We had another meeting between the 912 groups from Rio Rancho, Albuquerque, and the East Mountains last night. About 30 of us met at the fittingly-named Independence Grill on Montgomery to discuss the Declaration of Independence and the 9 principles. And we named ourselves Liberty New Mexico.
Many people spoke up in the discussion, bringing up their concerns, speaking passionately. We even broke into approving applause after a couple of people spoke. Claudia, an immigrant from Guatemala, made everyone tear up when she said, "I wish I had been born here. People don't understand what freedoms you're losing." Her passion was infectious.
The other was Beck, one of the teenagers who attended. He struggled with what he wanted to say. He didn't speak with the eloquence of Claudia. After he stumbled over several phrases that expressed what he was feeling, he ended with how mad he was at what was happening, and he sat down. And we burst into applause.
Two weeks earlier, Beck spoke to our East Mountain 912ers, once in the course of the meeting. And we applauded him then, too.
I think I understand the response. When all these adults tell each other how concerned they are, that's to be expected, at least from informed people. But to hear about it from a young person is to hear our future. That's who we are fighting for -- our children. But if THEY don't care, what does it matter? I know my own children (young adults) are concerned, as well. But not enough to make time for the meetings. Maybe they'll join me in the Albuquerque tea party protests. Maybe not.
There were several teenagers at the meeting, but Beck was the only one who spoke. He represents our hope.
Beck, keep speaking up. Keep working on how to express yourself. I know how it is. I used to have so much trouble identifying my feelings that when I spoke out on any topic I cared about, I'd stammer and stutter and start over several times. It took lots of work and years of time to be more clear about my feelings. Teenagers, just because of their age and hormones, have confused feelings and therefore have more trouble expressing themselves. But when you speak, Beck, we see our own children in you. You give us hope.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
King Obama
When Obama appeared on the Leno Show, reasonable people (at least those I know) asked, "WHAT is he doing?"
I think I've figured it out. He really wants to be the king, to take on a role similar to that of the Queen of England, beloved of her subjects. Great Britain's form of government is a "constitutional monarchy" with the head of the monarchy (in this case, the queen) representing the country in name only, at lavish events of state, appearing at various functions, and in general, leaving the true governing to the prime minister.
How do I know Obama wants this role? Witness the weekly parties at the White House. Witness Obama's batting about in many, many fun trips across the US, doing this or that for the news media to report and the people to ooh and aah over. His bowling, playing basketball, going to a parent-teacher conference for his girls. Witness his indifferent treatment of England's Prime Minister Gorden Brown, and his subsequent panting over a possible meeting with Queen Elizabeth II. Witness his apparent lack of embarrassment over being deified by the media and his subjects.
And ALL this while our economy is at a "crisis." What is he doing? He's playing around. His behavior would be appropriate had we been in a booming economy with no enemies threatening to wipe us off the map. He doesn't seem to be working at all on the economy. It's been weeks of nothing. Whenever he comes up with something that's supposedly a solution (The American Economic Rescue and Recovery Act) it contains very little focused on solving the economy.
The problem with Obama being the king is that there's no prime minister to take up the governing. So it just doesn't get done. We're in bad trouble.
I think I've figured it out. He really wants to be the king, to take on a role similar to that of the Queen of England, beloved of her subjects. Great Britain's form of government is a "constitutional monarchy" with the head of the monarchy (in this case, the queen) representing the country in name only, at lavish events of state, appearing at various functions, and in general, leaving the true governing to the prime minister.
How do I know Obama wants this role? Witness the weekly parties at the White House. Witness Obama's batting about in many, many fun trips across the US, doing this or that for the news media to report and the people to ooh and aah over. His bowling, playing basketball, going to a parent-teacher conference for his girls. Witness his indifferent treatment of England's Prime Minister Gorden Brown, and his subsequent panting over a possible meeting with Queen Elizabeth II. Witness his apparent lack of embarrassment over being deified by the media and his subjects.
And ALL this while our economy is at a "crisis." What is he doing? He's playing around. His behavior would be appropriate had we been in a booming economy with no enemies threatening to wipe us off the map. He doesn't seem to be working at all on the economy. It's been weeks of nothing. Whenever he comes up with something that's supposedly a solution (The American Economic Rescue and Recovery Act) it contains very little focused on solving the economy.
The problem with Obama being the king is that there's no prime minister to take up the governing. So it just doesn't get done. We're in bad trouble.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Lunch Bunch
The other day, I told my colleagues at lunch that I was going to participate in the Albuquerque Tea Party.
And when I later told my husband about our conversation, he said, "Knowing your situation there at work, I would not have brought it up."
But I'm so tired of being in the closet. I decided two weeks ago that I can't keep hiding out in my office during lunch, that I had to face my liberal colleagues and stand up for my values. And since the O's inauguration, politics as a topic seem to have died down. The only thing that came close was when one colleague complained that her young son was wanting to get into the Boy Scouts. She said, "'Hon,' I told him, 'we're atheists. And then I had to explain to him what homophobia is.'" When a more moderate colleague laughed at that and said, "That's nuts!" (I was choking on my food), she asked, "You mean the Boy Scouts won't make my son a Bible-thumping homophobe?" That had been one of my forays out of my office, and it had sent me fleeing back.
But now that I've determined I NEED to eat lunch with the old lunch bunch, I've found their discussion to be ordinary, dealing with lazy or clueless students, questionable administrator decisions, and family issues. The one friend did tell me her son was getting his first badge in the Boy Scouts. "So you decided to let him join?" She nodded. "That's big of you."
"Well, his best friend is in it."
"Friends are important." And we left it at that.
So anyway, on another day, when asked what I was up to, I told the lunch bunch that I was going to go to the Albuquerque Tea Party. They looked at me blankly. "You know, like the Boston Tea Party. Protesting."
"What are you protesting?"
"Taxes."
"How are you being taxed?"
I blinked. I thought I was ready for whatever they might say or ask, but this blew me away. I began to think, okay, what would they be thinking to ask such a question? That we are NOT being taxed? Oh, yes, we are still under the tax brackets and the same percentages as there were under Bush. Obama didn't immediately repeal the most recent tax cuts that were set to sundown in 2010. (That's a pleasant surprise.) But he has promised to let them sundown.
Or were they thinking that being middle class, we are NOT going to be taxed, according to Obama's promise?
I merely responded, "With all the irresponsible spending, we WILL be taxed."
And with that the conversational ball bounced another direction. And I was left feeling my position was semi-weak. (I often correct my students who use a future result to support a present action in their essay writing.) I have no doubt that we WILL be taxed because taxes included in the stimulus bill and the omnibus government budget bill already enacted, taxes geared toward punishing "the rich" (which includes individuals and all businesses making over $250,000 a year -- that is, MANY small businesses, some of which I know personally) will be recouped by the businesses raising the price of products, which we the consumers pay. This area of economics is called "tax incidence" and says that the entity on which tax is imposed is not necessarily who bears the burden of the tax.
In addition, cap and trade tax will raise the cost of energy, so ANYTHING in our life that uses energy -- electricity, gas, petroleum -- will be much more expensive. WE WILL pay the taxes.
And that's not even counting one way the government will attempt to pay for its deficit: by raising taxes and applying them to more people and more activities. (The other way is by printing more money, which means inflation, for which -- you guessed it -- we pay.)
Well, okay, so at least the topic was brought up to the lunch bunch. Maybe they changed the topic because they were concerned themselves about their taxes. Only time will tell.
And when I later told my husband about our conversation, he said, "Knowing your situation there at work, I would not have brought it up."
But I'm so tired of being in the closet. I decided two weeks ago that I can't keep hiding out in my office during lunch, that I had to face my liberal colleagues and stand up for my values. And since the O's inauguration, politics as a topic seem to have died down. The only thing that came close was when one colleague complained that her young son was wanting to get into the Boy Scouts. She said, "'Hon,' I told him, 'we're atheists. And then I had to explain to him what homophobia is.'" When a more moderate colleague laughed at that and said, "That's nuts!" (I was choking on my food), she asked, "You mean the Boy Scouts won't make my son a Bible-thumping homophobe?" That had been one of my forays out of my office, and it had sent me fleeing back.
But now that I've determined I NEED to eat lunch with the old lunch bunch, I've found their discussion to be ordinary, dealing with lazy or clueless students, questionable administrator decisions, and family issues. The one friend did tell me her son was getting his first badge in the Boy Scouts. "So you decided to let him join?" She nodded. "That's big of you."
"Well, his best friend is in it."
"Friends are important." And we left it at that.
So anyway, on another day, when asked what I was up to, I told the lunch bunch that I was going to go to the Albuquerque Tea Party. They looked at me blankly. "You know, like the Boston Tea Party. Protesting."
"What are you protesting?"
"Taxes."
"How are you being taxed?"
I blinked. I thought I was ready for whatever they might say or ask, but this blew me away. I began to think, okay, what would they be thinking to ask such a question? That we are NOT being taxed? Oh, yes, we are still under the tax brackets and the same percentages as there were under Bush. Obama didn't immediately repeal the most recent tax cuts that were set to sundown in 2010. (That's a pleasant surprise.) But he has promised to let them sundown.
Or were they thinking that being middle class, we are NOT going to be taxed, according to Obama's promise?
I merely responded, "With all the irresponsible spending, we WILL be taxed."
And with that the conversational ball bounced another direction. And I was left feeling my position was semi-weak. (I often correct my students who use a future result to support a present action in their essay writing.) I have no doubt that we WILL be taxed because taxes included in the stimulus bill and the omnibus government budget bill already enacted, taxes geared toward punishing "the rich" (which includes individuals and all businesses making over $250,000 a year -- that is, MANY small businesses, some of which I know personally) will be recouped by the businesses raising the price of products, which we the consumers pay. This area of economics is called "tax incidence" and says that the entity on which tax is imposed is not necessarily who bears the burden of the tax.
In addition, cap and trade tax will raise the cost of energy, so ANYTHING in our life that uses energy -- electricity, gas, petroleum -- will be much more expensive. WE WILL pay the taxes.
And that's not even counting one way the government will attempt to pay for its deficit: by raising taxes and applying them to more people and more activities. (The other way is by printing more money, which means inflation, for which -- you guessed it -- we pay.)
Well, okay, so at least the topic was brought up to the lunch bunch. Maybe they changed the topic because they were concerned themselves about their taxes. Only time will tell.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Going Galt
I'm seeing lots and lots of references to the book Atlas Shrugged on the columns I visit daily and on radio stations I listen to. I probably wouldn't recognize all the references if I hadn't just finished reading it. It's one of those over 1000-page paperback novels, from the 50s, which means it's a little slower moving than most modern novels. But the beauty of this book isn't its pacing, its language, or its characterization. The greatness of this book is the plot -- how author Ayn Rand describes a government in process of socializing the economy.
And now that we have a government beginning the process (or rather, furthering the process) of socializing our economy, the parallels are uncanny. That's why anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged picks up on it. In her book, Rand divides the American people into three groups: the looters, the moochers, and the producers. The looters are the members of the government and big businesses that get all cozy with government so they can receive special treatment. In our day, that's Obama's White House, the Democrat majority Senate and House, GE, ACORN, labor unions, etc.
The moochers are the little people who voted for Obama hoping to receive something for nothing (kicks for free.) They are the ones who say, "I don't have to worry about paying my mortgage or putting gas in my car, 'cause he's gonna help me." They are the ones that hate the "rich." They want all the goodies Obama has promised. And they don't care where that money comes from.
The producers do decent work and reap the benefits of their work. In the book, they are the responsible owners of steel factories, railroads, and gold mines. As they find, though, that they are being punished for being rich and that their money is taken (looted) to give to the moochers, they begin to drop out of the system. They stop producing and allow the whole thing to fall apart. (After all, the looters and moochers are riding the backs of the producers. Without the producers, nothing gets done or made or earned. People end up starving; products become very scarce.)
Jimmy Quinn, a radio talk show host from Pittsburgh (the Quinn and Rose show), often refers to "the cast of Atlas Shrugged" when talking about Barney Frank, Tim Geithner, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid. And he's right. They are collectively lazy, greedy, and stupid, just like in the book.
One column today was titled, "When will Atlas Shrug?" "Atlas Raged," was another from a day or so ago. Then there's "John Galt Calls on Atlas to Strike!" Michelle Malkin titled one of her columns, "Going Galt." She described the "tea parties" that sprang up in response to Rick Santelli's rant. (If you haven't seen that, you're missing a treat. Google "Santelli rant" and watch it on Youtube.) I like the title. I think I'm going to use it as a title on my newsletter for the Albuquerque area 9.12 group. John Galt was the protagonist, the producer who persuaded the others to drop out.
And then I got chills down my back when I heard on the news about Obama signing the crap sandwich stimulus in Colorado. My reaction wasn't about his signing (that made me sick to my stomach) but about the company he was there to highlight. It's a solar-panel installation company. Apparently, a part of the stimulus requires that THIS company be used whenever any of the projects in the area requires installation of solar panels. So the government is subsidizing it. This company is one of the looters, currying and receiving special treatment. But why? What's special about this company? It isn't a huge company. In fact, it is modestly sized.
Here's the deal. This company is being run like a communist business system. Everyone receives the exact same salary, no matter what job they have in the company. They make decisions as a group. They get a six-week vacation every year, no matter how they are doing financially. It's no surprise that they are going under. They NEED the government to bail them out. And the government chose them because they are trying to carry out a socialist agenda. Oh, and because they are "green." (I can tell them now their system won't work. Do you think they're listening?)
What's chilling is that John Galt came from just such a company. In the book, it was an automaker. The owner died and left the company to his children. They decided to run it like the communists in Russia ran their factories. Everyone received the exact same pay. This led to no incentive for doing a good job. They had long, divisive meetings in which everyone had to vote on what they were going to do. John Galt walked out in disgust and went underground.
Everyone I know is going Galt. They are tightening their belts, lowering their productivity and, therefore, their income so that they don't need to pay so many taxes. I have many friends who are beginning vegetable gardens and raising chickens, buying canned goods, and stocking up for the hard times, when the richer producers leave the country.
And now that we have a government beginning the process (or rather, furthering the process) of socializing our economy, the parallels are uncanny. That's why anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged picks up on it. In her book, Rand divides the American people into three groups: the looters, the moochers, and the producers. The looters are the members of the government and big businesses that get all cozy with government so they can receive special treatment. In our day, that's Obama's White House, the Democrat majority Senate and House, GE, ACORN, labor unions, etc.
The moochers are the little people who voted for Obama hoping to receive something for nothing (kicks for free.) They are the ones who say, "I don't have to worry about paying my mortgage or putting gas in my car, 'cause he's gonna help me." They are the ones that hate the "rich." They want all the goodies Obama has promised. And they don't care where that money comes from.
The producers do decent work and reap the benefits of their work. In the book, they are the responsible owners of steel factories, railroads, and gold mines. As they find, though, that they are being punished for being rich and that their money is taken (looted) to give to the moochers, they begin to drop out of the system. They stop producing and allow the whole thing to fall apart. (After all, the looters and moochers are riding the backs of the producers. Without the producers, nothing gets done or made or earned. People end up starving; products become very scarce.)
Jimmy Quinn, a radio talk show host from Pittsburgh (the Quinn and Rose show), often refers to "the cast of Atlas Shrugged" when talking about Barney Frank, Tim Geithner, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid. And he's right. They are collectively lazy, greedy, and stupid, just like in the book.
One column today was titled, "When will Atlas Shrug?" "Atlas Raged," was another from a day or so ago. Then there's "John Galt Calls on Atlas to Strike!" Michelle Malkin titled one of her columns, "Going Galt." She described the "tea parties" that sprang up in response to Rick Santelli's rant. (If you haven't seen that, you're missing a treat. Google "Santelli rant" and watch it on Youtube.) I like the title. I think I'm going to use it as a title on my newsletter for the Albuquerque area 9.12 group. John Galt was the protagonist, the producer who persuaded the others to drop out.
And then I got chills down my back when I heard on the news about Obama signing the crap sandwich stimulus in Colorado. My reaction wasn't about his signing (that made me sick to my stomach) but about the company he was there to highlight. It's a solar-panel installation company. Apparently, a part of the stimulus requires that THIS company be used whenever any of the projects in the area requires installation of solar panels. So the government is subsidizing it. This company is one of the looters, currying and receiving special treatment. But why? What's special about this company? It isn't a huge company. In fact, it is modestly sized.
Here's the deal. This company is being run like a communist business system. Everyone receives the exact same salary, no matter what job they have in the company. They make decisions as a group. They get a six-week vacation every year, no matter how they are doing financially. It's no surprise that they are going under. They NEED the government to bail them out. And the government chose them because they are trying to carry out a socialist agenda. Oh, and because they are "green." (I can tell them now their system won't work. Do you think they're listening?)
What's chilling is that John Galt came from just such a company. In the book, it was an automaker. The owner died and left the company to his children. They decided to run it like the communists in Russia ran their factories. Everyone received the exact same pay. This led to no incentive for doing a good job. They had long, divisive meetings in which everyone had to vote on what they were going to do. John Galt walked out in disgust and went underground.
Everyone I know is going Galt. They are tightening their belts, lowering their productivity and, therefore, their income so that they don't need to pay so many taxes. I have many friends who are beginning vegetable gardens and raising chickens, buying canned goods, and stocking up for the hard times, when the richer producers leave the country.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Co-opting of a Symbol
What do you think when you see the Zia sun symbol? You may not even know what it's called, but I'm willing to bet you think Native American and the sun. If you see it in red on a yellow background, you might think of the New Mexico flag. But even the New Mexico flag speaks of our Native Americans and of the bright sun we are blessed with.
Several of us ESL (English as a Second Language) teachers at CNM got together to recreate a state group for TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) , our professional conference. New Mexico TESOL had been created before, but interest died out, so we were going to restart it. I was playing with banners to help with the website Jennifer had created. I found a red Zia symbol, placed it on a yellow background, and added the words in red NM TESOL on the horizontal rays. It wasn't wonderful, but it was a start and I figured we'd tweak it.
But at our first meeting, I was informed that we couldn't use the Zia sun symbol. "It's co-opting their symbol," I was told. I was aghast. "But I was using the New Mexico flag," I argued. "I didn't take it from a piece of pottery."
"Doesn't matter. It's offensive to them."
Now, while personally it wasn't so important to me that they used MY design, I couldn't get over the personal correctness of the group, to such an extent that they would eliminate from their options a perfectly clear symbol that speaks of three things we were proud of, that is, New Mexico, our sunshine, and the Native Americans that live here.
Let's take the issue of co-opting. Co-opting would be taking the symbol and turning it into something else from what it originally meant. Co-opting is what the Nazis did with a perfectly fine Native American symbol. You can't see the swastika now without thinking of a horrible regime.
Who was it offensive to that we (or businesses like Zia.net) use the symbol? Not all Native Americans, not the majority of New Mexican natives, not all the members of Zia Pueblo. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm willing to bet it's a small group of Native Americans who have been persuaded by ACLU that they are victims of evil non-Native peoples. Being victims is good business.
But I also think that we can't just change our language and eliminate symbols that mean something just because people find themselves offended by the fact that we use them. For that reason, I rejoiced when I saw the blog website for the Albuquerque tea party being planned. It has a dynamite use of the Zia sun symbol.
And when I made my lemon jello cookies for our East Mountain conservative group meetup, I proudly piped red Zia's onto them.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Reset
The story of Hillary Clinton giving the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, a red button with what was intended to be the word "reset" on it in Russian, but actually was "overcharge" (or "overload," according to one article) would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Once while on a computer shared by teachers at UNM, I mistakenly typed "whitehouse.com" into the address bar, and I got a porn site. (It should have been whitehouse.gov) Blood rushing to my face, I hurriedly clicked the "back" button. But it was set so that the "back" button just returned me to the same site. I clicked the red exit box to close my browser down altogether. But as soon as the browser closed, it opened itself again, and again on that very same site. I thought I'd messed up, maybe missed the little red X, so I tried it again. Same results. I was beginning to panic.
I couldn't ask for help. Drawing anyone's attention to my problem would just display what I didn't want to be seen. I finally did control-alt-delete for a soft boot, just to turn the whole thing off without shutting down the "proper" way. And if that hadn't worked, I would have unplugged the whole thing.
If only we could control-alt-delete Obama's election. No matter what we do, it doesn't seem to make a difference. Contacting the senators and representatives had no results when we strongly opposed the confirmation of Tim Geitner to the Secretary of Finance position. Forget saying anything against the stimulus package. We didn't have time to even look at it. And every day, the Obama signs something else I'm against. It's like the nightmare of porn popping up every second. Now we're facing a omnibus and future bailouts of continually irresponsible banks.
Reset! Or is it "overcharge!"
Once while on a computer shared by teachers at UNM, I mistakenly typed "whitehouse.com" into the address bar, and I got a porn site. (It should have been whitehouse.gov) Blood rushing to my face, I hurriedly clicked the "back" button. But it was set so that the "back" button just returned me to the same site. I clicked the red exit box to close my browser down altogether. But as soon as the browser closed, it opened itself again, and again on that very same site. I thought I'd messed up, maybe missed the little red X, so I tried it again. Same results. I was beginning to panic.
I couldn't ask for help. Drawing anyone's attention to my problem would just display what I didn't want to be seen. I finally did control-alt-delete for a soft boot, just to turn the whole thing off without shutting down the "proper" way. And if that hadn't worked, I would have unplugged the whole thing.
If only we could control-alt-delete Obama's election. No matter what we do, it doesn't seem to make a difference. Contacting the senators and representatives had no results when we strongly opposed the confirmation of Tim Geitner to the Secretary of Finance position. Forget saying anything against the stimulus package. We didn't have time to even look at it. And every day, the Obama signs something else I'm against. It's like the nightmare of porn popping up every second. Now we're facing a omnibus and future bailouts of continually irresponsible banks.
Reset! Or is it "overcharge!"
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The future's looking up
"Hey, you guys can tell me where a teacher's office is?" The questioner was a big guy, rough around the edges, tatooed, longish black curls only semi-tamed by a bandana.
We looked up from our lunch discussion. We were all teachers.
"Who's your teacher?" someone asked.
"Ah, he's not my teacher. Michael Geinger. He's my counselor. He's gonna get me some education. I just got out of prison," the man answered, grinning, "and he's gonna help me out."
"Okay," Robin said, "he's in KC 16. Do you know where that is?" As a shake of his head, she continued, waving with her arms like a stewardess with each part of her directions. "You go down this hallway, then take the elevator to the third floor and go straight out of the elevator --"
"Is it that complicated?" he interrupted.
"Yes. It is."
When she finished her directions, the man repeated, "Elevator, straight. Okay, I got it."
Then just before leaving, he said to another of my colleagues, "Hey, I like your hair."
"Thank you," she replied.
As he lumbered down the hallway, his long trench coat flowing, we chuckled.
This is the kind of student we often get. They're gonna get them some education. They're glad to be out and hopeful for the future. Socially, they may not always behave appropriately, but because of their positive attitude, they're fun to be around. I hope I see this guy in my class sometime.
We looked up from our lunch discussion. We were all teachers.
"Who's your teacher?" someone asked.
"Ah, he's not my teacher. Michael Geinger. He's my counselor. He's gonna get me some education. I just got out of prison," the man answered, grinning, "and he's gonna help me out."
"Okay," Robin said, "he's in KC 16. Do you know where that is?" As a shake of his head, she continued, waving with her arms like a stewardess with each part of her directions. "You go down this hallway, then take the elevator to the third floor and go straight out of the elevator --"
"Is it that complicated?" he interrupted.
"Yes. It is."
When she finished her directions, the man repeated, "Elevator, straight. Okay, I got it."
Then just before leaving, he said to another of my colleagues, "Hey, I like your hair."
"Thank you," she replied.
As he lumbered down the hallway, his long trench coat flowing, we chuckled.
This is the kind of student we often get. They're gonna get them some education. They're glad to be out and hopeful for the future. Socially, they may not always behave appropriately, but because of their positive attitude, they're fun to be around. I hope I see this guy in my class sometime.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Right to Fail
20090227112428.jpg)
In my English (composition) classes, we are discussing "the right to fail." I tried to show my students how bailing banks out and not allowing them to suffer the pain of failing (and yes, that includes all the people that work for those banks and all the people that have money in those banks who would be suffering that pain, as well) is just postponing the inevitable. Because they know they'll be bailed out (in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) there was no need to be extra careful with the money. Because they were Government Supported Entities, they were guaranteed government support! And because they knew they would be bailed out, they didn't care. Therefore, they "failed." Or should have.
Or maybe they just made poor decisions. Like kowtow to government pressure to make really BAD loans. Yeah, I understand why the banks did so. ACORN can make life miserable for the bankers, sending activists to bankers' houses, scaring their children. But then, going under from defaulted loans can make life pretty miserable, too. I kinda, sorta was okay with the first bailout because government action precipitated the meltdown (but not the amount.) Then I discovered the book-cooking at Fannie Mae, and I thought, no way.
My students get it when we talk about students that were just passed along even though they did nothing to deserve passing. Some of them wished they had been required to learn rather than moved to the next level. They found themselves getting farther and farther behind and finally overwhelmed by their ignorance enough to give up. And where was the motivation to try harder, to identify and solve the problem? If it didn't really matter what they did, why should they try?
Banks and companies learn in the same way. The motivator of the free market is two-sided: the hope of making great profits pulls the businesses forward, and simultaneously, the fear of failing pushes it from behind. If they are not allowed to fail, then they don't learn what they are doing wrong. And if they don't learn what they're doing wrong, how can they change their behavior and learn to do right?
AIG has been bailed out twice. It's still in trouble. GMC is asking for more money. Why? Because they haven't figured out what they did wrong before to get them in trouble in the first place. (Well, maybe they know, but they're not acting on it. Shrug. Who cares? Why try? The government will keep us running.) And of course, the government -- that can't run its own financial house -- will dictate the running of the bailed out companies. How absurd!
I'll tell you something else. The sooner those "failure" lessons are learned, the less painful they are. If a child is allowed to do whatever he wants, he grows up unaware of what is right or wrong, what works and what doesn't. If a child always gets rewarded for participation and not excellence, then he will strive only to participate, and that not very well (because everyone else is getting the same award, so what does it matter?) Then once he gets out into the real world, he will make such huge mistakes that he may not recover from the failure setbacks. If, however, he is reprimanded and/or allowed to suffer the natural consequences of his bad choices as he grows up, he will learn how to learn from his mistakes.
We need to let the banks, auto makers, and big businesses fail, so that in the long run, we will have better businesses. Unfortunately, our economy has been being "bailed out" by the Fed for so long, that this failure will be a very hard one for all of us to suffer. But prolonging that just will make things worse when the failure does happen.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Socialist Way
I was complaining online about the blatant hypocrisy of Obama's government: "this is a new era of responsibility" And then he recommends to his cabinet a long line of tax cheats who suddenly saw the light and paid up (well, what they owed minus the fines) and even Geitner gets confirmed to oversee the IRS. "No lobbyists" And then one lobbyist after another gets an exception so they can work on the government in the area they lobbied for. "I will allow every bill I sign to be available to the public for five days before I sign" And then he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act and overturned the Mexico City Policy without the public's foreknowledge. And of course, he pushed the infamous "stimulus" bill (aka crap sandwich) to be passed by legislation BEFORE they had any chance to read it, and left it sitting there on his desk for three days before he actually signed it -- but we didn't have time to see it beforehand.
One of my friends, an immigrant from socialist Poland, simply wrote, "That's the socialist way: do as I say, not as I do."
In a column on Townhall.com today, Thomas Sowell dealt with the socialist tendency to twist word, saying the exact opposite of what they mean to make something SEEM better than it really is. Thus, the "Employee's Freedom of Choice Act" actually takes away a person's right to a secret ballot when voting on getting a union or not. The stimulus bill was named the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." A careful look at what's in it shows very little intends to recover the economy, very little is reinvestment. They call it that, but . . .
Steve Chapman tells about a legendary riddle Abraham Lincoln posed: If you count its tail as a leg, how many legs does a dog have? The answer is four. Counting the tail as a leg doesn't make it a leg.
So the socialists know how to lie, and that convincingly. The conservatives assume people already know and feel what they do. But according to Sowell, "The expression, 'It goes without saying. . .' is a fatal trap. Few things go without saying. Some of the most valuable things in life may go away without saying-- whether loved ones in one's personal life or the freedom or survival of a nation."
We have to learn how to express what "goes without saying."
One of my friends, an immigrant from socialist Poland, simply wrote, "That's the socialist way: do as I say, not as I do."
In a column on Townhall.com today, Thomas Sowell dealt with the socialist tendency to twist word, saying the exact opposite of what they mean to make something SEEM better than it really is. Thus, the "Employee's Freedom of Choice Act" actually takes away a person's right to a secret ballot when voting on getting a union or not. The stimulus bill was named the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." A careful look at what's in it shows very little intends to recover the economy, very little is reinvestment. They call it that, but . . .
Steve Chapman tells about a legendary riddle Abraham Lincoln posed: If you count its tail as a leg, how many legs does a dog have? The answer is four. Counting the tail as a leg doesn't make it a leg.
So the socialists know how to lie, and that convincingly. The conservatives assume people already know and feel what they do. But according to Sowell, "The expression, 'It goes without saying. . .' is a fatal trap. Few things go without saying. Some of the most valuable things in life may go away without saying-- whether loved ones in one's personal life or the freedom or survival of a nation."
We have to learn how to express what "goes without saying."
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Here's the Good
"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God. . ." Romans 8:28
The election of Barak Obama has been a good thing for me. It was when I realized my own need to get to know other like-minded people. It drove me to find a church to become a member of. Further developments, the appointment of Tim Geitner, the stimulus "crap sandwich," the misrepresentations, over and over, of Obama, and the most recent budget, have made me further realize my need to learn, to research about our country. These things have driven me back to God's sheltering wing.
It has been a good thing for many people. I see people around me awakening to our part in the world, as the body of Christ.
Thank you, God.
The election of Barak Obama has been a good thing for me. It was when I realized my own need to get to know other like-minded people. It drove me to find a church to become a member of. Further developments, the appointment of Tim Geitner, the stimulus "crap sandwich," the misrepresentations, over and over, of Obama, and the most recent budget, have made me further realize my need to learn, to research about our country. These things have driven me back to God's sheltering wing.
It has been a good thing for many people. I see people around me awakening to our part in the world, as the body of Christ.
Thank you, God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
