Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Obama Passes on Trip to Brandenburg Gate
Obama passed up the opportunity to go to Berlin, drink some good beer, eat some sauerbraten and celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berliner Mauer (Berlin Wall) while basking in the company of Merkel and other conservative German politicians. Why am I not surprised? It is ironic that that little more than a year ago, Obama gave his "citizens of the world" speech; a socialist diatribe in a spot sacred to freedom and democracy. While Merkel and friends celebrate the fall of the wall and Communism, Obama will be conspicuously absent. Maybe the President wishes the wall was still up.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Obama Protects Sexual Deviants
Where is this country going? If I say anything against gays, I am not guilty of hate crime? But if gays attack heterosexuals, that is ok? Every day we are freedoms are eroding.Thursday, October 29, 2009
Does Obama know anything about Economics?
Why did Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per car, when the incentive was $4,500?
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/10/28/report-cash-for-clunkers-was-a-lemon/
http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/10/28/report-cash-for-clunkers-was-a-lemon/
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Southern Poverty Law Center Hypocrisy
I have been hearing more about this organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they are frightening.
http://cofcc.org/2009/10/splc-racists-are-everywhere-money-to-fight-them/
http://cofcc.org/2009/10/splc-racists-are-everywhere-money-to-fight-them/
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Blogging Blue Doesn't Like Me.
After Dan Sebring placed my article on his Twitter Account, a Blogger names Blogging Blue caught wind of my article and tore it to shreds for a misspelling. Yes, I misspelled hemorrhoid. Easy to do, I suppose. Well, at least I can spell potato.
http://bloggingblue.com/2009/10/15/americas-conservative-thinker-or-not/
http://bloggingblue.com/2009/10/15/americas-conservative-thinker-or-not/
FILM REVIEW: A CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE: A FILM BY CRAIG BODEKER
A Conversation About Race: A Film By Craig Bodeker
Review By John Ingram, Special to the National Policy Institute
We can imagine that when he called for yet another “conversation on race” in his much-lauded speech in Philadelphia, then-candidate Barack Obama had in mind the usual format for “conversations on race” in America:First, non-whites vent. Then, whites apologize, self-excoriate, and generally grovel on the floor in a contest to see who can contort themselves into the most exquisite knot of multicultural contrition.
As Craig Bodeker tells it, he was once balled up on the floor like this. As a fifth-grader in Minnesota, a demonstration by two teachers on the “racism” of his white classroom burned into his mind the messages all of society has come to accept: whites are bad. Everyone else is good. End of story.
But Bodeker, a first-time filmmaker from Colorado with musician-cool shoulder-length hair, must have tired of the floor contortions. And when yet another call for “conversation” went out, he answered.
But be warned. Bodeker’s “Conversation on Race,” an hour-long black-and-white documentary shot in Denver, is surely not what now-President Obama – or most other Americans — wanted to hear. Bodeker speaks to the audience as a white man who has grown suspicious of the terms “racist” and “racism,” and frustrated by the way in which the double standard on race is used to hammer whites.
His formula is simple. He simply puts the “believers” in racism, as he calls them, on camera, and asks simple questions. What is racism? Can you give an example? Bodeker ran an ad on Craigslist under the heading “Ending Racism Now” for some interview subjects; others are interviewed on the street. Aside from the basic qualification that they agree “racism” is rampant, they are all races and ages.
The answers are as amazing as they are commonplace. Subjects are hard-pressed to provide concrete examples of racism. One black subject reported that being complimented on his dancing by a white man was “racism.”
Bodeker’s treatment of his subjects is as gentle as could be: his questions are either open-ended, or present a contradiction. The reactions to questions on why Asians outscore whites on standardized tests — after the subjects have all confidently explained that whites outscore blacks because whites wrote the tests — are amusing.
Some subjects come across as silly (one white woman tells us that racial distinctions are unnecessary because of the continuum of the universe, and that “I am the rock, the wall, the tree…”), but most offer the mouthings on race we hear everyday. “Race is a social construct,” one white male says, slowly, as if he’d thought of it himself. Which is doubtful, given that I’ve been hearing whites tell me that, using that exact phrase, for years — and all of them deliver it as if they, too, had come to this conclusion themselves, after lengthy study and thought.
But what’s refreshing about this film is that these everyday mouthings on race are presented against a backdrop of Mr. Bodeker’s critical observations – as opposed to their usual presentation: unquestioned and celebrated, Emperor’s New Clothes-style.
“A Conversation on Race” is smartly produced: the editing paces well, it is not overlong, and the camera work is nicely varied. The soundtrack is especially good, with the occasional “Law and Order”-style “donk donk” for punctuative effect.
At my screening of the film, the opinion of one woman (who is not, as the phrase sometimes goes, “pro-white”) was that Bodeker came on a little too strong — she wanted more documentary, less documentarist. And yes, he does get a little worked up at times. But to my mind, it was always within bounds, and sincere. (It could be yet another sign of anti-white bias that a white man can’t get even a little insistent about race without being branded as a white supremacist.)
It is a final observation from Bodeker that underscores my own frustration: on the subject of race, whites are “allowed” only two positions: complete indifference, or “white supremacy.” As they slip further toward minority status in the United States, room must be made for the sensible white advocate who does not seek the oppression and domination of other groups, but self-direction and self-protection for whites.
In “A Conversation on Race,” the stage is set.
Review By John Ingram, Special to the National Policy Institute
We can imagine that when he called for yet another “conversation on race” in his much-lauded speech in Philadelphia, then-candidate Barack Obama had in mind the usual format for “conversations on race” in America:First, non-whites vent. Then, whites apologize, self-excoriate, and generally grovel on the floor in a contest to see who can contort themselves into the most exquisite knot of multicultural contrition.
As Craig Bodeker tells it, he was once balled up on the floor like this. As a fifth-grader in Minnesota, a demonstration by two teachers on the “racism” of his white classroom burned into his mind the messages all of society has come to accept: whites are bad. Everyone else is good. End of story.
But Bodeker, a first-time filmmaker from Colorado with musician-cool shoulder-length hair, must have tired of the floor contortions. And when yet another call for “conversation” went out, he answered.
But be warned. Bodeker’s “Conversation on Race,” an hour-long black-and-white documentary shot in Denver, is surely not what now-President Obama – or most other Americans — wanted to hear. Bodeker speaks to the audience as a white man who has grown suspicious of the terms “racist” and “racism,” and frustrated by the way in which the double standard on race is used to hammer whites.
His formula is simple. He simply puts the “believers” in racism, as he calls them, on camera, and asks simple questions. What is racism? Can you give an example? Bodeker ran an ad on Craigslist under the heading “Ending Racism Now” for some interview subjects; others are interviewed on the street. Aside from the basic qualification that they agree “racism” is rampant, they are all races and ages.
The answers are as amazing as they are commonplace. Subjects are hard-pressed to provide concrete examples of racism. One black subject reported that being complimented on his dancing by a white man was “racism.”
Bodeker’s treatment of his subjects is as gentle as could be: his questions are either open-ended, or present a contradiction. The reactions to questions on why Asians outscore whites on standardized tests — after the subjects have all confidently explained that whites outscore blacks because whites wrote the tests — are amusing.
Some subjects come across as silly (one white woman tells us that racial distinctions are unnecessary because of the continuum of the universe, and that “I am the rock, the wall, the tree…”), but most offer the mouthings on race we hear everyday. “Race is a social construct,” one white male says, slowly, as if he’d thought of it himself. Which is doubtful, given that I’ve been hearing whites tell me that, using that exact phrase, for years — and all of them deliver it as if they, too, had come to this conclusion themselves, after lengthy study and thought.
But what’s refreshing about this film is that these everyday mouthings on race are presented against a backdrop of Mr. Bodeker’s critical observations – as opposed to their usual presentation: unquestioned and celebrated, Emperor’s New Clothes-style.
“A Conversation on Race” is smartly produced: the editing paces well, it is not overlong, and the camera work is nicely varied. The soundtrack is especially good, with the occasional “Law and Order”-style “donk donk” for punctuative effect.
At my screening of the film, the opinion of one woman (who is not, as the phrase sometimes goes, “pro-white”) was that Bodeker came on a little too strong — she wanted more documentary, less documentarist. And yes, he does get a little worked up at times. But to my mind, it was always within bounds, and sincere. (It could be yet another sign of anti-white bias that a white man can’t get even a little insistent about race without being branded as a white supremacist.)
It is a final observation from Bodeker that underscores my own frustration: on the subject of race, whites are “allowed” only two positions: complete indifference, or “white supremacy.” As they slip further toward minority status in the United States, room must be made for the sensible white advocate who does not seek the oppression and domination of other groups, but self-direction and self-protection for whites.
In “A Conversation on Race,” the stage is set.
Monday, October 19, 2009
If you haven't watched it, you need to.
It amazes me how to the left this country is moving. Time to get back to basics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmmgVFByeaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmmgVFByeaI
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Water Cooler Conversation: The Liberal Co-Worker and the Melting Alps.
The other day a liberal coworker approached me and told me how the Alpine glaciers in central Europe are melting, and how terrible this has been for Alpine countries. This came on the heels of a conversation about kayaking and mountain hiking. His statements about glacier melting took me off guard and I had no idea how to respond to it. As a liberal, I assumed he was putting in a plug for global warming, Al Gore style. I said nothing and went back about my business.
Knowing nothing about the subject, I decided to research the topic. A Google search gives you many articles about Alpine Glacier melting. Most where written by environmental journalists. Of the ten or so articles I read, the overriding theme is the same, Alpine Glaciers in Switzerland and Italy will no longer exist 50 years from now because of global warming trends. One article said that Switzerland and Italy had to redefine their borders because of landslides caused by melting glaciers.
Although none of these articles seem to directly implicates humans for the warming trend, they suggest that a radical course be adopted to prevent further glacier melting and its undesirable effects. My concern is the tone of these articles.
The unspoken theme is always the same, "If you don't do something now it will be too late." Perhaps this is the call to action of most radical environmentalists and their political allies. Although never directly stated, the radical environmentalist pins the blames on humans and only if we curtail our consumption will these problems go away.
My water cooler friend never comes out to say this either, but you sense it is at the back of his mind.
Knowing nothing about the subject, I decided to research the topic. A Google search gives you many articles about Alpine Glacier melting. Most where written by environmental journalists. Of the ten or so articles I read, the overriding theme is the same, Alpine Glaciers in Switzerland and Italy will no longer exist 50 years from now because of global warming trends. One article said that Switzerland and Italy had to redefine their borders because of landslides caused by melting glaciers.
Although none of these articles seem to directly implicates humans for the warming trend, they suggest that a radical course be adopted to prevent further glacier melting and its undesirable effects. My concern is the tone of these articles.
The unspoken theme is always the same, "If you don't do something now it will be too late." Perhaps this is the call to action of most radical environmentalists and their political allies. Although never directly stated, the radical environmentalist pins the blames on humans and only if we curtail our consumption will these problems go away.
My water cooler friend never comes out to say this either, but you sense it is at the back of his mind.
Since reading the articles and considering the issues myself, I have developed a few theories of my own. The lefty environmentalist has formulated that global warming, caused by humans is the reason for all these environmental catastrophies. The liberal politician is always looking for a way to reach in the our pockets and make us poorer. By placing a higher tax on gas or electricity, the liberal politician gets what he wants, more of our money, and the lefty environmentalist gets what they want, an opportunity to prove their theory! Makes you feel like a guinea pig.
The next time the water cooler guy confronts me, I'll see what he thinks of my theory. Hopefully I will remember to wear my boxing gloves.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
GWEN MOORE: WISCONSIN'S POLITICAL HEMORRHOID
Wisconsin boasts a broad number of political embarrassments. Perhaps one of the greatest 
embarrassments of our time, is Rep. Gwen Moore, congresswomen from the Forth District, an area that encompasses the south and near north side of Milwaukee, Cudahy, South Milwaukee and parts of West Allis. Gwen Moore is without a doubt an inept addition to the congressional team of Democrats that represent Wisconsin. Moore is essentially a hard core, leftist Obamiate. She is strong proponent of social welfare and her questionable voting record is anything but business friendly.A member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), she votes almost completely in tandem with the far left-wing elements in her party. With such an ideology, it is fair to say that Ms. Moore is out of touch the hard-working, lower middle class elements in her district, and her leftist politics do little to attract business or create lasting employment in Milwaukee and the surrounding area. Despite her record, Moore was elected to Congress in 2004 and again in 2006. In both elections she commanded nearly 70% of the vote. In 2008, she ran nearly uncontested.
Given her prior successes, the prospect of beating Moore in 2010 seems a Herculean feat. In 2004, Gerald Boyle, a Milwaukee Attorney and son of Gerald Boyle, Sr.; the famed attorney who defended serial killed Jeffrey Dahmer, commanded only 30% of the vote. In an interview with Boyle after the election, he was quoted as saying, "Today, Gwen and I are both winners."
Maybe Boyle achieved what he wanted, but the people of the Forth District had just elected the biggest boob west of Dollywood. Little did they know that this candidate would be the same person to send herself and her cronies on a "goodwill" trip to Africa while simultaneously voting to end the war in Iraq without victory for the troops who risked their lives for her freedom. It is also fair to say that Moore's goodwill trip to Africa produced no jobs and lowered no one's taxes.
As we draw closer to the 2010 election, a couple of candidates have expressed interest in running against this self-serving megalomaniac. One such candidate is Dan Sebring, a Navy veteran, mechanic and small business owner on the south side of Milwaukee. Perhaps Sebring is the perfect antidote to Moore. Unlike the upper-middle class pretensions of prior contenders, Sebring is more comfortable in work boots, blue jeans and overalls. His appearance and demeanor is closely aligned with the people of the Forth District's south side; and unlike Moore, he works in the private sector, running a business and creating employment opportunities for others. In contrast, Moore has never worked in a for-profit organization. Her politics of raising taxes on business are likely to drive employers out of Milwaukee, hurting the likes of Sebring and his constituents.
The question beckons, does this or any other conservative candidate have the wherewithal to cut this political cancer from the emaciated body of Wisconsin politics? Maybe, but much depends on the force of conviction brought to the process. History shows us that an exchange of pleasantries and an unwillingness to do battle with Moore could cast Sebring to the Davey Jones locker of Wisconsin political failures.
To challenge Moore can be nothing less than a declaration of war. The plan of attack must be merciless and relentless, but fair. Sebring has much against him, but not all is lost. Of the forth district's 670,000 people; approximately 55% are White, 33% are Black, 11% are Hispanic and 3% are Asian. Conventional wisdom suggests African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic and if the opposing candidate is African American (as is Gwen Moore) Sebring's battle is even tougher.
Sebring's chances lie with everybody else. This won't be easy because many of the residents come from the old school mentality that Democrats are for the little guy, an attitude perpetuated by unions - a still dominant force in blue-collar Milwaukee. Despite the obstacles, there is perhaps no candidate in recent history capable of staging an upset. Sebring is not a pretentious outsider who moved to the district for political gain. He lives and works in the district and has for some time. Although Sebring looks, talks and walks like many of the residents in the district, he needs to show these people that he is one of them and shares their concerns.
Hopefully they will buy what they see. In light of her voting record and her personal past, Gwen Moore is clearly a vulnerable candidate. If Sebring can exploit that vulnerability, he might just win the war.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Liberal -VS- Conservative
The other day I received the following email from a friend:
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he does not buy one.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he does not buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he demands that a law be
passed so that nobody can own one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he does not eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative does not like second-hand smoke, he avoids places that allow smoking. If a liberal does not like second hand smoke, he demands that a law be passed to prevent smoking everywhere.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. If a liberal does not like a talk show host, he demands he be taken off the air.
When a conservative complains about taxes, it’s because he thinks he is paying too much. When a liberal complains about taxes it’s because he thinks everyone else is paying too little.
If a conservative loses his job, he looks for a new one. If a liberal loses his job, he expects someone else to provide him one.
Conservatives are concerned about making their own salaries larger. Liberals are concerned about making other people’s salaries smaller.
To a conservative, health care reform means allowing him the freedom to choose how he pays for his health care. To a liberal, health care reform means someone else paying for it.
A conservative controls his destiny by starting his own company. A liberal controls his destiny by joining a labor union.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or religion silenced from every walk of life.
A conservative feels he can make society better by adhering to his beliefs. A liberal feels he can make society better by forcing his beliefs on everyone else.
If a conservative does not like second-hand smoke, he avoids places that allow smoking. If a liberal does not like second hand smoke, he demands that a law be passed to prevent smoking everywhere.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. If a liberal does not like a talk show host, he demands he be taken off the air.
When a conservative complains about taxes, it’s because he thinks he is paying too much. When a liberal complains about taxes it’s because he thinks everyone else is paying too little.
If a conservative loses his job, he looks for a new one. If a liberal loses his job, he expects someone else to provide him one.
Conservatives are concerned about making their own salaries larger. Liberals are concerned about making other people’s salaries smaller.
To a conservative, health care reform means allowing him the freedom to choose how he pays for his health care. To a liberal, health care reform means someone else paying for it.
A conservative controls his destiny by starting his own company. A liberal controls his destiny by joining a labor union.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he wants any mention of God or religion silenced from every walk of life.
A conservative feels he can make society better by adhering to his beliefs. A liberal feels he can make society better by forcing his beliefs on everyone else.
A friend of mine from high school responded to this:
I think that's because conservatives tend to represent the status quo which the law does too, where liberals have to actively change the status quo and laws to get what they want. if it were the other way around, then if a liberal didn't want to be in a same sex marriage he wouldn't enter into one, but if a conservative didn't want to be in a same sex marriage, they would try to pass a law so nobody could be in one.
My response:
I see how it goes the other way in regard to same sex marriage (IE. if a liberal doesn't want to be in a same sex marriage, he doesn't get into one, if a conservative doesn't want to be in a same sex marriage he passes laws so no one else can.) The point of the argument is that in most cases (with the exception of same sex marriage) conservatives do not try force other people to live according to their preferences or ideals. You don't like meat, don't eat it - but don't try to take that right away from me. In the US, conservatives tend to vote Republican and liberals tend to vote Democrat. There are inconsistencies in both parties.
Take abortion for example. Many conservatives would like to make it so that no one can have an abortion except in certain circumstances. Conservatives also don't like the idea of the government interfering in the everyday lives of the ordinary citizen. So does it stand to reason that if the government were to tell ordinary citizens that they could no longer have abortions, is that akin to the government reaching into the lives of ordinary people?
Yet perhaps the issue with abortion isn't so much about one group imposing their views on another person - but the inability of people to decide when human life begins. I say it begins at conception, but my friend says it starts at 2 weeks. Who is right? I believe I am right, he or she believes they are right. The problem we have, is that no one will agree on everything, but laws must be respected whether we agree with them or not. That is why I think abortion clinic bombers, and people who block clinics are out of line. They employ totally nonsensical methods will never change people's minds. And it is in changing people's minds that allows you to change laws.
Take abortion for example. Many conservatives would like to make it so that no one can have an abortion except in certain circumstances. Conservatives also don't like the idea of the government interfering in the everyday lives of the ordinary citizen. So does it stand to reason that if the government were to tell ordinary citizens that they could no longer have abortions, is that akin to the government reaching into the lives of ordinary people?
Yet perhaps the issue with abortion isn't so much about one group imposing their views on another person - but the inability of people to decide when human life begins. I say it begins at conception, but my friend says it starts at 2 weeks. Who is right? I believe I am right, he or she believes they are right. The problem we have, is that no one will agree on everything, but laws must be respected whether we agree with them or not. That is why I think abortion clinic bombers, and people who block clinics are out of line. They employ totally nonsensical methods will never change people's minds. And it is in changing people's minds that allows you to change laws.
Other responses of his:
I think this is the most grown up conversation I've ever had on facebook! I like your point about how a persons freedoms should not impose on the freedoms of others, and I think that the word rights can be substituted for the word freedoms, one or both. In this world we have chosen the unit of law to be the country and in this country, the state.... the reason that you can't choose to withhold something from someone based on your personal convictions is because almost everyone else in the state or country also has convictions that they would use to withhold something from someone.to use your example, you might withhold something from gays. I might withhold something from anyone not in my religion (since everyone else is going to hell anyway). someone else might choose to withhold benefits from anyone who has taken a life, especially cops and soldiers.The only way to avoid everyone having something taken from them is not to give that power to anyone. It's true that the major dogmatic religions (except Buddhism) are very opposed to homosexuality. I argue, however, that if we were implanted with the wisdom of the gods thousands of years ago, we would be a stable race, not one growing, learning, and evolving at breakneck speed. I posit that through our sucesses and failures we are gaining the wisdom of the gods ourselves, and the historical status quo (in this case a universal institutionalized hatred) is less an indication of truth and more an indication of our past, right or wrong. I would also caution against too much trust in the majority. The majority represents historical best practices for survival and prosperity. in the 50s conformity was a winning strategy. as were unions and blue collar jobs. today people tend more towards white collar jobs, and at the edge of today, the only people who submit to corporate cube farms are those who can't escape or who have never tasted free life and don't know any better.The majority will always vote for the safety and comfort of the majority, and may actually hinder the evolution of the state, country, or species.I'm enjoying this! ru in WI? I get back a few times a year and I bet we would have an awesome coffee conversation!
My response:
"Corporate cube farms" - I like that. I really don't consider myself an ultra conservative. I am not saying that because I don't have the guts to take a side. I just have problem with any ism that encroaches on individual liberty or the rights of the individual. In my mind, the most important entity in our society is the individual. And it is the duty of all organizations to promote the rights of that person. Allow me to be more specific.When you graduate from college, sometimes your first job, is not so great. For example, I worked in a call center making $10 bucks an hour. I did this for a couple of years, and realized that I was wasting my time and talent. I also realized that I worked for an organization that conned college graduates into thinking they were getting an "executive job." They gave young inexperienced people big titles. This often went to the persons head and gave them a false sense of their true ability. If the hire ups didn't like the person, they played on the person's insecurity and tried to make you feel like the best thing you could do was work as a call taker in a call center. This is a corporate con game. There was no interest in promoting people or helping people develop their potential. This is a perfect example of corporate abuse . Destruction of individuality and the potential of that person fed the machine.
My wife on the other hand works for a manufacturer in Milwaukee. The people working in the factory and plants are unionized. The unions keep asking for more and more of the company. You have people pushing a broom making $19 bucks an hour. That person gets hurt and they can no longer do their jobs; they are going to at best make $9 hour in a non-unionized environment. Instead of helping people develop their individual potential, the emphasis is on taking from the corporation, giving it to the unionized worker even if contradicts market forces. The worker develops a false sense of his or her worth in the competitive marketplace. This also hurts the company because the cost of their product is so high, they become priced out of the market, and eventually go out business. Everyone is a loser. Look what happened to the car companies. Ultimately, I believe that our society operates best when the government stays out of the daily affairs of the individual. We live in a society that is constantly trying to stifle individual liberty and expression and you have to have a hard-heart to stay on top of it.
So what is better socialism or capitalism? I would argue in favor of capitalism, because I believe that hard work, ingenuity and entrepreneurship is rewarded in capitalism. If you are lazy, there is no safety net in capitalism, but this could the biggest motivator of all. Unions, big government and greedy corporations sap away at our individuality. Socialism I believe hurts people more than capitalism, although there is no perfect system. This is a good article:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hillsdale.edu%2Fimages%2FuserImages%2Fmvanderwei%2FPage_4221%2FImprimisSept09.pdf&h=7aa78230ae8006b011a7fb6a9d6eaf2e
My wife on the other hand works for a manufacturer in Milwaukee. The people working in the factory and plants are unionized. The unions keep asking for more and more of the company. You have people pushing a broom making $19 bucks an hour. That person gets hurt and they can no longer do their jobs; they are going to at best make $9 hour in a non-unionized environment. Instead of helping people develop their individual potential, the emphasis is on taking from the corporation, giving it to the unionized worker even if contradicts market forces. The worker develops a false sense of his or her worth in the competitive marketplace. This also hurts the company because the cost of their product is so high, they become priced out of the market, and eventually go out business. Everyone is a loser. Look what happened to the car companies. Ultimately, I believe that our society operates best when the government stays out of the daily affairs of the individual. We live in a society that is constantly trying to stifle individual liberty and expression and you have to have a hard-heart to stay on top of it.
So what is better socialism or capitalism? I would argue in favor of capitalism, because I believe that hard work, ingenuity and entrepreneurship is rewarded in capitalism. If you are lazy, there is no safety net in capitalism, but this could the biggest motivator of all. Unions, big government and greedy corporations sap away at our individuality. Socialism I believe hurts people more than capitalism, although there is no perfect system. This is a good article:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hillsdale.edu%2Fimages%2FuserImages%2Fmvanderwei%2FPage_4221%2FImprimisSept09.pdf&h=7aa78230ae8006b011a7fb6a9d6eaf2e
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
