I haven't written a soccer post in a long time but I thought that with the holidays upon us, and this heartwarming story appearing, it made sense to do so.
I enjoy both American and English football. I never did play American football except in backyards and in PE the way we used to when I was a kid. While I wanted to be a great running back I just wasn't built for the job. (I wonder if there's a government program out there to help me cope?) Anyway, I did play soccer. And I got quite good at the game where my size and speed worked to my advantage. Though I will be an Auburn Tigers fan to the day I die my love for futbol has eclipsed that of football.
The games are very different, both to play and to watch. Both can be heart-stopping or intensely dull. And in both sports you have to watch three or four games to get a real sizzler. I prefer college football to professional and root for the best conference in the nation, the SEC. No.1 Florida, No. 2 Alabama, what more needs to be said? It's like that every year. In soccer I watch a good bit of English Premier League, German Bundesliga, and La Liga. Italian is a bit overly dramatic for my tastes (sort of like the Big12), South American soccer is frankly crass, and American MLS, while improving, still lags in execution.
Yes, the games are very different, but one thing about the sports and the leagues that will always be similar are the cellar teams. The doormats. Whether it is the NFL or the NCAA, the EPL or the Serie A, there are teams that just suck. The Detroit Lions come to mind. Back to back seasons of turf twisting revulsion. One of 
the things I prefer about European futbol is that the worst three teams get moved down to the next level, and the best three teams in the lower level get to move up. It makes for some exciting play as teams slated for dismissal try to claw their way out of the relegation zone. The Lions should have been gone last year. Or refunded the fans money.
Which brings up Wigan Athletic F.C. in the English Premier League. Unlike Detroit, Wigan doesn't suck. They aren't the best team but they beat Chelsea earlier in the year and they aren't in last place or even locked in a relegation battle. Wigan has some good players and a competent coach. They just don't have as much money as the Man-U's and Real Madrid's of the world. They usually put up a pretty good fight but last week were taken to task by Tottenham Hotspur to the tune of 
9 to 1. That's 63 - 7 in football speak. And since scoring a goal is (generally) a good bit more difficult than a touchdown, it is really more like 100 - 0, since their goal was consolation at best. Granted, Jermain Dafoe had a good day; the guy just couldn't miss, netting 5 goals. but on a normal day, he'd have scored 2 or 3. And those other goals - how often does every free kick and shot hit the upper-ninety. No, it was just a wierd game. But that happens.
And following the crushing defeat, Wigan has done the noble thing. The players are refuding the fan's money. Out of their own pockets. Yes, you heard me right, faithful readers. The Wigan players are refunding the ticket price of the fans who travelled to Whiteheart Lane. They realize their performance was sub-par, that it was not entertainment in any identifiable form, and that without fans their club is meaningless. In short, they are making the only amends they can for behaving irresponsibly. And naturally they have vowed to put forth a more respectable effort against (red hot) Sunderland this coming Saturday. For those of you who may be wondering, this is the correct response for abject failure to perform.
Detroit? Wall Street? Are you listening? No I don't suppose you are.
Futbol Guru, www.not-a-lemming.com
Twilight Eclipse. We've all heard about it by now. The Vampire love story by Stephanie Meyer as retold on the silver screen, smashing all records with a take of over $140 million on its opening weekend. And not only is it wooing middle school girls in bows and lipgloss, but apparently their silicon-enhanced mothers are falling for the sexy blood-suckers. Indeed, a vertiable rash of fan sites run by older women, for older women, have bubbled up on the web. According to a USA Today article just one of these, Twilightmoms.com, has more than 34,000 members 21 and older.
While this is great for Stephanie Meyer, squeeling girls, and their moaning moms, at the same time it exposes the tip of an iceberg few of us see - an ominous shift in control of perhaps the most important industry in the western world. For as Aristotle observed twenty-three hundred years ago, and which has been validated over the ensuing centuries, when storytelling goes bad, the result is decadence.
Something dangerous has happened in American literature. I would like to say "is happening" but it isn't happening. It has already happened. Go to a bookstore. Visit the teen section. Count the number of books for girls. Then count the number of books for boys. You get a ratio something like 20:1 . Twenty books for girls for every one book for boys. Do a survey of literary agents. Over 90% are female. And most of them state specifically that they are looking for stories about women or girls. Unfortunately the few male agents are guys who wouldn't have lasted long in the locker rooms I grew up in - they're looking for chick-lit too. And there are virtually no male editors being hired by publishing houses. (One wonders if they are even applying for the jobs.) I went to a writing convention recently at which writers were given the opportunity to pitch their work to editors and agents (4 young women and 1 older guy). The first question asked by all of them: "Is the main character female?"
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that girls are the ones doing the reading. And that boy books don't sell. And that the market is what the market is. Oh really? So boys aren't reading Lord of the Rings? Boys aren't reading the HALO books? Boys don't read Star Wars? Boys didn't read Harry Potter? With the exception of Twilight, which most boys don't care care for, the biggest sellers are the boy books. Or rather, books that appeal to both male and female whether young or old. So what is happening?
Modern publishing is run by agents. Agents are the gate keepers to the industry. Without an agent an aspiring author has no real hope. And most of the agents are women. Editors acquire books for publishing houses. And most of them are women, too. This wasn't true thrity years ago. Or even twenty years ago. And for the most part, both agents and editors only acquire books they 'like'. This is especially true of agents. In other words, despite the quality or subject, if an editor or agent doesn't 'like' a book, it is very unlikely that book, or the author who penned it, will ever see the light of day. Now I understand that books must fit the market, but in this case the market is being shaped and controlled entirely by the agents and editors to reflect what they 'like'. And what they 'like' is girl books. So when you waltz into a bookstore what you see more than any other thing are the literaty tastes of a few hundred women in New York City.
This is even more shocking in light of the fact that most of those girl books on the shelf are going to lose money. That's right. Most books don't make any money. (Neither do authors for that matter.) Same for the boy books. Most will lose money. The difference today over thirty years ago, is that agents and editors aren't willing to lose money on boy books anymore. Losing money on a girl book is forgivable by an editor who likes girl books. But losing money on a boy book by an editor who only likes girl books? The ultimate sin, and enough to see your job disappear. So it isn't even about money anymore.
Now I'm not saying that girl books are bad. Not at all. Books for females, about females, and by females, can be excellent works of literature and there are numerous literary masterpieces out there that attest to the brilliance of female writers and the magic of female charcters. I even applaud Stephanie Meyer and Twilight for what it is. The danger is the increasingly one-sided slant of modern literature as a result of sexism by industry professionals. For whatever reason the written word has the power to inspire, reflect, change, and shape culture like no other medium. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, Star Wars, and many others either began as books or have enjoyed widespread success as books. Their impact on society has been, and will continue to be, incalculable. And to starve half the population based on their gender is no less wrong than making blacks ride in the back of the bus. And just as institutionalized racism bred a host of social ills, institutionalized sexism will do the same thing. Count on it. Reading may be recreational, but anyone with the power to influence social behavior and cultural evolution has a responsibility beyond mere entertainment. And certainly beyond the bottom line. Gladiators were entertainment, too. And so are whore houses. Even pushers deal in entertainment. So if you are going to publish only what you like, you better be prepared for the consequences. If boys have nothing to read they will turn to other pastimes.
It is perhaps illuminating to note that while Twilight has done well at the box office it lags far, far behind the entertainment of choice for boys. While $140 mil is a pretty good haul it pales in comparison to the $550,000,000 raked in by Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II just a week before. No other movie, book, or video game has come close on an opening weekend; not even Mr. Potter. And it should be noted as well that COD4-2 is three times the cost of a respectable hard-cover.
Boys will spend money on entertainment. But instead of reading they'll go for headshots. And as this increasingly violent choice is reflected back into society over the coming years you chicks in NYC will have the distinction of knowing that you helped bring it about. But at least you published what you 'like', huh?
Futbol Guru, www.not-a-lemming.com
We all know that Afghanistan has one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. This is mainly due to the fact that it has never paid to be honest in Afghanistan. Since before Alexander's failed campaign over 2,000 years ago, Afghanistan has been ruled by the fist. After 100 generations of brutality, watching your family starve on principle just doesn't make a lot of sense. Can we really blame them?
This is finally beginning to affect international policy in Afghanistan. For the last ten years, and the ten before that, and probably the ten before that, various aid organizations have been sending money to various agencies in Afghanistan to help the poor beleagured masses. A good example is the $70,000,000 sent by Saudi Arabia this year to help pilgrims make the Hajj - the yearly Muslim trek to Mecca. Unsurprisingly the Hajj Minister promptly helped himself to $20,000,000. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that lower level functionaries, all the way down to the local level, stuck their hand in the till. That's how it works in Afghanistan.
Tired of fueling the corruption, agencies such as the US Institute for Peace have been studying ways to combat this problem. One of the more effective strategies their Director for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Alex Thier, has identified, is bypassing the central government and going directly to local organizations. For instance, the National Solidarity Program (NSP), an Afghan agency that distributes foreign money to localities in Afghanistan, has been directly involved with aid programs to over 22,000 villages. But there is a more telling statistic and one that we as Americans can learn from. Using local labor and local decision making, the NSP has collaborated in the construction of hundreds of schools. In essense, local Afghan leadership and workers used foreign money to buld their own schools without the involvement of the central government. While this is a good thing, there is a shocking revelation that goes along with it. It is well known that the Taliban spends a lot of time burning down schools in Afghanistan. But of the hundreds of schools built by the NSP, only two have been destroyed by Taliban terrorists. Two.
This points out a fundamental trait of human social interaction. When people - not governments - have ownership, success follows. In the case cited above, local people who built their own school are going to see that it doesn't get destroyed. Conversely, Taliban actions against these schools would result in massive pushback against the Taliban. Put local people in charge and good things happen. This scenario isn't specific to Afghanistan but has been repeated the world over for thousands of years.
So why is the US Government trying to insert itself more and more deeply into state and local affairs? Every piece of evidence gathered over the last hundred years (or more) shows that tighter government control results in a shrinking middle class, an expanding lower class, and a fixed upper class. And why does this always happen? The reason is ridiculously simple: when people can get money for free, they do. And unchecked bureaucrats are the first to get their hand in the till. Following their example, lower level functionaries make sure they get their cut too. By the time the money is to be used for it's 'intended' purpose, there isn't enough left to do any good. So taxes are raised and even more money is allocated the next time around - with predictable results. Why does it keep happening? Because the 'intended' purpose isn't to fund local activities, the real purpose is to fund bureaucrats.
So let us civilized Americans take a lesson from those barbarians in the East. Even they've figured out that less government is better for everyone. Why should we think it would be any different here?
Futbol Guru, www.not-a-lemming
Yesterday's post was titled, Mr. Obama, Don't Build That Wall! A reader, Marty Yost, was kind enough to post a comment stating that he agreed with my assessment and was impressed with the analysis I applied to the problem. I appreciate the sentiment. I very much do. Laboring in anonymity is oppressive and stifling and acknowledgement makes the neurons fire like nothing else. Thank you Marty. And I also appreciate the challenge he laid before me. Good analysis is hard to come by. Good solutions are much harder. An order of magnitude more difficult. But that is what Mr. Yost asked. "Again I commend you for your analysis of where we are headed. Now, please show us a way out."
I will admit, as I did yesterday, that I am smart. My IQ is 150+ and I have the degrees and the job to prove it. In fact, I'm actually qualified to use the expression "It isn't Rocket Science" because I'm a rocket scientist. But when you say you are smart you go out on a limb because if you can't back it up you are no better than a bombastic fool. And once the fool is exposed, there is no going back. Fortunately, in this case, the solution to the problem isn't rocket science. In fact, it is fairly simple. Simple in principle. More difficult perhaps in practice. However, I fear that the simplicity of the solution will cause those who read this message to discount its power. People are always looking for complicated solutions to complicated problems when sometimes a set of very complex seeming symptoms has a root cause that is fairly simply. A few examples:
During the age of discovery seamen on ever longer journeys ran into an inexplicable problem. Their bodies began decaying the longer they were at sea. After years of study and complicated trial solutions it was discovered they needed to eat citrus fruits. The cure for scurvy couldn't have been more simple. Thomas Edison attempted ever more complex designs for his lightbulb filament including platinum, palladium, and other precious metals until he tried one of the simplest imaginable, carbon. 90% of pollutants from automobile engines are eliminated simply by using a $3 PCV valve. Brushing teeth nightly has virtually eliminated common dental problems in industrialized nations. Inadvertently changing a "+" to a "-" in a guidance algorithm will cause your missile to miss the target. Simple solutions to seemingly complex problems abound and this is no different.
We are where we are today because of greed. For a more thorough assessment please see my post entitled Killing Conservatism. But simply stated, for the purposes of this discussion, there will always be evil people and good people. We expect the evil people to be greedy, but when the good people become greedy too, then all is lost. This is not a religious or spiritual argument but simply one of human nature. When people become greedy they turn inwards and society fails. The first and most destructive manifestation of this is the promotion of unqualified people over qualified people. Bureaucracy and nepotism.
The answer then is plain to see, but before it can be revealed please note that when you ask, "How do we fix it?" that this is a loaded question. It depends on who you ask. There are plenty of people on the left who say that we need to do exactly what we are doing. That we are headed the right direction. So it can be said that while we are failing, they are succeeding. What are they doing to succeed? They are doing exactly what we need to do if we want to succeed. Who is Barack Obama? Who is this man? He is a nobody from nowhere. In the eyes of many he is worse than a black man because he is a mix. He wasn't born into money. He wasn't born into connections. He didn't have the advantage of a father. He wasn't particularly successful in the private sector. But he is the President of the United States! Do you not see the answer? It is there right in front of you! And that is why we don't see it. It is so easy.
Barack Obama is President because he is enormously talented. He is a very smart man. A very smart man. And a great speaker and writer. He knows how to get people motivated. And he has persistence and drive. Even if you don't like him you have to admit that what he has accomplished is nothing short of miraculous - but he didn't do it on his own. And this is the crux of the matter. If the Democrats had not been open to new blood John McCain would have faced Hillary Clinton in the election and Barack Obama would still be a Community Organizer in Chicago. There are plenty of conservatives every bit as talented as Mr. Obama, but the Republicans are not open to new blood. We will not help one another because we have become greedy and self-centered.
You want to fix this nation Marty? Here's how: Help someone else. Yes. It is that simple. Help someone else. Conservatives are worse at helping others than any group I've ever seen. They all seem to think they did it on their own and so everyone else should too. Well for one, no, you didn't do it on your own. And for two, no, others shouldn't be expected to either.
Here's another example. Do my words make sense? Do I write well? I offered to write a blog and help in the campaign for Wayne Parker who was running for Congress in North Alabama after Bud Cramer retired in 2006. I was going to do it for free. It was the best chance to sieze that seat in 20 years. Wayne had run twice before and lost both times. So what did he do? He went and got the same bunch of priveleged frat-boys that had lost him the other two elections, said the same vapid crap in the same vapid way, and lost again. I'm a nobody from nowhere and he had no real interest in that. Now we have a liberal Democrat incumbent. And you can bet this is happening nationwide.
THAT is why we are getting our asses kicked and THAT is how we can take this nation back. You want to fix it, Marty? Do we all want to fix it? Then we have got to stop thinking about ourselves and start promoting talented conservatives. Talk about them. Pass their blogs and messages on to others. Build community. With the internet it has never been easier. Stop protecting our turf. Encourage the mouthpieces to do the same, because the mouthpieces protect their turf more fiercely than any others. Their chief mission is to direct customers to their own content. Directing customers to other sources is the last thing they're going to do. Greed has blinded them to the enormous positive influence they could provide. Influential conservatives must identify talented, hungry conservatives and help them grow. And that would be my message to the Republicans as well - seek out new blood. Why the Hell are we still talking about Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney? No, the new blood probably isn't wealthy like them, or famous, but that is the very reason the new blood is strong. And hot. And if the new blood is forever stifled by pathological self-promoters that blood will die, the cause will wither, and we'll become just like Eastern Europe behind that horrible Wall. And who then will come and mount a fifty-year siege to save us? The Chinese?
It's not rocket science. It's human nature.
FutbolGuru, www.not-a-lemming.com
This week we are celebrating the 20th Anniversary of one of the 20th Century's most shining moments - the Fall of the Berlin Wall. A barrier that represented far more than an edifice of concrete and steel. The Berlin Wall represented a rift across Europe and a major ideological divide between East and West. And as long as that wall remained, so loomed the specter of war. And when it fell, though it signaled the beginning of much work, it also spelled a major victory for the democracies of the West.
The Berlin Wall separated not just familes in a city but an entire nation. And as I mentioned in the preceeding paragraph, it also represented, in a much broader sense, an ideological gulf. A gulf in how cultures had decided to treat the human condition. The Soviets on the east side of that wall were led by the Russians and the philosophy of Marx which claimed it could elevate the common man to his rightful place in society while punishing the greed of the wealthy. In this philosophy the State was represented by the Communist Party which viewed human rights as secondary to the needs and aspirations of the State. In the Soviet Union humans were granted rights at the whim of the State.
Opposing this philosophy, The West, spearheaded by the United States, was armed with a much different view of human rights that was backed up by a unique Constitution. In America's Constitution it is the State that derives its power from the People and there is no sanctioned Party. The west, for the first time in history, viewed human rights as the center of our world view, codified in the precepts of freedom and liberty, and indeed superceding the wishes of the State. The State, in fact, was granted power from the people. These two governments had evolved along much different paths and by 1989 had arrived at vastly different places.
The Soviets, in their attempt to place the entire service and manufacturing sectors under the authority of their government in the hopes of being 'fair', had reached an unsustainable level of corruption and inefficiency. While their government promised retirement and health care to every citizen, both were services in name only. The fastest way to die in the Soviet Union was to check yourself into a state hospital - the only legitimate hospitals in the country. And pensioners had become paupers, living out their 'golden' years in crumbling tenements, entirely reliant on increasingly slim government subsidies. The only people with access to useful services were Communist Party members who used technically illegal private hospitals and doctors. And with their hands in the government coffer Party officials skimmed enough funds to fuel private Swiss accounts that ensured their golden years would indeed be golden.
In contrast, across the sea In America, hard work was being rewarded with stability and security. Wise investment resulted, over time, in net return. Those with the energy and tenacity to pursue the American dream nearly always found it. Sure, there was no free lunch, but Americans knew that a free lunch wasn't worth eating. There was, and remains, a poor class with little desire to work. And as a reward for their laziness they received little. Those putting in the time and energy were not punished for their achievements but rose to the middle and upper classes. Perks for fortitude were comfortable retirement, quality health care, and security. It was understood by many and for the most part, backed up by laws, that if you didn't work, you were going to pay the price. The result was a vibrant growing nation whose philosophy spread to the far corners of the globe and elevated those nations it touched with booming economies and strong middle classes.
And those behind the wall could only look across and dream. Little did they know that their dreams would soon become reality, and with the fall of the Wall in 1989 their own economies exploded. Nations like Poland, Germany (East), Hungary, The Czech Republic, and others have experienced unprecedented growth and affluence in the last 20 years. Sure, their people don't have the promise of free retirement and health care, but at least they now have the opportunity to pursue these goals since the promise was never anything more than a cruel lie. The fall of that Wall, more than any other event in history, proves the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and their vision of limited government.
So why, 20 years later, is the United States, brick by brick, rebuilding that Wall? The ideologies of the East proved the greatest social failure of all time. Never had so many people been so oppressed and deprived for so long, relative to their neighbors, throughout all of recorded history! And the very country that paved the way for the destruction of that heinous barrier is now adopting the ideologies that smothered those trapped behind it. If anything proves that health care, retirement, manufacturing, banking, and economic planning have no business in government, the Berlin Wall is it. Yet the United States, after spending trillions of dollars to first halt the expansion of that Wall, and then ultimately see its destruction, is step by irrevocable step, taking over health care, retirement, manufacturing, banking, and economic planning! We are building that Wall. And the two major political parties, neither of which is endorsed in our Constitution, are making it happen. The Democrats (aided by their willing accomplices in the media) through direct action and the Republicans (aided by their willing accomplices in the upper class) through direct inaction. And once that Wall is in place, as the one in Berlin showed us, it is incredibly difficult to dismantle and often comes at great pain and only after generations of oppression.
Will we as Americans be the next generation of oppressors? Will we make the Soviet mistake even while those crushed by that terror, and those who corrected it are still alive? Many of whom are still in power? Will we doom ten generations of Americans to misery and corruption? Or is the mass suicide of the lemmings unavoidable? Lemmings, lacking a written word, a spoken language, and a culture, can be forgiven for their gullibility. Even if a lemming manages to survive being herded over a cliff by an overeager film maker, it can't warn its kin of the danger the next time around. But humans. Humans have no excuse. And should we decide to codify this path in law, not even our children - much less history - will remember us kindly. "You had a golden age and you threw it away." That's not me. Is it you?
Futbol Guru - www.not-a-lemming.com
"Any man who will trade liberty for security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin
A short blurb in today's (10/27/09) Wall Street Journal stated that home prices rose in most major American cities in August. This is cited as evidence of a recovering economy. But what does this mean and is it something we really want?
Perhaps you've noticed that prices at the pump are going up. Since this indicates demand for fuel has increased it is also touted as another 'sign' that the economy is rebounding. So, we have rising home prices and rising energy costs. Traditionally these indicators lead everything else which means we'll be seeing rising costs across the board. And this means the economy is rebounding?
I'll be the first to admit that once again, my raise at my job was an embarrassing joke. And even though it is called a 'merit' raise, my supervisor apologized and tried to make everything better by informing me that due to deflation the cost of living is actually lower than it was last year. Sorry, but, wrong. I'll bet than I'm not alone in what is obviously a long term era of wage stagnation.
So, we have costs going up as a sign of a reviving economy while wages are flat since the cost of living has gone down. And while I'm supposed to be happy that the economy is recovering, to tell you the truth, I hope it doesn't. If the only fallout from an improving economy is rising prices, since this has already been predicted to be a jobless recovery - whatever that means - then I don't think I want a better economy. In fact, I can't see that an improving economy helps anybody except the people who already have most of the money. Sure, the wealthy complain that they pay 90% of the taxes, but they seem to forget that they control 90% of the money.
I think it's time for the world, and especially America, to rethink what we mean by a growing economy. If it means forever escalating prices and flat wages then it isn't really helping anyone. At the same time, government mandated market controls and other draconian measures, that have been experimented with at length in various countries, always lead to disaster. So what can we do?
The US economy is driven by consumerism, which is why the Bush/Obama bailout is doomed to fail. It doesn't address the underlying flaw in the American economy. A flaw which is based on neither our government nor our economic system. It isn't even related to our political system - though both parties tend to make it worse in their own way. Indeed, the fatal flaw in the US economy derives from a growing problem in our society. As long as people determine the value of another person based on purely material criteria our economy will continue to sputter. And you see it everywhere.
The beautiful woman is able to rise to economic security faster and more assuedly than the unattractive woman either through marriage or preferential promotion. The wealthy man progresses more quickly up the ladder as a result of his houses, cars, and golf clubs. The children of wealthy parents secure coveted spots on sporting teams. Attractive babies get smiled at more often. Wealthy children get selected for better schools and colleges. None of this is a secret which is why the beauty products business is so ubiquituous, parents engage in unethical behavior to secure preferential treatment for their children, and people will lie, cheat, steal, and do anything, to win. While I'm not so foolish as to believe that people haven't been doing this since the dawn of time, I do know for a fact that the depth to which it penetrates society varies enormously.
For 200 years America's trump card was Christianity. But not because God was biasing world events in our favor. It was because the Christian behaviors of moderation, charity, mercy, honesty, self-sacrifice, and tolerance - the classic virtues - greatly favor the performance of an economy simply because they smooth the interaction between people. It makes for good business. God doesn't even have to exist for this to be true if enough people believe it. Indeed, these are the same reasons that any culture rises to prominence - and there have been many non-Christian cultures that have shone brightly. And despite the negative view Christianity has taken of these cultures, from Ancient Egypt to Rome, it was these very virtues that worked in their favor.
But as the prevelance of these behaviors begins to fall in the general population it begins to impact the economy. At first it isn't noticeable, which but encourages more people to abandon virtue in favor expediance. This is called the slippery slope. Once you start down that path it is very difficult to climb back up. In fact, history shows that it is impossible. At some point, as more and more people abandon virtue in favor of hedonism, especially those who control the wealth, society will collapse and the economy will follow. It might not happen over night, but it will happen. I think this is where we are in America today.
Do we want the economy to recover? Who does it benefit? Answer these questions for yourself and you may see that the slippery slope isn't a slippery slope anymore but a cliff. The edge draws near. What choices will you make today?
-Futbol Guru
In his article in The Observer on October 4th, Paul Harris asks the question, "Will California Become America's First Failed State?" Governor Schwarzenegger's specious California Vacation commercials notwithstanding, this is a question that needs asking. Indeed, in a scene reminescent of the post-Soviet collapse in Russia, the California state government was paying its employees in IOUs this summer and unemployment is over 12% - the highest in 70 years. (Do grocery stores take IOUs?) Regardless the situation is dire and one wonders how much Federal Stimulus money will go to prop up that teetering socialist state?
California, among its many socialist programs, has a health care program called Healthy Families that is intended to provide medical care for millions of the state's poorest residents. Over the years people have become dependent on this program. And why should they not? People tend to form dependencies on free services very quickly. The danger is when these free services fail. At present Healthy Families is failing due to the drop in tax revenue resulting from the recession. A recent scene at the Inglewood Forum near downtown Los Angeles, recounted in Harris' article, sounds more like a UN aid mission to Somalia than something happening in an American city. A travelling medical and dental clinic had set up shop outside the forum that promised free services to the first 1,000 people. The line stared forming at 1:00 AM and before the clinic had opened there were far more people in line than could be treated. Some had travelled hours to attend only to be turned away. Those who had become dependent on the state were being treated by volunteer workers. Americans used to travel to foreign countries to do this. Now we're doing it here.
This is the danger of socialist programs: It can not be assumed that tax revenues are going to be constant or that the economy is always going to grow. At some point the economy is going to contract and where does that leave the socialist programs? Introduction of a socialist medical system, even if it is a competing system and doesn't take over the private system, will spell disaster if not for everyone, then at least for those who grow dependent on it.
Consider the recent economic woes that have swept the nation - indeed, the world. To 'save' the global monetary system U.S. tax payers are forking over $750,000,000,000. Actually I should say, will be forking over $750,000,000,000 because the money is borrowed. And since jobs have dried up, the business sector has shrunk, and investment is down, the tax rolls are down, too. Way down. This is the problem in California and is why they can't pay for their socialist medical care program and people are resorting to volunteer run clinics. If we institute a socialist health care system at a national scale the same thing will eventually happen on a national scale. And when it does, not if - when it does, the non-existent private medical care industry won't be there to fill in with volunteer workers. Not to mention that the economy is down right now and talk of a HUGE new program is irresponsible at best and simply ludicrous at worst. It is tantamount to signing a contract for an expensive new gym membership when you just received word you're being laid off.
Before we adopt a socialist health care system, even if it isn't single payer, we had better look at California and ask what we're going to do the next time the economy shrinks. Except the next time it won't be just the monetary system or the mortgage industry that fails, you can pile health care on top of that. (Note: the health care system WAS NOT affected by this latest recession.) And it won't be tens of thousands as in California. It will be tens of millions. That's a lot of people angry at broken promises that should have never been made. It is simply amazing that Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both senators from California, are both such strong proponents for a national system when they are from a state where the system is failing. Are we simply going to borrow more to pay for it like California will have to do?
Will we borrow over $1,000,000,000,000 next time? How many zeroes are too many? How much of our progeny's future do we want to bargain away to feed the poor's insatiable, self-indulgent appetite for warmth and a full belly? This isn't a conservative or liberal question. It's a question asked by anyone who understands the danger of having more cash going out than you have coming in. Asked by anyone in an underpowered airplane or an overloaded ship. Asked by anyone who can't find enough food to replace the day's calories. It is a question ignored only by lemmings who will run any direction they are herded until they hurtle over a cliff and into the sea. Watch the film White Wilderness. Once those lemmings go over the cliff it's too late. See them try to scurry back up the slope? They can't and fall to their death. The narrator sounds really nice but he's the very guy driving them over the edge. And he got an Academy Award for it! I'm not a lemming. You're not a lemming. Anyone who doesn't want to go out and get a job like you and me doesn't deserve health care, much less FREE health care. Or free internet. Or a free cell phone. What kind of a nut is coming up with these ideas?
Futbol Guru
So Rush Limbaugh wants to own an NFL football team, huh? He does seem to know alot about, and have a true love for, the sport. Funny how things a person says years ago can come back from the past to haunt them later in life. Sort of like what this blog will do to my writing aspirations if ever I get the attentions of a gatekeeper (i.e., agent or editor). But for now my anonymity is doing a great job of keeping me, well, anonymous.
In reality I don't think Rush is a racist. If he were, he wouldn't make such seemingly racist comments. No, I think in this case he is a victim of his own self-honesty - at least on that subject. Then again, that Donovan McNabb comment was pretty stupid and he should have known better.
Regardless, it seems his bid for partial ownership of the St. Louis Rams has met with an untimely end in what he says is a vicious smear campaign bent on destroying conservatism. While Al Sharpton and his many detractors are definitely not conservatives, I think Rush's perception of who is destroying conservatism is skewed. Though he is right, conservatism is on the decline.
Even if the talking heads on the left are trying to destroy conservatism that sort of assault is generally ineffective. It is tantamount to Americans trying to convert Al Qaeda. Conservatives simply don't repond to those kinds of attacks. Just like Liberals don't respond to attacks from the right. In general, either camp, when under assault from the other, tends to circle the wagons. And in many cases, attacks from the opposition strengthen the base. The problem with conservatism isn't the attacks from the outside, the problem is what's happening inside the wagon-circle.
Every successful movement goes through a series of stages. There is the genesis when the group's founders carve a niche for themselves and begin attracting followers. It is their energy and the truthfulness of their message (in the ears of the converts) that builds momentum by attracting true believers. In most cases the group's founders not only preach the message, but live it as well. They become icons and examples of the ideologies they champion.
The second stage can be broadly categorized as growth. In this segment the group gains additional members not only from the truth of the message but from the appeal of a successful group. Except during this stage one begins to see that new members are less and less true believers, but simply people who want to be part of something that matters. In this stage you'll find people from the opposition flocking to the new movement like lemmings. Especially if the opposition is already in the third stage - corruption.
Success of a movement always breeds corruption because in addition to attracting true believers, success always attracts followers who have no interest in the core ideology. They just want to be in charge. It is these people who usually become the second generation of leaders. Because they have no stake in the ideology they are more free to move fluidly and are nearly always more aggressive and predatory. At the same time they are often charismatic and charming and will do whatever it takes to rise into leadership positions. For these people charisma and charm formed early in life as they realized they had nothing substantive to offer but were skillful at manipulation of others to get their way. In many cases they are sociopathic and in a primitive society would be banished because they not only offer nothing useful to survival, they demand to be served. In modern, affluent societies though they find willing followers because they personify the energy of the movement's success in themselves, and the majority of the second stage converts are only there for the party. Or rather, the partying. These leaders also tend to promote only those like themselves which but reinforces the growing problem.
Corruption of course leads to decline. A hypocritical group of leaders can only sustain the charade for so long before the acolytes doing all the work - that dwindling number true believers - get fed up and leave. When that happens the ideology collapses and all you are left with is a large group of angry people with self-aggrandizong leaders: the Republicans in 2008. It is also where the Democrats found themselves in 1994 when they were tossed out by an up and coming group passing through the second stage: Neoconservatives.
Reagan rekindled the dormant flames of Conservatism and he was, there can be no doubt, a true believer who was amply endowed with charisma and wit. True conservatives flocked to him in droves followed by millions who just thought he was a cool guy because he stood up to the Soviets. It was the second generation of his followers who took the reins of power in 1994. This included George Bush Jr., Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Marc Sanford, and many others, as well as popular figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who effectively self-monetized the swelling tide. While I won't say all these people are not conservatives, their actions do identify them as people whose personal aspirations trump the mandates of their own ideology. And some of them, such as Mark Foley and John Ensign were conservatives in name only, using the ideology only for personal gain and herding their only followers like lemmings to the cliff.
It is these people, I charge, with destroying conservatism - Not Al Sharpton, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, or even Barak Obama, who in fact tend to strengthen the opposition's core. From Rush Limbaugh's drug addition to Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs, from Dick Cheney's greed to George Bush's mistaken invasion of Iraq, from the seemingly uncontrollable sexual appetites of an endless string of elected officials, the party of Conservatism has become the party of Corruption and is being killed from within. Can the Republicans take a lesson from the Democrats who have reinvented liberalism in the form of a young, charismatic outsider? With the same old names being bandied about, I got to tell you, it looks like a trainwreck in slow motion. Or a modern adaptation of the film White Wilderness. And I for one am not going to wear a furry suit for those characters.
Futbol Guru
Leave it to the Norwegians. Barak Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... well, nothing. He did manage to get elected but he's only been in office for eight months. And he wins the Nobel Peace Prize? That can mean only one thing. The Nobel Peace Prize is worth about as much as the dollar.
Physicists strive for years to perfect their theories. Economists are honored after their death. Doctors come up with novel, new treatments that bring relief to millions. Artists and writers compile an entire lifetime of work before they are even eligible for a Nobel. And Obama gets one for doing even less than Gore. Or even Carter. Oh well, maybe he'll put the monetary award into the stimulus package - er, I forgot. The Nobel Prize is tax free.
Futbol Guru
It would be foolish to assume that just because a product or a need for a service exists, that any entity can do it well. For instance, you wouldn't get a company that specialized in demolition to build your house. Nor would you contract with an exterminator to have your yard landscaped. Likewise, if a concrete company offered to build you an airplane, it is my guess you'd politely decline and send your money elsewhere. And if they tried to convince you that they were the man for the job, you'd look at their past record and cite that as evidence for you to choose otherwise.
So why do elements of our government continue to insist that they can offer better healthcare, more affordably, than people who've been doing it for decades? Is healthcare even something that a government can be expected to do with any degree of efficiency? Let's look at their track record and see what it is they are good at:
The Postal Service was established in 1775. It has had 234 years to get it right but it is nearly broke. Meanwhile, relatively recent arrivals like UPS and FedEx provide much better service.
Social Security was established in 1935. The government has been managing that institution for 74 years and not even the democrats deny that it is broke - or soon will be.
Fannie Mae was founded in 1938. After 71 years, broke is a kind word to use for that failed government organization.
In 1964 Lyndon Johnson started "The War on Poverty," fully intending to defeat it. After 45 years and over a trillion dollars per year we still have poor a'plenty and the entire country is broke.
Medicare and Medicaid came on the scene in 1968. Like the others, but after only 41 years, they are both so broke the government is talking about scrapping them and... starting a new system?
Freddie Mac, birthday, 1971. It lived only 39 years before sliding into bankruptcy.
Trillions went into the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, commonly known as TARP. After pouring hundreds of millions into the pockets of failed executives it shows few signs of breathing any real life into our 'jobless' recovery. The US is now deeper in debt than ever before, our currency is devalued worldwide, and the Chinese are urging the world to leave the dollar standard - and I agree with them.
FDCI, the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation, a government entity founded in 1933 to protect the bank assets of depositors announced yesterday that is, you guessed it, broke. (Added 9/30/09)
But there is a bright side. In 2001, months after the attack on the Twin Towers, the US Military invaded and subdued Afghanistan. Resistance remains, and always will, but they broke the Taliban.
In 2003 our military invaded Iraq and was in Baghdad in just a few weeks. And while pockets of resistance remained, they broke the back of the Iraqi Army and began construction of a new democracy in the Middle East.
Why do I lump these enormously successful invasions in with these titanic fiscal failures? To make one of the brilliant points for which I'm becomming widely known.
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the hero of Desert Storm, when asked what the function of the military is, replied, "To kill people and break things." Apparently, however, he was referring to the role of government in general. Looking back at the 20th Century, the major killer of humans was governments. From the Soviets, to the Nazis, to the Chicoms, to the Imperial Japanese, to just about every African regime on the continent, upwards of 200 million humans were exterminated by governments - often their own. This score FAR outpaces the old scourges of plague, pestilence, famine, and disaster and is only exceeded by old age. The true disaster in the modern world is government. (Which makes me wonder why we're so worried about H1N1...)
So, under government stewardship nearly every major social program in every major country is broke. Under government stewardship hundreds of millions have been murdered in the last 100 years. Looking at this track record what can it be inferred that government is best at? Why, killing people and breaking things, of course. And they want to run our healthcare system? Seriously?
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
I raised my children to be colorblind. I took no pride in doing so other than the pride I took in teaching them to walk and eat. In fact, you don't teach colorblindness. You teach racism.
At the appropriate age, I sent my children to school. There, they interacted with black and white on an equal level. They had good and bad teachers who were white, and good and bad teachers who were black. They had friends of every color and, I hate to say it, enemies, too. After all, you can't get along with everyone all the time.
This lasted up until about third grade, or about eight years old. Around this time, in January, they started bringing home handouts on Martin Luther King. Projects were assigned. This lasted most of the month. February rolled around and they began their black history studies. Neither of these things bothered me. What bothered me was the flavor and intensity of the material. Unlike the rather sparse learning they'd been exposed to in other areas of history, and to other people, the black history and MLK assignments had the flavor of propaganda. With George Washington my children learned that he was the first president, crossed the Delaware to do battle with the British (which were actually Hessians), and never told a lie. With Dr. King, they learned that through his bravery he prevailed against the tyrrany of the white man and ultimately led his people out of oppression to a promised land. It was personality cult stuff.
I didn't say anything. We did the assignments and turned them in. It continued year after year.
Now, kids are smart. They are people just like us and they know when someone is pulling their chain. It didn't take long for my children to grow weary of the propaganda and start asking questions. While what Dr. King did was important and noteworthy, it certainly doesn't eclipse what George Washington and the founding fathers accomplished. And while George Washington Carver was a brilliant scientist, what he did should not be exalted above the discoveries of Watson and Crick - a revolution that changed everything. By the time my kids got to Middle School, they despised both Martin Luther King and Black History Month. The public school system was turning my kids into racists.
We now have the same thing happening at a national level. Conservatives who are opposing Obama's healthcare overhaul are saying and doing the same thing they did to Clinton when he was trying to restructure health care into a government institution. In fact, there was a huge turnover in congress because of what Clinton did. And, unless my memory is completely faulty, Clinton was a white guy.
If there is anything people hate, it is being told that they are something they are not. And telling people they are racists because they oppose something they are opposed to, is going to turn them into racists as certainly as making someone sit in the back of the bus. The idiots making this charge are destroying years of progress. And they have not a single, credible example of what they are claiming. Indeed, to assume a person is a racist because of the color of their skin, is the height of being a racist yourself. Many whites once assumed that the black people they met were unintelligent, based solely on the color of their skin. How are today's accusations any different?
There is a ground swell of opposition to a government takeover of healthcare. The left knows this. They want to stop it. What has worked consistenty when whites are opposing blacks? The race card. Whites back down. The leadership of the left knows this, too. Maureen Dowd says she can almost hear Joe Wilson tack "boy" onto the end of "You Lie!" This isn't news but it's being repeated by multiple new outlets. This is propaganda. Maybe even libel. Josef Goebbles level subterfuge. It never happened. But I'll wager that in a year a lot of people are going to think that Joe Wilson said, "You lie, boy."
Now Jimmy Carter isn't so stupid as to really think this is racism. He has been places where there is real racism - North Korea, Darfur, Palestine - and this ain't it. But he is a good enough politician to get himself elected president. He is a consummate Washington insider and has a vested interest in the the success of his party. He knows how to herd lemmings, and that is what he is doing.
For someone who claims to be such an elder statesman, he is doing a pretty good job of inciting division, hatred, and yes, racism. But should we really be all that suprised, because he was a lousy President.
Futbol Guru
My wife is a school teacher. She teaches physics and chemisty to kids a lot bigger than she. The school she works in is a bit different than a normal school. It is called a "Technology High School" and is open to any student in the city - if they can get in. As you might expect, the demographic is very rich with over 50% of enrollment being minority status, which makes them the majority at the school, incidentally.
My wife is white and the most fair and even-handed person I've ever known. Kids who give other teachers a fit are never a problem for my 105 pound ball of spunk. Why? Because she treats everyone with respect. She treats everyone the same. I recall a few years ago when the valedictorian at her school, a wonderful, brilliant, young lady with lovely dark skin exalted my wife, in part, as a role model. She went on to state her qualities and thanked her for setting such an example and helping this young lady attain her dream. It brought my wife to tears.
My wife is no racist. But without fail, there will be those in her classes who accuse her of racism. And who are these? While my wife is no racist and treats all with respect, she retains control of her classes. You step out of line in her class and you are going down. White kids act up, hispanic kids act up, and black kids act up. Sometimes they argue with her as to their guilt and sometimes they hang their heads sheepishly and go to the office. But the black kids, and certainly not all of them, are the only ones who ever accuse her of being a racist. And they'll do it to her face. Even when they were obviously acting up, or get caught cheating, or are using their cell phones. All too often they will mutter, or exclaim, "It's just because I'm black!"
Why did Joe Wilson shout out, "You lie!" Well, maybe it was the same reason my wife sends kids to the office. Because they were talking in class! Because Obama was lying. And that he is lying is demonstrable. (See Ma Bell, Milk and the Medical Industry, and The Single-Payer / Public Option Lie.) I can't tell you how many times a kid caught cheating will deny it and then loudly cry racism. Now Mr. Obama hasn't said racism, but his attack-dogs have surely been yelling it at the top of their lungs. Maybe some of them even believe it. But do you want to know the real reason they are shouting racism? Because whitey trained them to do it. When they use the "R" word, whitey backs down. And why does whitey back down? Because the vast majority of whites are NOT racist, and the accusation stings them and impunes their honor. They don't want people thinking they are racists. And of course, they don't want to get sued either.
Picture this. You're a furry little creature, with hundreds of other little furry creatures going about your furry life, when all of a sudden you are snatched from your world and stuffed into a box. Sort of like the Nazi's did with Jews. Suddenly you're thrust into the sunlight in an unfamiliar place. To one side are big, creatures waving arms and shouting. You and your terrified compatriots turn only to run into more of the strange creatures. Every direction you turn, you meet with the terror. Except one. You run that direction with all your speed. You and your companions, furry little bodies surging forward, panting. An outlet! Then, all of a sudden, you're in free space, falling into the ocean. You never noticed the cameras rolling and certainly had no conception of the narrator calmly stating, "Why they do this is just one of life's mysteries..." (If you don't know what I'm talking about, please click --> here.)
Racism. Another lie. A word for people to get their way. A word to herd the lemmings. A word to eliminate the competition and sieze power. A word used to stay out of trouble. "You lie!" isn't racist any more than "Piss Christ" is free speech. Racism is Tutsi's murdering Hutu's. Racism is Darfur. Racism is Serbs, Croats, and mass graves. We don't have racism in this country any more, just a bunch of pussies, black and white. So don't buy it. Don't be a lemming. Or sooner or later you're going to find yourself falling through free space with the ocean rushing at you. And when it happens, just remember, someone off to the side is calmly saying, "Why they do this is just one of life's mysteries..." I hope you know how to swim.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
Grassroots is a term that really needs no explanation. Let a blade of good old Bermuda grass get hold and it will spread across a lawn like an invading army. Grass starts at the gound and does its own thing. Which is why it is applied to viral political movements. Such movements get started at the local level by average citizens who are moved to get involved. That is what makes it special. There is no power structure whipping people into a frenzy with neural linguistic programming and other slick tricks, grassroots is people getting involved on their own initiative, finding each other, linking up, and spreading like wildfire. Or, Bermuda grass.
There've been a lot of claims that the conservative resistance to President Obama's health care plan, and more recently his speech to kids, are orchestrated events. That people are being given 'marching orders' and blindly following them. A number of public officials from Nancy Pelosi to Barney Frank and even the President himself (who should be above such things) have cried loudly that Republican leaders are out trying to scare people, sending them to disrupt townhall meetings, and generally organizing an illigitimate resistance. I have a few problems with these arguments.
First, there is no Republican leadership and the people who are trying to be the leaders are grossly incompetent. That is evidenced by that Party's nomination of John McCain for President last year. And for at least two years the Democrats have been reveling in, commenting on, and exploiting the lack of any effective Republican leadership. So what group are they talking about who has organized this fierce resistance and where are the converts who didn't show up for the election last fall?
So where has this strong opposition come from? This strong opposition is, well, me. And thousands, even millions, like me. I'm not a Republican though if they had any decent leaders and a plan and would accept poor people into their ranks, I might be. (Ronald Reagan, where are you?) But I'm sitting here writing this blog this morning when I should be trying to make some money so I can pay my taxes. And just to the left of this text you'll find a link to a website selling "Just Say NObama" paraphenelia. I made that stuff. I sat here on my computer and used Adobe Photoshop to put together pithy sayings then uploaded them to a website that turns them into bumperstickers. Nobody told me to do that. I just got sick of being lied to, and yes, I'm smart enough to tell when a politician is lying to me. You don't even have to be a rocket scientist to know that. Just watch their lips. If their lips are moving, they are lying. Why did I spend a weekend making PNG files and getting them formatted right, setting up a webstore, and generally agonizing over the direction of the country? Because a charalatan is trying to sell us a bill of goods and millions of people see the Emperor's New Clothes. Or rather, don't see them. If that isn't grassroots then the word has no meaning.
Third, who the hell are some democrat leaders to tell me that a movement is illegitimate? They are the kings of the special interest. Who the hell do these bastards think they are, telling me I can't go to a townhall meeting and scream my head off like they've been doing since the sixties? What a bunch of effite, pompous, commie snobs. It doesn't matter if the movement is organized, grassroots, or left field, this is a democracy and if somebody is protesting then they are as legitimate as some freak at a San Francisco convention to save the gay whales.
There is a truth of human nature at work here, and it is this: a thief trusts no one. Thieves, being dishonest, assume everyone around them is dishonest also and are constantly expecting to be stolen from. People in general think this way. And honest people, on the other hand, think others are honest. The democrats, because everything they do is orchestrated, can't even conceive of a grassroots movement getting started by itself because they are always out trying to start grassroots movements. And grassroots movements don't come from organization or they're not grassroots. So when they see a large groundswell of protest, they assume it must be orchestrated because their groundswells always are orchestrated. Like the fanatical protesters we see from communist countries - except the cameras don't show the machine guns just off stage. Now I'm not suggesting that democrats point machine guns at their supporters to get them in the mood, but they do bus them around, saturate them with propaganda, and generally organize opposition extremely well. Sort of like the way lemmings were used in the Disney Movie, White Wilderness.
And there's another truth of human nature at work here as well. The democrats know these tactics work and don't want us using their play book.
Grassroots? The opposition to ObamaCare is the definition of grassroots. Why? Because it is a bad idea written into an even worse bill. And yes, there are people out there who know good from bad, prefer good to bad, and will fight against turning good into bad. Who are these people? Well they're not lemmings, I'll tell you that. And they could use a leader. But where do you find great leaders in a land where there are so few humble beginnings?
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming .
Fifty Cents Worth of Justice is better than millions of dollars spent by the California justice system.
Fifty cents is all it would have cost to have saved the life of a little girl. Fifty cents. And not fifty cents per day, like they tell you on those commercials for saving some little kid in Somalia. Fifty cents, one time, and a life is saved. And not just one life.
When Jaycee Duggard was kidnapped by that monster it shattered not just her life, but that of her parents, grandparents, and friends. And fifty cents could have kept it from happening.
Already convicted of a brutal kidnap-rape, that quasi-human creature, Phillip Garrido, was sentenced to fifty years in prison. He served eleven. Three years later he kidnapped Jaycee Duggard.
How much does a .357 magnum round cost? About fifty cents. Unfortunately, the bankrupt state of California will once again spend millions.
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/bolgs/not-a-lemming
Okay, I'll admit that I was listening to NPR yesterday (8/20/09). Like the old Cold War addage goes, you have to know your enemy. And admittedly, NPR covers a lot of news I wouldn't otherwise hear about. I have to listen to it with my filters on, just like I have to listen to Rush with my filters on, but through the right glasses, NPR is reliable and even useful. But never, oh no never, funny. And when they try to be it is just embarrassing. But that's another story.
Yesterday I happened to tune in at the beginning of a story on milk. Not Harvey Milk as you might expect NPR to cover, but the white stuff I enjoy with cookies before bed. Apparently the milk freemarket is under assault having been taken over by a few, ruthless conglomerates. After all, as the number-three fluid handling industry in the nation, after water and petrochemical fuels, we're talking about millions upon millions of gallons a year. Milk may be white but that adds up to a lot of green.
The two evil culprits are Dallas-based Dean Foods, and Dairy Farmers of America, or DFA, headquartered in Kansas City. Though the stuff they pedal is wholesome, their business practices aren't. At least that is the take by independent dairy farms who are being squeezed out by what even NPR is calling a cartel. They must be making a lot of money. In truth, they have been engaging in predatory business practices and are, or may well be, in violation of various anti-trust laws now on the books. Laws that exist to foster competition because as these laws attest, choice is good for consumers because it drives down prices. The government must agree because the Justice Department under President Obama is considering filing suit against these conglomerates and breaking them up. Especially since they've joined forces.
Ma' Bell faced the same government attack in the 70's. Or was it the 80's. I forget, it was oh so long ago, and if your interested you can Google it and get firehosed. Anyway, The Bell Telephone Company pretty much was The telephone company. Because they owned the wires, they owned everything. At some point the government invoked anti-trust laws enacted by Theodore Roosevelt at the turn of the last century when the Railroads had stifled competition. Prices had risen, service had degraded, and customers were tired of having no other choice. The break up was huge, and lasted for years, but one consequence was, in part, the enormous telecomm boom of the late 80's and 90's. Amazingly, throwing competition into the mix lowered prices drastically while at the same time improving service and greatly expanding the industy. The short of it, more tax dollars into government coffers.
Now we come to the Medical industry which the left, if it could have its way, would centralize into one huge, government run blob. Many politicians on the left are on record as favoring this approach. The same politicians, that freely admit through support for moves to break up Dean Foods and DFA, and who proved by busting up Ma'Bell, that the best way to lower prices and improve service is to create more competition. So what is up? Why do they want to break up the milk cartel to lower prices, and at the same time, centralize the medical industry to lower prices? Is President Obama in violation of anti-trust laws? Is it just me or does this sound...?
When things don't make sense it pays to look behind the confusion at motives. Why are all those lemming running towards a cliff? If something doesn't make sence you have to ask yourself, what does the person doing the herding really want? The arguments posed by the left to consolidate health care to lower prices and improve service don't make sense. So what is it that they really want?
Futbol Guru, http://mises.org/community/blogs/not-a-lemming
More Posts
« Previous page -
Next page »