Your daily rag dishes the dirt
What absurdities exist in your daily paper? Grab the San Francisco paper, and watch the tide:"Carter says Hamas willing to be Israel's neighbor" - forget for a moment the absurdity of Carter appointing himself to the position of diplomat to Palestine; since when has Hamas ever wished for anything short of Israel's destruction?Letter to the editor: "Taxes on 'The Rich'" - here's a howler; the writer claims that George Bush's tax cuts "Resulted" in "The worst (job growth) performance over a business cycle since the government started keeping track in 1945", according to that oh-so-unbiased source, The New York Times. Talk about "Cherry-Picking the intelligence"; did no one bother to ask which particular cycle this was? Is it over George Bush's entire eight years, or a single quarter? Makes a difference, doesn't it? Next comes this bizarre claim: "In contrast, Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of taxpayers led to an unprecedented economic expansion" - The claim is clearly that the tax hike resulted in a larger economy, a connection which is spurious at best, and ground-breakingly ignorant at worst. But the final insult comes right after these two Olympic-size stretches: "If the Republicans were talking about corporate taxes, they might have a point. But their admonishments against 'Soaking the Rich' are utterly refuted by simple logic and historical fact." - Presenting disconnected data and claiming a connection is an old tactic, and it's best used with the footnote that what has just been presented is "Simple Logic" and "Historical Fact", when neither contention passes any of the basic tests of analysis. Bill Clinton's tax hike did not "Lead to" economic expansion any more than George Bush's tax cut "Resulted" in poor job growth. There are far more factors that influence economic activity than are addressed by these two points, but the basic proposition - that lower rates of taxation generally result in higher levels of growth - remains sound by any test (excluding, of course, that of the letter-writer's "Simple Logic").And note again the contention that taxes represent money that is owned by the state first, and then the individual - this presumption has taken root like some kind of hideous cancer - fortunately, there have been great advances in treating such conditions, but they need a lot more publicity.
Earth Day is not a holiday
Hate to break it to you, but the word "Holiday" comes from the idea of a "Holy Day" - and "Earth Day" is not holy. In fact, it's the best measure yet of how far people will go in their desire to turn naturalism into a religion - by turning away from the perceived dogma and mindless conformity of organized religion, proud secularists can turn the Earth into their God, and Earth Day into their Christmas.Of course, while there is no shortage of media buzz identifying, labeling, and denouncing the "Fringe" elements of mainstream religion (with the exception of radical Islam, which no leftist dares to oppose aloud, for some bizarre reason, given Islam's loathing of feminism and gay rights), there is little mention of the Malthusian ideology that drives earth-worship and "Animal Rights", which is hatred of the human race. They won't talk about it in the 'Mainstream Media', which is busily displaying its earthin'-up creds with flashy web logos, power-off events, and lists of things that "You can do to help", but at the heart of this movement lies a worldview that disdains humans and sees them as some sort of malignant tumor.Such people would like nothing better than China-style limits on children, sterilization services, and a general consensus that Earth's population should be reduced, for the good of.....well, the Earth. Ted Turner himself made some noise about limiting families to two children, which begged the question as to which three of his own five children he would be prepared to repeat this recommendation in front of.This is the same mindset that blocks any and all development for things like new housing, new power plants...new anything, really, which just drives up the cost of living for everyone else. How often are the cries for "Affordable Housing" reconciled with the "People last, Earth first!" mentality that prevails among hard-core environmentalism?Ponder that one as you turn off extra lights in solidarity with "The Movement".
Do you hate money? If so, you've got plenty of company.
It's absolutely hilarious to hear wannabe-socialists suddenly proclaiming themselves capitalists. It plays out the minute economic growth slows down or contracts: suddenly, "The Economy" is the laser-beam focus of every candidate, pundit, and journalist of the left. Not for a moment is there the slightest question of what makes an economy sound over the long term; there simply materializes an ogre of monstrous dimensions who threatens every job, contract, and - best of all for commentators - "Working Family".Leftists hate capitalism, and they will even say so outright. They have still not come up with any better way to reduce poverty and raise living standards for all, but this doesn't inhibit the ferocity of their denunciations. To them, the culprits are private property and profits.Remember the trend of anti-trade rioting that emerged just as Bill Clinton was taking credit for the surge in growth that accompanied his presidency? Here was the modern face of anticapitalism; its goals were perfectly summarized by the banner, "Overthrow Capitalism and Replace it with something nice" - nothing could better explain the willful ignorance of those seduced by fantasies of workers' paradises, and tales of revenge against evil CEOs, landlords, and anyone else who had the audacity to pursue financial enrichment.Lest you should express sympathy for such misguided folk - or worse, be one yourself - I urge you to consider some of the basics:-If you feel a pang of recognition when some pundit denounces tax cuts as being a gift to "The Rich", go look at your latest pay stub, and tell yourself honestly just how worthwhile you believe all those deductions to be.The reason you agree that tax cuts are to be denounced is that you have bought into the notion that people's money belongs to society first, and the individual second. You've got to get past the notion that the government is the sole arbiter of what's in the best interests of "The People".-If you believe that individual achievement should be encouraged and rewarded, then you are at heart a capitalist. Does that cause you a little shame? Don't worry; it will pass.Money is used as a way of quantifying goods and services; it is a tool that reflects achievement. Is that too heartless for you? If so, you probably sincerely believe that the concept of private property should be abolished.-Are you in the United States? If so, take a look around you: even in the worst inner-city slum, you're still looking at a society so wealthy that the elite of even the most comparably-developed countries would gladly trade places with you. Why is this so? Because America's environment allows and encourages individuals to acquire wealth. The sneering disdain that looks down on this arrangement tends to come from those in countries whose endless attempts to make human behavior fit their idealistic schemes have fallen flat - and their economies, and thus societies, can't get up.-Do you counter these fundamentals by pointing at the aforementioned slums, broken inner-city schools, incarceration rates, and other grievances that can apparently be traced back to America's heartless obsession with the pursuit of wealth? Well, you've been suckered again: America, unlike so many other societies, gives the individual the freest reign on the planet to do as he or she wishes; this means that with so much choice, we can choose ourselves right into crime, drugs, and whatever else tickles our fancy - but no criminal enters prison without having made the choice to be there. Blighted ghettos? What's the illegitimacy rate in the area? Does no one even dare to mention anymore that having children out of wedlock is a bad idea? Is this simply too old-fashioned and moralistic? Again, everyone has a choice. If the schools are as horrible as we are told, then why are we not allowed to use vouchers to promote school choice in areas where the existing institutions have crumbled? Because that's giving up on the public school system? Well, ask the teachers unions: they'll tell you it's because the schools don't have enough money. But they have more money now than they've had at any other point in time, so why isn't it enough? Don't confuse economics with sociology; it's a dangerous game.-"Smart Growth"? This is environmentalist trickery at its best; by limiting development in any direction, they support policies that make life much more expensive for everyone in the region. Don't be fooled.-Overpaid CEOs? Don't buy their stock. Markets have an amazing ability to reward what works, and punish what doesn't.-Finally, a cursed phrase: Privatize Social Security. Why does this notion strike terror into the hearts of so many Americans? Because it's been slickly packaged as a boogeyman. Take another look at that pay stub and ask yourself, "Who do I trust more to manage my money - the government, or myself?"And the next time you hear a closet socialist complaining about "The Economy", take a moment to ask yourself whether this supposedly enlightened commentator gave a damn about the economy when growth was solid, and unemployment was low - like during George W. Bush's time in office.
