost of such a system? The initial cost would be in the production of each module. As education modules go online, the best will quickly profit and will refine and improve their coursework. Even at a cost of only $1 per course module per student, an excellent educator could easily make several million dollars a year. The cost per student for a full year could drop from the current $8,000 to $13,000 to several hundred, including a computer and other necessary materials. Such a system need not be limited to the wealthy, I believe strongly in publicly funded education but I am strongly opposed to government controlled education which provides no choice to parents or students.
Clearly not all courses can be simply reduced to an interactive audio/video presentation. Writing is a great example of something which requires constant feedback, rework and editing. Yet, teachers with a passion for writing can still offer courses, albeit probably more expensive than $1 per course per student, to evaluate, encourage and inspire students. Their work can reach not only those of us who need to write no more than a coherent letter but to those wishing to write the next great American novel.
Some courses would need to move beyond the virtual world into a physical realm. Learning centers could easily be funded and staffed at a fraction of the cost of current education. Small children would also most likely need more mentoring and monitoring. The virtual classroom can be in ones home or in a more traditional setting with proctors and teaching assistants helping the students move through their course work.
Testing, beyond that embedded in the virtual classroom, would probably also be necessary to ensure each student is learning the coursework. Again, such centers could be made available, even temporary centers, to ensure progress.
On-line libraries of course material can be established and the course work evaluated and rated, by staff, students and parents, as to their effectiveness. These virtual schools need not stop at high school. Imagine each of us being able to get a “Harvard Education” each from our own home. If the professors at these colleges and universities truly are the best, then make them available to the world instead of just an elite few with parents possessing deep pockets or the proper political connections.
In a virtual classroom – including university level – industry can begin to influence the curriculum by providing the coursework and teaching the skills necessary for students to succeed in their selected fields. I have attended college level classes after working in the “real world” which were either completely irrelevant or the information presented was totally wrong. Yet there is no monitoring or evaluating of these courses. Not only can providing such course work be profitable to the companies in a variety of disciplines, it also provides them with the educated hiring pool necessary to staff and grow their companies.
As home schooling has become more popular in the United States, those opposed to such a system continually bring up “lack of socialization” as an objection to such a system. A virtual classroom, especially for many students working from their homes would raise the same protest. This is probably the weakest of all objections to non-traditional education. Most of the socialization occurring in our schools is not positive. Peer pressure includes smoking, the taking of drugs, non-performance in school (because it isn’t cool), clothing, pressure on physical appearance, or being classified as a nerd or a geek. Some schools in urban areas do little more than try to control violence. As I mentioned above, slower students regularly suffer from “socialization” in the class room as they are mocked for being “stupid” and for asking “dumb questions.” This process causes them to withdraw, remain silent, and stop learning. But what I find especially difficult to understand is that anyone would rather their child be “socialized” than educated. An illiterate adult, no matter how social, is still unlikely to find work. Socialization can take place in church groups, sports, organized social activities and clubs. School is not the only place that interacting with others can take place.
The possibilities in education are endless with the use of the computer and the internet. So far, only a few home schooling companies and teachers have tapped into this market and are making progress. The established school and university systems will fight such a change as their objectives have little to do with education, their objectives are about maintaining their empire and their power.
Fortunately, it is an empire about to collapse and its destruction will benefit every child and every student with access to the internet.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
20. Proud to Be
There are many differences between conservatives and liberals but the one I find, by far, to be the most interesting is how those on the left and right respond to being labeled by their political beliefs. Say to someone on the right, “You are a conservative!” and they will most likely respond in the affirmative and smile. But say to someone on the left, “You are a liberal” and they recoil in anger.
In a recent conversation, I referred to Obama as a socialist. The reaction from the liberals to whom I was speaking was as if I had just referred to Mother Teresa as a child molester. The look on their faces was a mix of horror and rage. They immediately responded with attacks on Bush. Clearly they were upset about the label and yet I cannot think of a label which more accurately describes Obama’s political leanings. He has clearly stated on many occasions that he wants to take money away from oil companies and from those making over $250,000 at year (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000?) and give it to those who earn less. He has also proposed a host of government programs, including government run health care, as a solution for what he sees as social ills and problems in the US. That is socialism. It certainly isn’t capitalism or libertarianism. Redistribution of wealth – the taking from those who earn money and giving it to those who have not, even under the guise of “those who need” – is socialism. What is the mantra of socialism/Marxism? “From each according to ability to each according to need.“ That is from Karl Marx as in Marxism – as in socialism.
Yet the left is appalled by anyone attaching a label to them that so clearly defines their beliefs. Why?
In observing my liberal acquaintances, I can only surmise that they themselves know that liberalism/socialism is a doomed and misguided ideal. In fact, that is all that it is – an ideal. We’ve see the results in the U.S.S.R., Cuba, North Korea and East Germany and none of these countries under the rule of socialism have caused throngs of immigrants to come knocking at their doors for economic salvation. Most liberals I know live a lifestyle of conservatism yet preach liberalism. It is as if they want to believe in their hearts that the earth is flat (for some reason) yet have seen the pictures from Apollo 11 and know in their minds that it is an illusion.
The next aspect of liberals which I find so fascinating is that to them, their belief system, as it applies to the world, is all or nothing. Everyone MUST follow and be under the control of liberalism, or as they like to say, politically correct thinking. At this point in our history, I would very much like to see the United States fracture into two countries. One being conservative/capitalist, the next being liberal/socialist. When I mention this idea to conservatives, they seem to feel it might not be a bad solution. Although they feel it would be sad to break apart our country, they also feel that those who strongly embrace a socialist ideal should be able to live under their belief system and those who embrace conservatism should also be able to live in peace under their ideal. But, when I mention this to liberals, once again they seem to fly into some sort of rage. They don’t want anyone living in a conservative/capitalist society, even if it is by their choice!!
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by their response, after all, isn’t it only socialist/communist countries that have erected walls and fences to keep people from fleeing their utopia? Conservative/capitalist countries, on the other hand, have had to consider ways to stop the flow of people, even those risking their own lives, who want to emigrate.
In spite of the empirical data showing economic ruin and elimination of personal freedom, many Americans still see salvation only through socialism and only if all people are forced under that one system.
Hmm… I thought the democrat party is the party which believes in freedom of choice!
In a recent conversation, I referred to Obama as a socialist. The reaction from the liberals to whom I was speaking was as if I had just referred to Mother Teresa as a child molester. The look on their faces was a mix of horror and rage. They immediately responded with attacks on Bush. Clearly they were upset about the label and yet I cannot think of a label which more accurately describes Obama’s political leanings. He has clearly stated on many occasions that he wants to take money away from oil companies and from those making over $250,000 at year (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000?) and give it to those who earn less. He has also proposed a host of government programs, including government run health care, as a solution for what he sees as social ills and problems in the US. That is socialism. It certainly isn’t capitalism or libertarianism. Redistribution of wealth – the taking from those who earn money and giving it to those who have not, even under the guise of “those who need” – is socialism. What is the mantra of socialism/Marxism? “From each according to ability to each according to need.“ That is from Karl Marx as in Marxism – as in socialism.
Yet the left is appalled by anyone attaching a label to them that so clearly defines their beliefs. Why?
In observing my liberal acquaintances, I can only surmise that they themselves know that liberalism/socialism is a doomed and misguided ideal. In fact, that is all that it is – an ideal. We’ve see the results in the U.S.S.R., Cuba, North Korea and East Germany and none of these countries under the rule of socialism have caused throngs of immigrants to come knocking at their doors for economic salvation. Most liberals I know live a lifestyle of conservatism yet preach liberalism. It is as if they want to believe in their hearts that the earth is flat (for some reason) yet have seen the pictures from Apollo 11 and know in their minds that it is an illusion.
The next aspect of liberals which I find so fascinating is that to them, their belief system, as it applies to the world, is all or nothing. Everyone MUST follow and be under the control of liberalism, or as they like to say, politically correct thinking. At this point in our history, I would very much like to see the United States fracture into two countries. One being conservative/capitalist, the next being liberal/socialist. When I mention this idea to conservatives, they seem to feel it might not be a bad solution. Although they feel it would be sad to break apart our country, they also feel that those who strongly embrace a socialist ideal should be able to live under their belief system and those who embrace conservatism should also be able to live in peace under their ideal. But, when I mention this to liberals, once again they seem to fly into some sort of rage. They don’t want anyone living in a conservative/capitalist society, even if it is by their choice!!
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by their response, after all, isn’t it only socialist/communist countries that have erected walls and fences to keep people from fleeing their utopia? Conservative/capitalist countries, on the other hand, have had to consider ways to stop the flow of people, even those risking their own lives, who want to emigrate.
In spite of the empirical data showing economic ruin and elimination of personal freedom, many Americans still see salvation only through socialism and only if all people are forced under that one system.
Hmm… I thought the democrat party is the party which believes in freedom of choice!
Monday, December 1, 2008
19. Hawk v. Dove
- The leftist appeasers are celebrating that their new “messiah” is about to occupy the White House. They are reveling in a euphoria of “hope,” that the world will once again join hands and sing Kumbaya and peace will prevail among all people. War, they say, is an outdated paradigm, one from which we have “evolved.” Intellectuals see Hawks as backward hicks from the “flyover states.” They are “unenlightened” and “non-progressive.” Ah – those silly, ignorant fools who don’t believe that “negotiation” can solve any problem. How distressed and saddened these leftists have been over each solder killed in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as over this “senseless” war. The messiah, like his enlightened predecessors, Clinton and Carter, will surely lead us into a new era of peace and harmony. Hallelujah and Amen!
Hmm…. let’s have a quick look at the record of appeasement under those two presidents before we anoint anyone.
After taking office, Jimmy Carter announced that one of his top concerns was human rights and one of his targets was the Shah of Iran. He threatened to withdraw all US support of the Shah unless human rights violations ceased. Carter’s anti-Shah speeches blared from public address systems in downtown Tehran by those wanting to overthrow the Shah’s regime. Interestingly enough, once the Ayatollah Khomeini took power, he executed more people in his first year than the Shah’s SAVAK (secret police) had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years. No doubt that was “progress” of which Mr. Carter is still quite proud.
The fall of the Shah was followed by the storming of our embassy in Tehran and the holding of our fifty-two American hostages for 444 days. Carter kept “negotiating” or, “showing weakness,” as such regimes see appeasement, and Khomeini just kept smiling and holding our citizens. Only when Ronald Reagan was sworn into office after almost two months of declaring he would immediately begin bombing Iran should the hostages not be released were they finally set free.
The fall of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic state set the stage for the Taliban, al-Qaida and the jihadists to follow. Khomeini then introduced the idea of suicide bombers to Hezbollah and funded their operations. Hezzbollah later killed 241 US Marines in their barracks in Beirut in 1982.
Carter continued his effective and enlightened program of appeasement in 1994 when he flew to North Korea to once again “negotiate” an end to their nuclear program. Considering they were given oil, fuel and nuclear technology in return for stopping such a program, something I thought was called “extortion,” is it any surprise that North Korea never did stop their program and has continued until today to develop nuclear energy and weapons? Yet, leftists still pine for the days of Clinton and Carter and their “workable” policies.
Let’s move forward to the next enlightened, intellectual, evolved, progressive and correct-thinking president – Mr. Bill Clinton. What happened under his dovish presidency?
1. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing which killed 6 and injured 1,000
2. The 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 5 US military personnel
3. The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel
4. The 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Africa which killed 224 and injured 5,000.
5. The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole which killed 17 and injured 39 sailors..
After each of these attacks, Mr. Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. Instead of attacking and killing those responsible and taking bin Laden when offered by Sudan, he appeased and he negotiated with the terrorists. After all, we aren’t animals are we? No, we are enlightened and evolved progressives! Instead, his inaction strengthened the resolve of bin Laden and his minions. They then planned 9/11 during his presidency and executed it in 2001. They killed an estimated 7,000 Americans in New York and Washington DC and injured thousands more. .
The fact is that since Bush began his “war on terror,” American interests, both at home and abroad, have not been attacked. As much as those intellectuals warned us that we were “stirring up a hornet’s nest” and that “more attacks were eminent” history has instead shown that these Islamist were not as interested in standing before Allah as they would like us to believe. Force is necessary at certain times in history in dealing with certain people. Period.
“The Messiah” is already putting out the message of appeasement and negotiation to the world. Bush’s “outmoded” paradigm of war is over. Is it really any surprise to anyone what just happened in India? The word is out, Obama is ending the War on Terror and so terrorists can now feel free to rise up and strike without being concerned about retribution. In fact, based on the Clinton and Carter models, they can probably expect future “appeasement” funding directly from the US of A.
What I want is an “enlightened” intellectual to tell me how many Americans must die both at home and abroad under the Obama regime, before they acknowledge that sometimes war is the only solution. The left so desperately wanted the bodies and coffins of the dead soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan shown on television yet pushed to have all images of 9/11 banned from the media. In 2004 during the presidential race, they attacked Bush for re-playing such images in campaign ads. They wanted to believe it didn’t happen, that their policies of appeasement could never have led to such a tragedy. Of course, that is exactly where it led and it will lead there again under Messiah Obama.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
18. Jack Makes An Investment
On June 15th, Jack graduated from high school and also turned eighteen. For a graduation present, Jack’s uncle gave him a book on money and investing to help secure Jack’s financial future. Unsure of his career path and whether or not it included college, Jack decided to take advice from the book and immediately set up a long-term investment program.
Jack contacted two insurance/investment companies and asked them to present their retirement annuity and investment plans to him. Jack is very risk averse and told both companies he wanted only to invest in vehicles in which no principle could be lost and in which all funds were insured by the U.S. Government. Jack told each company he intended to invest $161.20 a month, starting immediately, a continue investing the same amount until retirement at age 65. At that time, Jack would need monthly income from the annuity or investment plan.
Not wanting to be influenced by any element of the two companies, Jack asked that their plans be submitted only as Company A and Company B.
Company A’s proposal projected a monthly retirement income of $380, but warned it could be less based on market fluctuations. Company B’s proposal projected a monthly retirement income of $2,400 but said it could be more, much more actually, and also depending on market fluctuations.
Jack was puzzled at the extreme difference in the two plans. So, he asked about other features and limitations of the programs.
Company A responded to Jack’s request stating that should Jack die at any point prior to retirement, all money in the account would be the property of the insurance company. After retirement, the monthly income would only continue until Jack’s death at which time any money remaining in the account would again be the property of the insurance company. There was one exception though, should Jack marry, his wife would receive some retirement income whether Jack died before or after age 65. No money would be available at any time to pass on to friends, family or charities.
Company B’s response was quite different. At any time during the life of the program, Jack could pass the balance of the account onto any designated heir, both before and after age 65, married or not.
Jack, a prudent lad, chose Company B.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Would you think anyone in their right mind would ever choose Company A? I would think everyone would at least want Company A investigated for fraud. Yet a very large percentage of Americans not only believe in Company A, they will defend it as if it were a religion. Hillary Clinton even proclaimed Company A as one of America’s greatest success stories.
Company A is Social Security. Company B is any private investment or insurance company specifically investing in either government insured bonds or government insured certificates of deposit.
I chose $161.20 as the monthly investment because it is approximately 12% of the monthly income of someone working full time at minimum wage. The 12% is the 6% non-Medicare contribution of each the employee and the employer combined, the total amount currently paid into the system.
In spite of these numbers, leftists will defend Social Security and will attack any attempt to privatize the system. They scream that proponents of privatization want to let old people starve and die in the streets. Hmmm…. Which plan has old people starving? I think anyone can purchase much more food and comfort with $2,400 a month than $380 a month – don’t you?
There are other elements to Social Security such as income for dependent children until age eighteen, should one or both parents die. This could easily be included in Jack’s plan as well. For about $20 a month for 20 years, Jack could purchase a term life insurance policy of $500,000. Should Jack die the policy would provide Jack’s family with about $3,500 a month. This additional insurance would drop Jack’s retirement income from $2,400 to $2,200 a month. If Jack never marries, he never needs to worry about this additional insurance.
Considering that both investment approaches include only investments insured by the U.S. Government, this takes away the argument that people could lose everything in a private system, one investing in the stock market or other non-insured investments. Should the investments earn a higher rate of return, Company B could increase Jack’s monthly income by over $1,000 a month for every additional point increase in his average investment return.
Social Security is in trouble – big trouble. Promises made will soon be broken. The age of retirement will undoubtedly increase in the next few years and the likelihood of anyone under the age of 40 receiving any benefits is almost zero. Yet, the left continues to defend the system as a success and fights all efforts for American’s to retire in comfort, having full control of their retirement funds.
This is the same government that now wants to take control of our health care. I’m guessing under that system, we won’t have to worry about retirement income at all since none of us are likely to live long enough to need it.
Jack contacted two insurance/investment companies and asked them to present their retirement annuity and investment plans to him. Jack is very risk averse and told both companies he wanted only to invest in vehicles in which no principle could be lost and in which all funds were insured by the U.S. Government. Jack told each company he intended to invest $161.20 a month, starting immediately, a continue investing the same amount until retirement at age 65. At that time, Jack would need monthly income from the annuity or investment plan.
Not wanting to be influenced by any element of the two companies, Jack asked that their plans be submitted only as Company A and Company B.
Company A’s proposal projected a monthly retirement income of $380, but warned it could be less based on market fluctuations. Company B’s proposal projected a monthly retirement income of $2,400 but said it could be more, much more actually, and also depending on market fluctuations.
Jack was puzzled at the extreme difference in the two plans. So, he asked about other features and limitations of the programs.
Company A responded to Jack’s request stating that should Jack die at any point prior to retirement, all money in the account would be the property of the insurance company. After retirement, the monthly income would only continue until Jack’s death at which time any money remaining in the account would again be the property of the insurance company. There was one exception though, should Jack marry, his wife would receive some retirement income whether Jack died before or after age 65. No money would be available at any time to pass on to friends, family or charities.
Company B’s response was quite different. At any time during the life of the program, Jack could pass the balance of the account onto any designated heir, both before and after age 65, married or not.
Jack, a prudent lad, chose Company B.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Would you think anyone in their right mind would ever choose Company A? I would think everyone would at least want Company A investigated for fraud. Yet a very large percentage of Americans not only believe in Company A, they will defend it as if it were a religion. Hillary Clinton even proclaimed Company A as one of America’s greatest success stories.
Company A is Social Security. Company B is any private investment or insurance company specifically investing in either government insured bonds or government insured certificates of deposit.
I chose $161.20 as the monthly investment because it is approximately 12% of the monthly income of someone working full time at minimum wage. The 12% is the 6% non-Medicare contribution of each the employee and the employer combined, the total amount currently paid into the system.
In spite of these numbers, leftists will defend Social Security and will attack any attempt to privatize the system. They scream that proponents of privatization want to let old people starve and die in the streets. Hmmm…. Which plan has old people starving? I think anyone can purchase much more food and comfort with $2,400 a month than $380 a month – don’t you?
There are other elements to Social Security such as income for dependent children until age eighteen, should one or both parents die. This could easily be included in Jack’s plan as well. For about $20 a month for 20 years, Jack could purchase a term life insurance policy of $500,000. Should Jack die the policy would provide Jack’s family with about $3,500 a month. This additional insurance would drop Jack’s retirement income from $2,400 to $2,200 a month. If Jack never marries, he never needs to worry about this additional insurance.
Considering that both investment approaches include only investments insured by the U.S. Government, this takes away the argument that people could lose everything in a private system, one investing in the stock market or other non-insured investments. Should the investments earn a higher rate of return, Company B could increase Jack’s monthly income by over $1,000 a month for every additional point increase in his average investment return.
Social Security is in trouble – big trouble. Promises made will soon be broken. The age of retirement will undoubtedly increase in the next few years and the likelihood of anyone under the age of 40 receiving any benefits is almost zero. Yet, the left continues to defend the system as a success and fights all efforts for American’s to retire in comfort, having full control of their retirement funds.
This is the same government that now wants to take control of our health care. I’m guessing under that system, we won’t have to worry about retirement income at all since none of us are likely to live long enough to need it.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
17. It's Taught At Home?
If parents repeatedly tell their child he is stupid, the child will eventually put no effort into learning. If parents repeatedly accuse and punish their child for stealing, even though he hasn’t, the child will eventually steal. If parents repeatedly accuse and punish their child for drug use, even if the child has never done drugs, the child will eventually turn to drugs as an escape. Both children and adults will live up or down to the expectations set for them by their parents or by those who influence their lives. By setting the bar low, we humans will not only live down to the expectations set for us, we will also learn to hate our accusers.
So what has the media and the left taught me in my lifetime? For one, I am a racist. I’ve heard it over and over again for the last 49 years. It doesn’t matter what I do, how I treat people, how I live my life, all that matters is that I’m politically conservative. That alone makes me racist. Even those who are politically moderate to left-of-center have been accused of the same vicious label for disagreeing in any way with the politics of the extreme left. During the recent Democratic primarily, anyone voting for Hillary over Obama was also called a racist. Apparently alleged white-on-black racism trumps alleged misogyny.
If I disagree with the politics of the gay community, I’m a “homophobe.” If I disagree with the politics of the feminist community, I am a “misogynist.” There is no open discussion on any issue involving race, sexual orientation or gender. Any attempt to take a position different from the left is shouted down with name calling – names and labels which imply hate.
I will not be voting for Barack Obama in November, not because he is black, but because he is a Marxist/Socialist. I will not vote for anyone of that belief system regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Yet I, and every American who opposes Mr. Obama’s politics – left, right, Republican or Democrat – are now called racists just as those who oppose Hillary are misogynists and those who oppose Barney Frank are homophobes.
Now members of the left, both black and white, are threatening riots throughout the US should Mr. Obama not be elected President. What does name calling and threats of violence say about those who take these positions? Should I embrace them and their ideals? Should I be threatened and insulted into voting for their candidate?
Will there be a backlash in white America against Obama simply because he is black? Will members of all political parties vote for McCain simply because he is white? It’s doubtful – it is issues and character that ultimately drive elections. But if race does come into play, who exactly was it that taught Americans to consider it an issue?
So what has the media and the left taught me in my lifetime? For one, I am a racist. I’ve heard it over and over again for the last 49 years. It doesn’t matter what I do, how I treat people, how I live my life, all that matters is that I’m politically conservative. That alone makes me racist. Even those who are politically moderate to left-of-center have been accused of the same vicious label for disagreeing in any way with the politics of the extreme left. During the recent Democratic primarily, anyone voting for Hillary over Obama was also called a racist. Apparently alleged white-on-black racism trumps alleged misogyny.
If I disagree with the politics of the gay community, I’m a “homophobe.” If I disagree with the politics of the feminist community, I am a “misogynist.” There is no open discussion on any issue involving race, sexual orientation or gender. Any attempt to take a position different from the left is shouted down with name calling – names and labels which imply hate.
I will not be voting for Barack Obama in November, not because he is black, but because he is a Marxist/Socialist. I will not vote for anyone of that belief system regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. Yet I, and every American who opposes Mr. Obama’s politics – left, right, Republican or Democrat – are now called racists just as those who oppose Hillary are misogynists and those who oppose Barney Frank are homophobes.
Now members of the left, both black and white, are threatening riots throughout the US should Mr. Obama not be elected President. What does name calling and threats of violence say about those who take these positions? Should I embrace them and their ideals? Should I be threatened and insulted into voting for their candidate?
Will there be a backlash in white America against Obama simply because he is black? Will members of all political parties vote for McCain simply because he is white? It’s doubtful – it is issues and character that ultimately drive elections. But if race does come into play, who exactly was it that taught Americans to consider it an issue?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
16. Tax The Rich!!
At the recent debates in Iowa, the democrat candidates made their position clear – the nation’s ills can be cured by raising taxes on the rich and those greedy multi-national corporations. Apparently, redistribution of wealth has worked so well in other socialist countries, such as Cuba and what was once the USSR, that the Left wants more of it here.
As a “polarized” person on the conservative side of economics, I completely disagree. In fact, I want to see the entire system revamped and I’m certain I’m not alone. But, I don’t want to force my conservative, pseudo-Christian beliefs on anyone, I want each person to have a choice. So, here’s my modest proposal: Split the United States into two countries – one secular-progressive/socialist (SPS) and one conservative/capitalist (CC). The SPS States of America will increase taxes on the rich, on corporations and on inheritance as has already been proposed by most of the candidates on the left. The CC States of America will implement the plan proposed by Neal Boortz in The FairTax Book. Under Mr Boortz’s plan, there will be no income tax for any individual or corporation nor will there be an inheritance tax. The only tax will be a national sales tax on both goods and services. Mr. Boortz proposes a rate of 24% to continue to feed the current government’s voracious appetite. But I’m going to be more modest and propose a rate of only 12% because I would like to see an ocean of ineffective, bloated and unnecessary government agencies and services simply disappear. What also will disappear in the CC States is the high cost of tax preparation and compliance. According to the Tax Foundation (as referenced in Mr. Boortz’s book) cost of tax compliance in the US in 2002 was $194 billion. Once we add in opportunity costs, this number soars to over $500 billion a year. Also eliminated would be the IRS which costs taxpayers over $10 billion a year.
As the nation splits into two, both individuals and corporations will decide in which country they will live and conduct business. Profitable corporations and working individuals of all income brackets will look at the above numbers before making their decisions. Which do you think they will choose? Those that choose the CC States will not only eliminate the income taxes they would pay in the SPS States, they also eliminate the costs of CPAs and tax attorneys. Corporations would no longer need to spend billions of dollars on lobbying efforts seeking favorable tax breaks.
It won’t just be current US corporations that consider moving to the CC States, corporations across the globe will take a long, hard look at relocating their companies to this newly formed country and taking advantage of its simplistic and fiscally favorable tax structure.
As much as the Left loves to malign corporations and wealthy Americans as evil, nothing generates wealth other than business and no business comes into existence without venture capital. Where does the venture capital come from? Yep, from other corporations and those greedy, wealthy Americans the Left loves to punish with higher and higher taxes.
With such a favorable tax structure, investment money would also flow in from abroad as foreigners seek tax havens for their money. This money would “trickle down” into the economy creating new businesses and ventures. The reality is that money is already flowing out of our country to such tax havens as Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Lichtenstein and Panama. These funds would quickly be repatriated into the economy of the CC States.
So who would remain in the SPS States of America? Those compassionate liberals of the current American economy? I doubt it. Already those in Hollywood who espouse such liberal principals as unions and higher taxes regularly produce movies in countries with lower, non-union wages and a more favorable tax status. What about liberal icon Ted Kennedy? Well, his family trust sits on the island of Fiji avoiding scrutiny of all kinds from the Federal government and the IRS. It would be interesting to discover just how much money from other prominent liberals resides in foreign accounts. Using the internet, electronic transfers are available to all working people trying to maximize their return and minimize their tax liability.
The rest of the world is already moving forward. Ireland, whose economy was in shambles decided in the mid-1990s to dramatically lower their corporate tax rate from 32% to 12.5%. Ireland went from being the poorest country in Western Europe to the richest per capita. Eleven countries in Eastern Europe have a flat corporate tax rate of 25%. Bulgaria has a rate of only 10%. Kuwait recently slashed its corporate rate from 55% to 15%.
The Left’s disdain of corporations and profits reminds me of a quote from “Gone With The Wind.” At the Twelve Oaks barbeque, Rhett Butler says to the southern gentlemen discussing war with the North, “I think it’s hard winning a war with words…I’m saying…All we’ve got is cotton and salves, and arrogance.” Just as a country cannot fight a war without artillery an economy cannot thrive and taxes cannot be collected without commerce. Yet we continue to give corporations reasons to do business elsewhere in the world rather than here within the USA.
If my modest proposal is actually implemented, how will the SPS States of America survive as corporations and money flow to the CC States? Anyone who believes it wouldn’t happen is deluded – it is already happening in our global economy. We need to decide if we want to be on the receiving end of corporate dollars – or the end which continues to be depleted. If arrogance and idealism fueled economies it would stand to reason that those under Lenin, Stalin and Castro would have risen to be the most powerful in the world. Instead, the altruistic dream of Lenin has already collapsed and Cuba hangs on a thread waiting for Castro to die. A similar fate awaits all nations that continue to attack wealth and commerce with progressively higher and higher taxes.
As a “polarized” person on the conservative side of economics, I completely disagree. In fact, I want to see the entire system revamped and I’m certain I’m not alone. But, I don’t want to force my conservative, pseudo-Christian beliefs on anyone, I want each person to have a choice. So, here’s my modest proposal: Split the United States into two countries – one secular-progressive/socialist (SPS) and one conservative/capitalist (CC). The SPS States of America will increase taxes on the rich, on corporations and on inheritance as has already been proposed by most of the candidates on the left. The CC States of America will implement the plan proposed by Neal Boortz in The FairTax Book. Under Mr Boortz’s plan, there will be no income tax for any individual or corporation nor will there be an inheritance tax. The only tax will be a national sales tax on both goods and services. Mr. Boortz proposes a rate of 24% to continue to feed the current government’s voracious appetite. But I’m going to be more modest and propose a rate of only 12% because I would like to see an ocean of ineffective, bloated and unnecessary government agencies and services simply disappear. What also will disappear in the CC States is the high cost of tax preparation and compliance. According to the Tax Foundation (as referenced in Mr. Boortz’s book) cost of tax compliance in the US in 2002 was $194 billion. Once we add in opportunity costs, this number soars to over $500 billion a year. Also eliminated would be the IRS which costs taxpayers over $10 billion a year.
| So let's review: | ||
| SPS States | CC States | |
| (current to hist. max) | ||
| Personal Income Tax | 39% to 90% | 0% |
| Corporate Tax | 34% to 53% | 0% |
| Inheritance Tax | 45% to 90% | 0% |
| Cost of tax prep. | unknown | $0 |
| National Sales Tax | 0% | 12% |
As the nation splits into two, both individuals and corporations will decide in which country they will live and conduct business. Profitable corporations and working individuals of all income brackets will look at the above numbers before making their decisions. Which do you think they will choose? Those that choose the CC States will not only eliminate the income taxes they would pay in the SPS States, they also eliminate the costs of CPAs and tax attorneys. Corporations would no longer need to spend billions of dollars on lobbying efforts seeking favorable tax breaks.
It won’t just be current US corporations that consider moving to the CC States, corporations across the globe will take a long, hard look at relocating their companies to this newly formed country and taking advantage of its simplistic and fiscally favorable tax structure.
As much as the Left loves to malign corporations and wealthy Americans as evil, nothing generates wealth other than business and no business comes into existence without venture capital. Where does the venture capital come from? Yep, from other corporations and those greedy, wealthy Americans the Left loves to punish with higher and higher taxes.
With such a favorable tax structure, investment money would also flow in from abroad as foreigners seek tax havens for their money. This money would “trickle down” into the economy creating new businesses and ventures. The reality is that money is already flowing out of our country to such tax havens as Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Lichtenstein and Panama. These funds would quickly be repatriated into the economy of the CC States.
So who would remain in the SPS States of America? Those compassionate liberals of the current American economy? I doubt it. Already those in Hollywood who espouse such liberal principals as unions and higher taxes regularly produce movies in countries with lower, non-union wages and a more favorable tax status. What about liberal icon Ted Kennedy? Well, his family trust sits on the island of Fiji avoiding scrutiny of all kinds from the Federal government and the IRS. It would be interesting to discover just how much money from other prominent liberals resides in foreign accounts. Using the internet, electronic transfers are available to all working people trying to maximize their return and minimize their tax liability.
The rest of the world is already moving forward. Ireland, whose economy was in shambles decided in the mid-1990s to dramatically lower their corporate tax rate from 32% to 12.5%. Ireland went from being the poorest country in Western Europe to the richest per capita. Eleven countries in Eastern Europe have a flat corporate tax rate of 25%. Bulgaria has a rate of only 10%. Kuwait recently slashed its corporate rate from 55% to 15%.
The Left’s disdain of corporations and profits reminds me of a quote from “Gone With The Wind.” At the Twelve Oaks barbeque, Rhett Butler says to the southern gentlemen discussing war with the North, “I think it’s hard winning a war with words…I’m saying…All we’ve got is cotton and salves, and arrogance.” Just as a country cannot fight a war without artillery an economy cannot thrive and taxes cannot be collected without commerce. Yet we continue to give corporations reasons to do business elsewhere in the world rather than here within the USA.
If my modest proposal is actually implemented, how will the SPS States of America survive as corporations and money flow to the CC States? Anyone who believes it wouldn’t happen is deluded – it is already happening in our global economy. We need to decide if we want to be on the receiving end of corporate dollars – or the end which continues to be depleted. If arrogance and idealism fueled economies it would stand to reason that those under Lenin, Stalin and Castro would have risen to be the most powerful in the world. Instead, the altruistic dream of Lenin has already collapsed and Cuba hangs on a thread waiting for Castro to die. A similar fate awaits all nations that continue to attack wealth and commerce with progressively higher and higher taxes.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
15. Sticks and Stones
I keep waiting for those on the Left in Congress to introduce the federal “Boo Hoo, They Hurt My Feelings Act.” Anyone caught calling someone a name will be arrested and incarcerated. The length of the jail sentence will depend on how traumatized the victim feels. I can’t help wondering if this is how the Roman and Greek Empires fell. Once great warriors became immobilized and crumbled to their knees because the enemy called them “sissy-marys.” As they were busy crying to their senators and being comforted by their mommies, the opposing forces just walked in and leveled their cities.
The Left and their banner of political correctness has already elevated name calling to a near crime, one great enough to end a person’s career. Don Imus was recently fired for referring to a group of female basketball players as “Nappy-headed ho’s.” Although not a particularly nice or funny thing to say they are, after all, just words. But it twisted Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton’s knickers and they screamed and yelled and called Imus a racist until the network caved in to these esteemed black “leaders” and showed Imus the door. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed and Imus is returning to the airwaves. Not that I particularly care for Imus, but I do believe in free speech.
Personally, I like rules to be objective, measurable and have clarity; I like to know beforehand what is correct and incorrect and that rules apply to all people in all situations. Unlike me, the Left isn’t interested in such logical nonsense. If someone is offended by a statement, that statement is then deemed as harassment and the speaker is labeled a racist, a misogynist or that they engage in hate speech. Yet even this subjective standard doesn’t hold. It appears that only those on the Left are allowed to feel offended and only those on the Right are held accountable for their words.
What about Al Franken’s book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot? That’s a rather offensive title on many levels, isn’t it? Imagine Rush breaking down and crying on his radio show relating the trauma he endured being a “horizontally challenged” child. Rush might tell us how the hurtful and offensive words of Mr. Franken bring back horrible memories and feelings of inferiority. Using the logic of the Left, Mr. Franken clearly hates overweight Americans and is probably fearful of them
What about blond jokes and lawyer jokes? What about the attacks by the Left on Christians, you know, those wacky, brainless, religious lemmings. Christians protest but no one on the Left cares. No one loses their job and no one is forced to apologize. Rosie O’Donnell recently mocked the Chinese community by saying, “ching-chong, ching-chong” in reference to the Mandarin language. A staff member told a reporter that America simply doesn’t “get” Rosie’s sense of humor. Hmm, I guess the basketball team, Jesse and Al didn’t “get” Imus’ humor either.
In 1996 Joel and Ethan Coen released their movie Fargo. Although an interesting story, it mocked and stereotyped the Scandinavian and German American communities of that region of the US. Not only were the Coen Brothers not chastised by Hollywood for their insensitivity or cultural bias, they were rewarded with an Oscar for their “brilliant” script.
Even disagreeing with the politics of the Left makes you a target of apparently “acceptable” name calling. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice is regularly attacked as being nothing more than a “slave” or an “Uncle Tom” of the Right. Juan Williams, the black author and political commentator, was recently labeled a “Happy Negro” by Boyce Watkins, also a black commentator. Mr. Williams was clearly angry with the reference, but Mr. Watkins has neither apologized nor been fired from any position he holds. In fact, in an article posted on Black American Web, Mr. Watkins defends his comments while labeling “The O’Reilly Factor” as “racist television.”
Jesse Jackson attacked Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white.” Imagine any white – oh, I’m sorry, European-American – public or political figure accusing a like-raced individual of “acting like he’s black.” Jesse, Al and Mr. Watkins would be all over that person for his hateful, racist, demeaning and demoralizing words.
Having been called four-eyes, pizza face, geek and metal-mouth as a child, I am well aware that words can and do hurt people. I’m grateful, though, that my parents didn’t let me wallow in misery over such nonsense or storm into the principal’s office demanding the offending student’s expulsion. Instead my mother would look at me and say, “Get over it! You want to see someone with real problems? I’ll take you down to the County Hospital and you can see kids without arms or legs.”
Alas, such common sense does not prevail in politics. Instead of instilling character and self-reliance in our citizens and leaders, we are instead becoming a nation of crying babies looking to our mommies and daddies to make everything fair.
Buck up people.
The Left and their banner of political correctness has already elevated name calling to a near crime, one great enough to end a person’s career. Don Imus was recently fired for referring to a group of female basketball players as “Nappy-headed ho’s.” Although not a particularly nice or funny thing to say they are, after all, just words. But it twisted Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton’s knickers and they screamed and yelled and called Imus a racist until the network caved in to these esteemed black “leaders” and showed Imus the door. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed and Imus is returning to the airwaves. Not that I particularly care for Imus, but I do believe in free speech.
Personally, I like rules to be objective, measurable and have clarity; I like to know beforehand what is correct and incorrect and that rules apply to all people in all situations. Unlike me, the Left isn’t interested in such logical nonsense. If someone is offended by a statement, that statement is then deemed as harassment and the speaker is labeled a racist, a misogynist or that they engage in hate speech. Yet even this subjective standard doesn’t hold. It appears that only those on the Left are allowed to feel offended and only those on the Right are held accountable for their words.
What about Al Franken’s book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot? That’s a rather offensive title on many levels, isn’t it? Imagine Rush breaking down and crying on his radio show relating the trauma he endured being a “horizontally challenged” child. Rush might tell us how the hurtful and offensive words of Mr. Franken bring back horrible memories and feelings of inferiority. Using the logic of the Left, Mr. Franken clearly hates overweight Americans and is probably fearful of them
What about blond jokes and lawyer jokes? What about the attacks by the Left on Christians, you know, those wacky, brainless, religious lemmings. Christians protest but no one on the Left cares. No one loses their job and no one is forced to apologize. Rosie O’Donnell recently mocked the Chinese community by saying, “ching-chong, ching-chong” in reference to the Mandarin language. A staff member told a reporter that America simply doesn’t “get” Rosie’s sense of humor. Hmm, I guess the basketball team, Jesse and Al didn’t “get” Imus’ humor either.
In 1996 Joel and Ethan Coen released their movie Fargo. Although an interesting story, it mocked and stereotyped the Scandinavian and German American communities of that region of the US. Not only were the Coen Brothers not chastised by Hollywood for their insensitivity or cultural bias, they were rewarded with an Oscar for their “brilliant” script.
Even disagreeing with the politics of the Left makes you a target of apparently “acceptable” name calling. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice is regularly attacked as being nothing more than a “slave” or an “Uncle Tom” of the Right. Juan Williams, the black author and political commentator, was recently labeled a “Happy Negro” by Boyce Watkins, also a black commentator. Mr. Williams was clearly angry with the reference, but Mr. Watkins has neither apologized nor been fired from any position he holds. In fact, in an article posted on Black American Web, Mr. Watkins defends his comments while labeling “The O’Reilly Factor” as “racist television.”
Jesse Jackson attacked Barack Obama for “acting like he’s white.” Imagine any white – oh, I’m sorry, European-American – public or political figure accusing a like-raced individual of “acting like he’s black.” Jesse, Al and Mr. Watkins would be all over that person for his hateful, racist, demeaning and demoralizing words.
Having been called four-eyes, pizza face, geek and metal-mouth as a child, I am well aware that words can and do hurt people. I’m grateful, though, that my parents didn’t let me wallow in misery over such nonsense or storm into the principal’s office demanding the offending student’s expulsion. Instead my mother would look at me and say, “Get over it! You want to see someone with real problems? I’ll take you down to the County Hospital and you can see kids without arms or legs.”
Alas, such common sense does not prevail in politics. Instead of instilling character and self-reliance in our citizens and leaders, we are instead becoming a nation of crying babies looking to our mommies and daddies to make everything fair.
Buck up people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)