In the news today, apparent Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is touring around Europe. Touring – that’s a good word for it. Yesterday, he gave a speech in Berlin. What did he have to say? Was it insightful? Will it have a great impact on the world? Was it well-received by the German citizens? Does any of that matter? Absolutely – NOT!
Let’s ask the real relevant question – what was Barack Obama doing in Berlin giving a speech in the first place? Many have criticized Obama as being a highly inexperienced candidate; that he lacks foreign policy experience. Ok, so he hops a plane to Europe to talk to the various world leaders. That doesn’t involve making speeches covered by global media, nor having the nightly news anchors from the three major networks in tow. That simply involves sitting down and talking to the foreign leaders. Instead, Obama makes the news giving a speech in Berlin. Now, let’s look at why that’s a problem.
First of all, Barack is touring around Europe. Yes, back to that “touring” word again. As I said earlier, that’s a good word for what he does. He travels around from state to state, nation to nation, like a rock-star on a world tour. There’s a good analogy. See, like a rock-star, Barack is glad to take money from his screaming (and in some cases, fainting) fans and give them what they want to hear. In the end, it’s all just the same fluff to a slightly different tune.
Secondly, why is he giving a speech to the Germans, the French, or anyone else outside of America for that matter? Last time I checked, the citizens of Europe don’t actually get to vote for the AMERICAN president. It doesn’t matter one teeny, tiny, little bit what they think. The entire European community can back Obama for president and bring the Asians and Africans along with them for the ride. All put together, they still get exactly zero votes in OUR election. Essentially, it’s nothing more than propaganda. It’s just an opportunity to get Barack Obama in the news yet again, without actually doing or saying anything particularly important. It’s a good thing that the media in this country isn’t liberally biased or anything, because then it might look like they were playing favorites instead of being the fair, unbiased purveyors of information that we all know them to be.
Finally, aren’t Obama and/or the Democratic Party putting the cart before the horse? At this point, Barack Obama hasn’t even been officially selected as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, let alone actually elected to the office. Isn’t that part kind of important? Before one goes gallivanting around the world like he’s the president, shouldn’t he actually have the job first? Oh, right, sorry – that’s just another “distraction” from the Obama campaign. In other words, it’s not important because Obama doesn’t want to have to answer questions about it, as the answers might lead his followers to believe that he isn’t the “messiah” that some have proclaimed him to be.
“The Messiah”. Many have called Barack Obama by that name. In Aramaic, the word messiah literally means “the anointed one”. The Hebrew use of the word refers to Jesus Christ. I would hardly compare Barack Obama to Jesus Christ. While I’ve never personally been privileged and honored to be standing face to face with the corporeal form of the Lord, I truly believe that if I were to experience that, I wouldn’t have an irresistible compulsion to check my back pocket to see if my wallet was still there when I was done. Let’s get something straight, people. Barack Obama is not the Messiah. There is exactly one Messiah in the world. That’s Jesus Christ. None came before him; none shall come after. Exactly one. No more, no less. To use that word to describe any mortal man is disrespectful, in my opinion. Now, let’s stop for a minute, take a breath. Where does all of this talk to Barack Obama being the new messiah come from in the first place? Well, I have an idea on that. If you’ve been reading my blogs, you knew I would.
In his book, “The Third Reich, A Revolution of Ideological Inhumanity, Volume I: The Power of Perception”, Everette O Lemons talks about the plan of the Nazis to use propaganda to capture the hearts and minds of the German youth. In much the same way, Barack Obama has been targeting the youth of America. He’s focusing on young, college-age, first-time voters. These are young folks who have, for years, listened as their parents have said that we need “a change” in America. In most cases, their parents have never really defined what “change” was needed. Obama is capitalizing on that oversight. He runs about using the magic word “change” and the youth of America are flocking to him like moths to a flame. Here is their messiah, their anointed one, their savior. He'll help them. He’ll change everything that’s wrong with the world. They think by electing Barack Obama in November, they will finally bring about the “change” their parents have been pleading for, and won't their parents be so very proud of them? When they think about voting for Obama, they might want to remember that old saying…be careful what you wish for – you may get it!
Let’s take a minute to educate the youth of America. Here’s their first opportunity to make their voices heard. Before they step into that voting booth, they need to know who and what they are voting for. If someone is promising change, what exactly does that mean? What kind of change? Who benefits from that change, other than Barack and his followers, that is? Who is going to be harmed by that change? Be smart, people. Think. THINK! Use your head. Doesn't Barack seem a little too good to be true? When things seem like they're too good to be true, they usually are.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Parents, don't worry...
Parents, don't worry about your kids when the go to college. Rest assured that your children will be getting the best education your money or their student loans & scholarships can buy. The best part is, after four (OK, maybe five or six) years, the hard work, discipline, and dedication will all be rewarded with a degree, backed up by the knowledge that everything they've learned in their classes is the most recent, up-to-date, factual information that the professors could find. To quote the great comedian and storyteller Bill Cosby, "Right!"
Like the rest of the educational system in America, even our colleges and universities are directed by their share of internal politics. Often, these politics are not originating in the offices of university presidents and deans. Instead, at times, the system appears to be essentially run by the professors, while the administrators sit idly by, cowering in the corner. Is that how you think your hard-earned tuition dollars are being spent?
One of the problems in the system involves instructors who teach classes not to educate and inform, but to indoctrinate and push their own personal or political agendas. One example of this is demonstrated by professors who twist and, in cases, revise history in an attempt to convey their own agendas. Facts take a back seat to that end. Their ultimately irrelevant to some. Is this how you want your children to spend their time and your money (or theirs)?
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all college professors are full of crap. In fact, I believe the majority of them to be staying on topic and within the historical facts. Like everyone else on this planet, these instructors have their own beliefs on politics, religion, economics, etc. Also, like most of us, they can easily do our jobs without letting those personal beliefs interfere with their jobs. But what happens when an instructor dismisses accepted historical facts in an effort to promote an ideology all their own?
A link in "Nealz Nuze", on the website of nationally syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz, led me to this article by George Leef on the website for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. I found it very interesting. As a short-term college student at the University of Tennessee over fifteen years ago, I had heard this sort of thing went on in some classes, although I was fortunate enough not to be subjected to such indoctrination disguised as education. Read the article and see what happened when a professor at Wellesley College tries to take a fellow professor to task for relating factually unsound information to students in his classes.
Thank you to Mr. Leef for giving me permission to repost this well written and eye-opening article.
Clarion Call
How Truth Lost Out to Political Correctness at Wellesley
A professor describes her bitter experience defending historical fact over mythical Afrocentrism claims.
By George Leef
June 11, 2008
Are professors in American colleges and universities interested in the truth? That sounds like a strange question, but in an extremely revealing new book, Mary Lefkowitz shows that there are some who won’t let the truth get in the way of their efforts at indoctrinating students. Worse yet, administrators often cave in to these academic bullies rather than standing up for faculty members with the nerve to question them.
Lefkowitz is an emeritus professor at Wellesley College, where she taught courses on classical culture for many years. Ancient Greece is her specialty. It is hard to imagine that such a quiet scholar would become the center of a vehement controversy that would rock the campus and descend (on one side) to the level of vicious personal attacks. History Lesson (Yale University Press, 202 pages) is the story of her bitter experience after challenging the accuracy of material a professor in Wellesley’s Africana Studies Department used in his classes.
In her introduction Lefkowitz writes, “Telling the truth, instead of being our first responsibility, has suddenly become less important than achieving social goals. These goals were to be reached not by means of the usual scholarly tools of reflection and reasoned persuasion. They were to be imposed by assertion and fiat.”
One of those “social goals” that now dominate in American education is that of making various minority groups (those designated as victims of our oppressive culture) feel good about themselves. Toward that end, some professors have taken to the creation of myths. The particular myth that plays the central role in this drama is that of the “Stolen Legacy.”
Here is the way that myth goes. The culture and philosophy of the ancient Greeks was not truly their creation, but was “stolen” from Egypt. Since Egypt is in Africa and all the people in Africa are “black” this means that white Europeans were victimizing blacks more than 2400 years ago. In one particularly ludicrous aspect of this myth, it is asserted that Aristotle journeyed to the Library at Alexandria and stole books that he later claimed as his own works.
When Professor Lefkowitz learned that this and other intellectually indefensible ideas were being taught by a professor (Tony Martin) in the Africana Studies Department, she publicly challenged their historical accuracy. Among other problems with the “stolen legacy” idea is that Aristotle died years before the Library at Alexandria was built. But when she pointed this fact out to Professor Martin, he took umbrage. Who was she, a white Jew, to question his interpretation of black history?! At that point, it began to occur to her that Martin, a tenured faculty member, was one of those people who won’t let the truth get in the way of achieving their objectives.
More disturbing yet, she discovered that the dean of the college would not intervene. Quoth the dean, “He has his view of ancient history and you have yours.” Throughout the confrontation between Martin and Lefkowitz, the Wellesley administrators were cowering, spineless creatures—much like the Duke administration during the infamous lacrosse case in 2006.
Looking further into the curriculum in Martin’s department, Lefkowitz discovered that students were assigned a book entitled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, an anonymous book published by the Nation of Islam. While masquerading as a work of scholarship, complete with 1,275 footnotes, it is a screed that seeks to promote the idea that Jews were mainly responsible for slavery. The book is hate literature with a thin veneer of sophistication. Using it in a college course is deeply troubling. The Wellesley administration, however, ducked behind the curtain of professors’ “academic freedom” when it was brought to their attention.
Lefkowitz’s purely academic criticisms of the materials being used to teach Wellesley students elicited an outrageous counter-attack by Martin, a book entitled The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront. In it, Martin depicted himself as a hero standing strong for “black progress” against the evil oppressor class (the Jews) and craven blacks who didn’t go along with his racial harangues (such as Wellesley economics professor Marcellus Andrews and Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr.).
Martin wasn’t done yet. Next he filed a lawsuit against Lefkowitz claiming that an article she had written slandered him. The article was about an incident in 1991 where Martin had verbally abused a female student. His suit alleged that the article contained erroneous material that had damaged him professionally. Naturally, Wellesley’s administration refused to defend Lefkowitz. She was able to find expert legal help, however, through the Anti-Defamation League. The case dragged on until 1999, when it was finally dismissed.
One of the hot topics in higher education these days is whether there is a significant problem of professors turning their classes into indoctrination camps. We often hear from defenders of the status quo that instances of this are mostly made up or exaggerated, and that in any event, American students are “critical thinkers” who are too bright accept any propaganda that might happen to make its way to their ears. History Lesson refutes both parts of that defense. Martin clearly meant to indoctrinate his students with historical falsehoods, and from the letters and comments of his students about the controversy, it’s evident that many of them had swallowed his line completely. To them, Lefkowitz was an enemy just as to Mao’s Red Brigades any intellectual was an enemy. If you’ve heard that American college students are impervious to propaganda because they can see right through it, this book demonstrates otherwise.
In a fascinating aside, Lefkowitz explains that she tracked down the origin of the “Stolen Legacy” myth. It comes from a novel published in France in 1731. The American writer George G. M. James based his ostensibly factual 1954 book Stolen Legacy on this work of fiction.
Sadly, it isn’t just in the area of Africana Studies that we encounter the double standards and anti-intellectualism on display throughout the book. Professors who question global warming, the benefits of “diversity,” and other articles of faith on the left risk intimidation or reprisals for saying what they believe to be true. American colleges and universities are far from being havens for objective, dispassionate inquiry. .
History Lesson is an extremely important, gutsy book. I’m afraid, however, that the people who most need to read and reflect on it—college administrators—will avert their eyes.
Once again, thank you to Mr. Leef for giving me permission to repost this well written and eye-opening article.
Remember, this may not be the rule in modern higher education, but this DOES happen. The best defense against such so-called "educators" is to start early by teaching your children how to think for themselves. Teach them that if they hear something they don't understand or that doesn't make sense, check it out. Question what they are told. Educate your kids to realize that just because a person is in a position of authority doesn't mean they are never wrong. Our children are not born with the inherent ability to simply know who's educating them and who's just trying to further their own ends. It falls to the parents to help them learn that. Don't raise another generation of automatons. As a society, we've done that. Let's try something new (and actually something tried and true, as well) -- let's raise a generation of kids who know how to think for themselves, who have useful problem solving skills, who know how to stand on their own two feet, instead of simply following wherever they are unsuspectingly led.
Like the rest of the educational system in America, even our colleges and universities are directed by their share of internal politics. Often, these politics are not originating in the offices of university presidents and deans. Instead, at times, the system appears to be essentially run by the professors, while the administrators sit idly by, cowering in the corner. Is that how you think your hard-earned tuition dollars are being spent?
One of the problems in the system involves instructors who teach classes not to educate and inform, but to indoctrinate and push their own personal or political agendas. One example of this is demonstrated by professors who twist and, in cases, revise history in an attempt to convey their own agendas. Facts take a back seat to that end. Their ultimately irrelevant to some. Is this how you want your children to spend their time and your money (or theirs)?
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all college professors are full of crap. In fact, I believe the majority of them to be staying on topic and within the historical facts. Like everyone else on this planet, these instructors have their own beliefs on politics, religion, economics, etc. Also, like most of us, they can easily do our jobs without letting those personal beliefs interfere with their jobs. But what happens when an instructor dismisses accepted historical facts in an effort to promote an ideology all their own?
A link in "Nealz Nuze", on the website of nationally syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz, led me to this article by George Leef on the website for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. I found it very interesting. As a short-term college student at the University of Tennessee over fifteen years ago, I had heard this sort of thing went on in some classes, although I was fortunate enough not to be subjected to such indoctrination disguised as education. Read the article and see what happened when a professor at Wellesley College tries to take a fellow professor to task for relating factually unsound information to students in his classes.
Thank you to Mr. Leef for giving me permission to repost this well written and eye-opening article.
Clarion Call
How Truth Lost Out to Political Correctness at Wellesley
A professor describes her bitter experience defending historical fact over mythical Afrocentrism claims.
By George Leef
June 11, 2008
Are professors in American colleges and universities interested in the truth? That sounds like a strange question, but in an extremely revealing new book, Mary Lefkowitz shows that there are some who won’t let the truth get in the way of their efforts at indoctrinating students. Worse yet, administrators often cave in to these academic bullies rather than standing up for faculty members with the nerve to question them.
Lefkowitz is an emeritus professor at Wellesley College, where she taught courses on classical culture for many years. Ancient Greece is her specialty. It is hard to imagine that such a quiet scholar would become the center of a vehement controversy that would rock the campus and descend (on one side) to the level of vicious personal attacks. History Lesson (Yale University Press, 202 pages) is the story of her bitter experience after challenging the accuracy of material a professor in Wellesley’s Africana Studies Department used in his classes.
In her introduction Lefkowitz writes, “Telling the truth, instead of being our first responsibility, has suddenly become less important than achieving social goals. These goals were to be reached not by means of the usual scholarly tools of reflection and reasoned persuasion. They were to be imposed by assertion and fiat.”
One of those “social goals” that now dominate in American education is that of making various minority groups (those designated as victims of our oppressive culture) feel good about themselves. Toward that end, some professors have taken to the creation of myths. The particular myth that plays the central role in this drama is that of the “Stolen Legacy.”
Here is the way that myth goes. The culture and philosophy of the ancient Greeks was not truly their creation, but was “stolen” from Egypt. Since Egypt is in Africa and all the people in Africa are “black” this means that white Europeans were victimizing blacks more than 2400 years ago. In one particularly ludicrous aspect of this myth, it is asserted that Aristotle journeyed to the Library at Alexandria and stole books that he later claimed as his own works.
When Professor Lefkowitz learned that this and other intellectually indefensible ideas were being taught by a professor (Tony Martin) in the Africana Studies Department, she publicly challenged their historical accuracy. Among other problems with the “stolen legacy” idea is that Aristotle died years before the Library at Alexandria was built. But when she pointed this fact out to Professor Martin, he took umbrage. Who was she, a white Jew, to question his interpretation of black history?! At that point, it began to occur to her that Martin, a tenured faculty member, was one of those people who won’t let the truth get in the way of achieving their objectives.
More disturbing yet, she discovered that the dean of the college would not intervene. Quoth the dean, “He has his view of ancient history and you have yours.” Throughout the confrontation between Martin and Lefkowitz, the Wellesley administrators were cowering, spineless creatures—much like the Duke administration during the infamous lacrosse case in 2006.
Looking further into the curriculum in Martin’s department, Lefkowitz discovered that students were assigned a book entitled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, an anonymous book published by the Nation of Islam. While masquerading as a work of scholarship, complete with 1,275 footnotes, it is a screed that seeks to promote the idea that Jews were mainly responsible for slavery. The book is hate literature with a thin veneer of sophistication. Using it in a college course is deeply troubling. The Wellesley administration, however, ducked behind the curtain of professors’ “academic freedom” when it was brought to their attention.
Lefkowitz’s purely academic criticisms of the materials being used to teach Wellesley students elicited an outrageous counter-attack by Martin, a book entitled The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront. In it, Martin depicted himself as a hero standing strong for “black progress” against the evil oppressor class (the Jews) and craven blacks who didn’t go along with his racial harangues (such as Wellesley economics professor Marcellus Andrews and Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr.).
Martin wasn’t done yet. Next he filed a lawsuit against Lefkowitz claiming that an article she had written slandered him. The article was about an incident in 1991 where Martin had verbally abused a female student. His suit alleged that the article contained erroneous material that had damaged him professionally. Naturally, Wellesley’s administration refused to defend Lefkowitz. She was able to find expert legal help, however, through the Anti-Defamation League. The case dragged on until 1999, when it was finally dismissed.
One of the hot topics in higher education these days is whether there is a significant problem of professors turning their classes into indoctrination camps. We often hear from defenders of the status quo that instances of this are mostly made up or exaggerated, and that in any event, American students are “critical thinkers” who are too bright accept any propaganda that might happen to make its way to their ears. History Lesson refutes both parts of that defense. Martin clearly meant to indoctrinate his students with historical falsehoods, and from the letters and comments of his students about the controversy, it’s evident that many of them had swallowed his line completely. To them, Lefkowitz was an enemy just as to Mao’s Red Brigades any intellectual was an enemy. If you’ve heard that American college students are impervious to propaganda because they can see right through it, this book demonstrates otherwise.
In a fascinating aside, Lefkowitz explains that she tracked down the origin of the “Stolen Legacy” myth. It comes from a novel published in France in 1731. The American writer George G. M. James based his ostensibly factual 1954 book Stolen Legacy on this work of fiction.
Sadly, it isn’t just in the area of Africana Studies that we encounter the double standards and anti-intellectualism on display throughout the book. Professors who question global warming, the benefits of “diversity,” and other articles of faith on the left risk intimidation or reprisals for saying what they believe to be true. American colleges and universities are far from being havens for objective, dispassionate inquiry. .
History Lesson is an extremely important, gutsy book. I’m afraid, however, that the people who most need to read and reflect on it—college administrators—will avert their eyes.
Once again, thank you to Mr. Leef for giving me permission to repost this well written and eye-opening article.
Remember, this may not be the rule in modern higher education, but this DOES happen. The best defense against such so-called "educators" is to start early by teaching your children how to think for themselves. Teach them that if they hear something they don't understand or that doesn't make sense, check it out. Question what they are told. Educate your kids to realize that just because a person is in a position of authority doesn't mean they are never wrong. Our children are not born with the inherent ability to simply know who's educating them and who's just trying to further their own ends. It falls to the parents to help them learn that. Don't raise another generation of automatons. As a society, we've done that. Let's try something new (and actually something tried and true, as well) -- let's raise a generation of kids who know how to think for themselves, who have useful problem solving skills, who know how to stand on their own two feet, instead of simply following wherever they are unsuspectingly led.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
I must be a bad American
Thought you might all like this one. It's been attributed to the late George Carlin, but I understand he disavowed writing this.
{ YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW MY NAME }
YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN
I Am the Liberal-Progressives Worst Nightmare.
I am an American.
I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!
I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!
I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American.
I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.
I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.
I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.
My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.
I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.
I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.
I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.
I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country! This is AMERICA!
If you were born here and don't like it you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.
I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. (Can I get an AMEN on that one?)
I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.
And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it's good..... And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money.
I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.
I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause.
I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.
I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.
I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed inAMERICA!
If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.
If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.
We want our country back!
We NEED GOD BACK IN OUR COUNTRY!
WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE
{ YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW MY NAME }
YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN
I Am the Liberal-Progressives Worst Nightmare.
I am an American.
I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some Liberal governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican!
I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!
I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American.
I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.
I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.
I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.
My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.
I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.
I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.
I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.
I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country! This is AMERICA!
If you were born here and don't like it you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you.
I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. (Can I get an AMEN on that one?)
I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are.
And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it's good..... And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money.
I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.
I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause.
I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.
I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think.
I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed inAMERICA!
If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.
If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.
We want our country back!
We NEED GOD BACK IN OUR COUNTRY!
WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE
The "New" Rights of Obama Supporters
While I like to blog on topics of interest, from time to time, I find other writers whose writings deserve to be reposted here for my readers. When I bring you these posts, you can rest assured that I'll be providing all of the relevent source information. After all, I'm not interested in plagerising someone else's work. I'm interested in educating my readers.
From: http://www.townhall.com/ a post by writer Mike S. Adams.
This post was brought to my attention during today's broadcast by nationally syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz.
Here's the post:
Not long ago, I was having a gathering of about eight people at my house. The last guy to show up walked right into my kitchen and then protested because he couldn’t find any bottled water in the refrigerator. Next, he complained that we ate all the snacks before he showed up thirty-five minutes late. When he finally came into the living room to sit down, he asked what we were talking about. I told him we were talking about economics, which involves not just demand but supply. I joked that he wouldn’t have to demand any bottled water and snacks if he’d remembered to supply some, too. That drew a laugh from one of our mutual friends.
This trait of being more in love with consumption than production is one shared by most of my socialist colleagues in academia. They base their lives on the idea of taking “from each according to his ability” and giving “to each according to his need.” The problem is that they do a better job of articulating their needs than promoting their abilities. This is, of course, because socialists are generally short on abilities. They seek socialism because they think being guaranteed an average outcome is safer than trying to beat the average in a system based on merit, which is otherwise known as ability.
Anyone watching the 2008 presidential race has doubtless seen a similar dynamic among supporters of Barack H. Obama. Most of his supporters have been talking about rights without any mention of the notion of responsibilities. Like supply and demand, and need and ability, the terms rights and responsibilities are best understood in relation to one another. For example, I have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms that the government cannot simply take away from me on a whim. But I also have a responsibility for everything that occurs between the time I discharge a bullet and the time the bullet comes to its final stopping point.
But consider the following list of “rights” that supporters of Obama have recently told me that we all have:
Everyone has the right to a college education. I can’t imagine what it will be like as a college professor once Obama implements this one. I’ve been teaching to the occasional unqualified black and the occasional unqualified athlete for years. But now that everyone, including, presumably, the mentally retarded, has a right to a college degree, I might just retire and become a firearms instructor. Hopefully, Obama will not grant a Right to Firearms Education to both idiots and the insane. (Author’s Note: This one came from Obama himself).
Everyone has a right to breathe clean air.
This is a really bad idea for the Obama campaign. If everyone starts to enforce his right to breathe clean air in the presence of swarthy young Muslims, Obama might lose an important part of his electoral base.
Everyone has a right to free health care.
I recently learned this from an incoming Drexel law student appearing on The O’Reilly Factor. Bill did a great job by asking her whether this right is in the constitution or whether it just comes from the fact that she is a really nice person. She was forced to admit that it was not in the constitution. She should do really well in law school because she’s a really nice person.
Everyone has a right to demand that the rich pay taxes in proportion to their ability to pay taxes.
I recently learned this from an incoming Yale law student on the same segment of The Factor. Everyone agrees that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. What is controversial is the notion that they should also pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. But that was not the issue in this segment. The issue was whether the existing gap in the proportion of taxes paid by the poor and the rich should be widened and, if so, by how much. When someone says we have a right to tax the rich “in proportion to their ability to pay” they mean “tax them until they can no longer pay” or “tax them until they are bankrupt.” Many people who hold this view were not actually alive during the Carter Administration. But they have taken history classes from people who assure us that he was really not such a bad president.
Every gay man has a right to feel comfortable.
I heard this one from a first-year law student at Yale. He actually informed me thrice that his right to be comfortable as a gay man trumps the First Amendment. I guess they don’t teach constitutional law until the second year of the Yale law program. But the question is: How did this sissy get into Yale Law School?
After spending only a little time listening to followers of the Dali Bama I have concluded that, in Obama’s America, everyone gets to declare at least one new fundamental right regardless of whether it is written into the constitution. And so, naturally, I am going to declare first that I have a right to unlimited rights. (This is sort of like making one’s only wish a request for unlimited wishes).
My second declaration of a new right is a little more complicated. First, I believe that I have a right to demand that you show me a copy of the U.S. Constitution every time you demand a new right. And if you cannot identify the constitutional basis of your proposed right, you forfeit that right as well as your right to vote in 2008. And, of course, I get to cast the vote you forfeited.
So, those of you prone to simply announce fundamental rights without any constitutional basis should beware that this could soon deprive you of the right to vote. Until now, it’s only deprived of you the right to sound intelligent.
OK, folks, there you have it. If you'd like to read the full article along with readers' commentary, click here.
From: http://www.townhall.com/ a post by writer Mike S. Adams.
This post was brought to my attention during today's broadcast by nationally syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz.
Here's the post:
Not long ago, I was having a gathering of about eight people at my house. The last guy to show up walked right into my kitchen and then protested because he couldn’t find any bottled water in the refrigerator. Next, he complained that we ate all the snacks before he showed up thirty-five minutes late. When he finally came into the living room to sit down, he asked what we were talking about. I told him we were talking about economics, which involves not just demand but supply. I joked that he wouldn’t have to demand any bottled water and snacks if he’d remembered to supply some, too. That drew a laugh from one of our mutual friends.
This trait of being more in love with consumption than production is one shared by most of my socialist colleagues in academia. They base their lives on the idea of taking “from each according to his ability” and giving “to each according to his need.” The problem is that they do a better job of articulating their needs than promoting their abilities. This is, of course, because socialists are generally short on abilities. They seek socialism because they think being guaranteed an average outcome is safer than trying to beat the average in a system based on merit, which is otherwise known as ability.
Anyone watching the 2008 presidential race has doubtless seen a similar dynamic among supporters of Barack H. Obama. Most of his supporters have been talking about rights without any mention of the notion of responsibilities. Like supply and demand, and need and ability, the terms rights and responsibilities are best understood in relation to one another. For example, I have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms that the government cannot simply take away from me on a whim. But I also have a responsibility for everything that occurs between the time I discharge a bullet and the time the bullet comes to its final stopping point.
But consider the following list of “rights” that supporters of Obama have recently told me that we all have:
Everyone has the right to a college education. I can’t imagine what it will be like as a college professor once Obama implements this one. I’ve been teaching to the occasional unqualified black and the occasional unqualified athlete for years. But now that everyone, including, presumably, the mentally retarded, has a right to a college degree, I might just retire and become a firearms instructor. Hopefully, Obama will not grant a Right to Firearms Education to both idiots and the insane. (Author’s Note: This one came from Obama himself).
Everyone has a right to breathe clean air.
This is a really bad idea for the Obama campaign. If everyone starts to enforce his right to breathe clean air in the presence of swarthy young Muslims, Obama might lose an important part of his electoral base.
Everyone has a right to free health care.
I recently learned this from an incoming Drexel law student appearing on The O’Reilly Factor. Bill did a great job by asking her whether this right is in the constitution or whether it just comes from the fact that she is a really nice person. She was forced to admit that it was not in the constitution. She should do really well in law school because she’s a really nice person.
Everyone has a right to demand that the rich pay taxes in proportion to their ability to pay taxes.
I recently learned this from an incoming Yale law student on the same segment of The Factor. Everyone agrees that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. What is controversial is the notion that they should also pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. But that was not the issue in this segment. The issue was whether the existing gap in the proportion of taxes paid by the poor and the rich should be widened and, if so, by how much. When someone says we have a right to tax the rich “in proportion to their ability to pay” they mean “tax them until they can no longer pay” or “tax them until they are bankrupt.” Many people who hold this view were not actually alive during the Carter Administration. But they have taken history classes from people who assure us that he was really not such a bad president.
Every gay man has a right to feel comfortable.
I heard this one from a first-year law student at Yale. He actually informed me thrice that his right to be comfortable as a gay man trumps the First Amendment. I guess they don’t teach constitutional law until the second year of the Yale law program. But the question is: How did this sissy get into Yale Law School?
After spending only a little time listening to followers of the Dali Bama I have concluded that, in Obama’s America, everyone gets to declare at least one new fundamental right regardless of whether it is written into the constitution. And so, naturally, I am going to declare first that I have a right to unlimited rights. (This is sort of like making one’s only wish a request for unlimited wishes).
My second declaration of a new right is a little more complicated. First, I believe that I have a right to demand that you show me a copy of the U.S. Constitution every time you demand a new right. And if you cannot identify the constitutional basis of your proposed right, you forfeit that right as well as your right to vote in 2008. And, of course, I get to cast the vote you forfeited.
So, those of you prone to simply announce fundamental rights without any constitutional basis should beware that this could soon deprive you of the right to vote. Until now, it’s only deprived of you the right to sound intelligent.
OK, folks, there you have it. If you'd like to read the full article along with readers' commentary, click here.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The Federal Minimum Wage
Here in just a few weeks, on July 24, 2008, our country’s minimum wage will be going up again from $5.85/hr to $6.55/hr. That will be great for our economy. Employees who are struggling to support themselves and their families at jobs that only pay them minimum wage will have a little more money in their pockets at the end of the week. That money will enable them to better pay their bills and make a more comfortable lifestyle for themselves. Also, that money can be used to take care of the various needs and wants that have been, up till now, sitting on the back burner. And this doesn’t just apply to the people making minimum wage. A number of workers stand to benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. That’s not true for everyone, mind you, just those who work for employers who see the minimum wage increase as a reason to increase their wages, so those other employees maintain a higher pay rate over those making minimum. So, from the looks of everything, an increase in the federal minimum wage looks like it’s going to do a lot of good for a lot of people. NOT!! Wake up, people. This is just another outrageous act by the United States Congress that makes you think they’re doing something useful for you other than wasting your tax dollars on “pork barrel” projects. What are they truly doing for you or the economy at large? Literally NOTHING!
Of course, one has to wonder how increasing the minimum wage can do absolutely nothing for the economy. More money will be going in to the pockets of employees all across the nation. They’ll have more money to spend. They’ll be able to pay their bills, purchase new goods and services in our economy. So how does all of this add up to doing nothing for the people?
Let’s take a retail grocery store owner. Right now, with the current minimum wage, he can maintain his payroll of 5 minimum full time wage employees his current 10% gross profit margin on the products he sells. We will assume there are other employees at the store, but we’ll just deal with the 5 minimum wage employees for the purpose of keeping our example simple.
5 employees x 40 hours per week x $5.85/hr = $1,170.00 per week (or $234.00 each)
For purposes of this example, an item with a 10% profit margin means that 10% of what it is sold for is profit. On a $1.00 item, 10¢ would be profit, while the other 90¢ would go to whoever supplied the merchandise. So, for every $1.00 rung in at the register, 10¢ would go to payroll expenses. So right now, the owner needs to sell $11,700.00 per week in merchandise just for these employees.
Milk 2000 units x $4.50/unit = $9000.00
Bread 1000 units x $1.50/unit = $1500.00
Ground Beef 700 pounds x $2.00/lb = $1400.00
TOTAL REVENUE=$11,900.00
So right now, the owner sells sufficient merchandise to cover a payroll up to $1,190.00 per week. We will also note that at the current rate of pay and the current retails, a given employee can afford to buy 3 gallons of milk ($13.50), 5 loaves of bread ($7.50), and 6 pounds of ground beef ($12.00) out of their check and still have $200.00 left over for other expenses.
Now, in July, the minimum wage will go up 70¢ per hour to $6.55/hr. For a full time employee, that’s an increase of $28.00 per week that has to be added to the weekly payroll budget.
5 employees x 40 hours per week x $6.55/hr = $1,310.00 per week (up $140.00)
So where does that $140.00 come from? Well, the owner needs to keep his payroll budget at 10% or less of his gross sales. This will require an increase in sales at the register or someone will have to be laid off from their job. In order to keep all of these employees, sales will need to increase $1400.00 to $13,100.00 per week. In order to do that, the owner raises his prices to cover the gap between his current revenue and his payroll budget. So, now he has to sell his product to his customers at a higher price.
Milk 2000 units x $4.85/unit = $9700.00
Bread 1000 units x $1.75/unit = $1750.00
Ground Beef 700 pounds x $2.45/lb = $1715.00
TOTAL REVENUE=$13,165.00
In order to be able to afford this store owner’s increased prices, his customers will now have to either buy less or have more income. The customers go to their employers (assuming they haven’t received pay raises as a result of the minimum wage increase) for raises. To afford to pay these raises, the employers of the customers must also increase their revenues (if they haven’t already done so), most likely by raising their prices charged to their customers. This cycle will continue to repeat. Now, everyone has raised their costs to be able to pay their employees increased wages.
The employees of the grocery store are also spending more of their income ($262.00 each) as a result of these higher prices. At the new retail prices, each employee spends the same $33 per week to buy their groceries. Now, however, while they can still afford 3 gallons of milk ($14.55), now they can only afford 4 loaves of bread ($7.00) and 5 pounds of ground beef ($12.25) for a total of $33.80. To buy the groceries they had in the past would have cost them $38.00. Even though the employees are making more money, they have to spend more money on their basic needs. Also with the prices of these items, we can also understand that many of their other basic expenses have gone up as well.
The increase in the federal minimum wage is ultimately a washout. While employees are getting more money in their checks, they inevitably end up spending that money on their expenses. It doesn’t really improve their standing in life; their ability to do substantially more for their families is little more than smoke and mirrors.
Furthermore, let’s look at who’s generally benefitting from the minimum wage increase. Most of your minimum wage employees are teenagers working their first jobs. After that, we’re looking at young adults who may be new to a specific company, but who will eventually work their way up after they have demonstrated their value to their employers. Another group of minimum wage employees are those who work basic jobs in fast food and retail due to issues in the job histories which make them higher risks to hire (short times at previous jobs, quitting for weak or questionable reasons, etc.). Since the second group will likely remain at minimum wage for only a short period of time, that leaves the first group (new, inexperienced employees) and the third group (employees who have trouble staying employed). The new, inexperienced employees don’t really need the increase in pay. Part of their compensation in the big picture is experience. An employer is taking the time and expense of teaching this employee things which will benefit them down the road throughout their life. The employees who can’t hold a job don’t deserve to see an increase in their bottom line either. These employees haven’t put forth the effort to work a job with the diligence required. They have instead put their priorities on calling in sick when they’re not, quitting jobs over petty things like their bosses expecting them to do their job properly and arriving on time or because they moved a mile and a half further away from their jobs (as though driving that extra two or three minutes would do real harm to them), or getting fired for being insubordinate or unreliable or because they’re rather “par-tay” on Friday night and show up late on Saturday morning.
In the grand scheme of things, very few of the truly hard working people out there will actually see an increase in their paychecks, as most are not working for employers who will simply raise their wages to maintain the certain gap between long-term employees and minimum wage employees. What these employees will see instead, a more coming out of their budgets for necessities and less flexible (“disposable”) income. In the end, whatever benefit the minimum wage workers see will be negated by the negative impact on the workers who won’t be getting raises to deal with the higher expenses ultimately created by the increase.
All that increasing the minimum wage has done for anyone is make some Congressmen look like they’re really trying to do something. They know that what they’re doing is merely a hollow gesture on their part, just a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. If you want people to do that for you, go to Vegas and catch a show with Sigfreid and Roy. You won’t get any richer there than you would with the minimum wage increase, but at least you get to see some cool looking white tigers for your money.
OK, now back to the readers. What do you think about it? Is the increase in the minimum wage a benefit for our nation or an illusion of benefit? Be honest -- let's talk about it.
Of course, one has to wonder how increasing the minimum wage can do absolutely nothing for the economy. More money will be going in to the pockets of employees all across the nation. They’ll have more money to spend. They’ll be able to pay their bills, purchase new goods and services in our economy. So how does all of this add up to doing nothing for the people?
Let’s take a retail grocery store owner. Right now, with the current minimum wage, he can maintain his payroll of 5 minimum full time wage employees his current 10% gross profit margin on the products he sells. We will assume there are other employees at the store, but we’ll just deal with the 5 minimum wage employees for the purpose of keeping our example simple.
5 employees x 40 hours per week x $5.85/hr = $1,170.00 per week (or $234.00 each)
For purposes of this example, an item with a 10% profit margin means that 10% of what it is sold for is profit. On a $1.00 item, 10¢ would be profit, while the other 90¢ would go to whoever supplied the merchandise. So, for every $1.00 rung in at the register, 10¢ would go to payroll expenses. So right now, the owner needs to sell $11,700.00 per week in merchandise just for these employees.
Milk 2000 units x $4.50/unit = $9000.00
Bread 1000 units x $1.50/unit = $1500.00
Ground Beef 700 pounds x $2.00/lb = $1400.00
TOTAL REVENUE=$11,900.00
So right now, the owner sells sufficient merchandise to cover a payroll up to $1,190.00 per week. We will also note that at the current rate of pay and the current retails, a given employee can afford to buy 3 gallons of milk ($13.50), 5 loaves of bread ($7.50), and 6 pounds of ground beef ($12.00) out of their check and still have $200.00 left over for other expenses.
Now, in July, the minimum wage will go up 70¢ per hour to $6.55/hr. For a full time employee, that’s an increase of $28.00 per week that has to be added to the weekly payroll budget.
5 employees x 40 hours per week x $6.55/hr = $1,310.00 per week (up $140.00)
So where does that $140.00 come from? Well, the owner needs to keep his payroll budget at 10% or less of his gross sales. This will require an increase in sales at the register or someone will have to be laid off from their job. In order to keep all of these employees, sales will need to increase $1400.00 to $13,100.00 per week. In order to do that, the owner raises his prices to cover the gap between his current revenue and his payroll budget. So, now he has to sell his product to his customers at a higher price.
Milk 2000 units x $4.85/unit = $9700.00
Bread 1000 units x $1.75/unit = $1750.00
Ground Beef 700 pounds x $2.45/lb = $1715.00
TOTAL REVENUE=$13,165.00
In order to be able to afford this store owner’s increased prices, his customers will now have to either buy less or have more income. The customers go to their employers (assuming they haven’t received pay raises as a result of the minimum wage increase) for raises. To afford to pay these raises, the employers of the customers must also increase their revenues (if they haven’t already done so), most likely by raising their prices charged to their customers. This cycle will continue to repeat. Now, everyone has raised their costs to be able to pay their employees increased wages.
The employees of the grocery store are also spending more of their income ($262.00 each) as a result of these higher prices. At the new retail prices, each employee spends the same $33 per week to buy their groceries. Now, however, while they can still afford 3 gallons of milk ($14.55), now they can only afford 4 loaves of bread ($7.00) and 5 pounds of ground beef ($12.25) for a total of $33.80. To buy the groceries they had in the past would have cost them $38.00. Even though the employees are making more money, they have to spend more money on their basic needs. Also with the prices of these items, we can also understand that many of their other basic expenses have gone up as well.
The increase in the federal minimum wage is ultimately a washout. While employees are getting more money in their checks, they inevitably end up spending that money on their expenses. It doesn’t really improve their standing in life; their ability to do substantially more for their families is little more than smoke and mirrors.
Furthermore, let’s look at who’s generally benefitting from the minimum wage increase. Most of your minimum wage employees are teenagers working their first jobs. After that, we’re looking at young adults who may be new to a specific company, but who will eventually work their way up after they have demonstrated their value to their employers. Another group of minimum wage employees are those who work basic jobs in fast food and retail due to issues in the job histories which make them higher risks to hire (short times at previous jobs, quitting for weak or questionable reasons, etc.). Since the second group will likely remain at minimum wage for only a short period of time, that leaves the first group (new, inexperienced employees) and the third group (employees who have trouble staying employed). The new, inexperienced employees don’t really need the increase in pay. Part of their compensation in the big picture is experience. An employer is taking the time and expense of teaching this employee things which will benefit them down the road throughout their life. The employees who can’t hold a job don’t deserve to see an increase in their bottom line either. These employees haven’t put forth the effort to work a job with the diligence required. They have instead put their priorities on calling in sick when they’re not, quitting jobs over petty things like their bosses expecting them to do their job properly and arriving on time or because they moved a mile and a half further away from their jobs (as though driving that extra two or three minutes would do real harm to them), or getting fired for being insubordinate or unreliable or because they’re rather “par-tay” on Friday night and show up late on Saturday morning.
In the grand scheme of things, very few of the truly hard working people out there will actually see an increase in their paychecks, as most are not working for employers who will simply raise their wages to maintain the certain gap between long-term employees and minimum wage employees. What these employees will see instead, a more coming out of their budgets for necessities and less flexible (“disposable”) income. In the end, whatever benefit the minimum wage workers see will be negated by the negative impact on the workers who won’t be getting raises to deal with the higher expenses ultimately created by the increase.
All that increasing the minimum wage has done for anyone is make some Congressmen look like they’re really trying to do something. They know that what they’re doing is merely a hollow gesture on their part, just a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. If you want people to do that for you, go to Vegas and catch a show with Sigfreid and Roy. You won’t get any richer there than you would with the minimum wage increase, but at least you get to see some cool looking white tigers for your money.
OK, now back to the readers. What do you think about it? Is the increase in the minimum wage a benefit for our nation or an illusion of benefit? Be honest -- let's talk about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
