Right On Point

George Will Hits The Nail on the Head

2011-03-06T23:16:00.000-08:00

I read this essay by George Will (courtesy of the Newsweek Magazine which Mom and Dad send us at work--thanks!)

Its called High Speed Insolvency--Why Liberals Love Trains

Why do we borrow BILLIONS of dollars to build trains to take us from Point A to Point B more slowly, and at higher cost, than airplanes, and that almost no one uses?
He thinks he has the answer.
What do you think?

There's another reason why we get high speed trains, that he doesn't touch on.
People always have, and always will, love to sell things to the government, whether we need them or not. Where there's money to be made, there will always be a lobby to urge the government to buy--even dumb stuff. As citizens, we need to be better consumers. Otherwise, a fool and his money are soon parted.
George Will's piece should be studied as a masterpiece of opinion essay writing--whether one agrees with conclusion or not.

Who said the President associated with terrorists?

2010-02-21T17:19:00.000-08:00

American civic discourse has always been a contact sport. Who wrote this, about whom, and when?

Mr. X said: "The democrats are divided into speculative theorists and absolute terrorists. With the latter I am not disposed to class Mr. Y."

Answers below.

Mr. X was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall.

Mr. Y was Thomas Jefferson, the president elect of the United States.

Marshall wrote this in a letter on the same day in March 1801 that he administered the oath of office to Thomas Jefferson.
Source: Jeffrey Rosen, The Supreme Court (Times Books 2007), p. 27.

And I thought that the terrorists had only been around since 9/11.

The Glorification of Mediocrity

2009-10-25T18:38:00.000-07:00

What's wrong with this picture?

Mediocrity is praised.
Casual becomes slovenly.
Accomplishment is to be avoided.
Slackers rule, no really.

What Is The Most Important Character Trait?

2009-04-29T20:51:00.000-07:00

Self-Discipline.
Without it, one cannot do the right thing.
It does little good to know what is right if one does not choose the right.

What do you think?

Proposition 8 and Plate Tectonics

2009-04-03T20:29:00.000-07:00

Proposition 8 is the fault line between two gigantic socio-political landmasses that have collided. One landmass is society's right to self-regulate by majority rule. The other is the right of individual liberty. Pro-Prop 8 voters believe that two-gender marriage is the only kind; that society will be better with two genders and one marriage. Opp-Prop 8 voters believe individual liberty is the paramount right; that the majority cannot infringe on the individual's pursuit of happiness, even if society disapproves.
We see these clashes in other areas: whether drugs (alcohol; illegal; tobacco) should be prohibited, for instance. Sometimes the landmasses grind back and forth before they come to equilibrium. Prop 8 is like the San Andreas fault. Until we find out how to stop San Andreas fault from moving, the Big One could strike at any time.

The Path from Liberty to Social Justice

2009-03-24T22:02:00.000-07:00

When our country was founded, the primary emphasis was on the establishment of liberty--freedom from oppression by government. Thus, our constitution is one of limited powers; all powers not conferred on government in the constitution are reserved to the people.

Our national experiment in establishing liberty has been successful. Freedom has been passed down from generation to generation, for more than 225 years. This is a miracle.

We now take freedom somewhat for granted. The national government of limited powers has been instrumental in protecting our freedom from threats, foreign and domestic, to the point where government is now viewed as a source of freedom, not a source of tyranny.

Two points follow.

First, with our basic freedoms secured, most Americans now want the next logical step: social justice. With liberty as our birthright, people are now able to focus achieving the happiness which we are free to pursue. Equality of opportunity is fine as far as it goes; equality of outcome is even better.
Second, the government is widely perceived as a common resource to help us achieve this goal. We have forgotten that government was a source of tyranny; we now invoke its assistance in achieving social justice.

We see this trend unleashed in the political will that elected the current administration.
The best path to social justice should be the subject of a vigorous debate.

Economics and Freedom

2009-03-07T13:07:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting website devoted to economics and freedom. The Mises Institute says:

"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders," wrote Ludwig von Mises, "no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle."

"It is the mission of the Mises Institute to restore a high place for theory in economics and the social sciences, encourage a revival of critical historical research, and draw attention to neglected traditions in Western philosophy. In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."

The Statue of Responsibility

2009-03-03T21:06:00.000-08:00

Victor Frankl makes an interesting suggestion in his classic book Man's Search for Meaning. As a counterbalance to the Statute of Liberty on the East Coast, we should have a "Statue of Responsibility" on the West Coast.
Every right is balanced by a duty, and every liberty balanced by a responsibility. If every citizen took this seriously, think how much better our society would be.
And its not an idle dream. After I started this blog entry I discovered that there is an entire website devoted to this idea. Maybe it will happen--but only if we take responsibility for it.

Who Benefits From The Stimulus Package?

2009-02-28T16:14:00.000-08:00

A thoughtful reader asked this question.

The Stimulus package is supposed to create jobs. As enacted, it seems more likely to stimulate government. Growing government is like putting on weight: its easy to gain weight and hard to take it off. All the diets in the world don't work very well. And that will likely be the legacy of the stimulus: a drag on the economy just when natural market forces would otherwise rebound.

Stimulus vs. Bloatulus

2009-02-01T19:35:00.000-08:00

The proposed Stimulus Package is more of a Bloatulus package. Many commentators point out that it sets up long-term government spending on entitlements without short-term impetus to the economy.

We don't need more debt--we need less.

Why is it so important to pass a huge spending bill now, when much of the spending doesn't occur until later years?

As they said in 7th Grade Shop Class--"HASTE MAKES WASTE."

Wanted: Heroes not Neros

2009-01-25T10:44:00.000-08:00

Legend is that Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

In this Opinion Piece by Mickey Edwards, former Reagan Administration official, former Republican Congressman, and co-cofounder of Heritage Foundation, Mickey Edwards argues that Conservative Reaganism stands for effective limited government, not merely a "small government" that relies on the private sector for everything. Thanks to reader Sasquatch for bringing this to piece to our attention.

Edwards argues that conservatives "also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job -- Reagan again -- to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent -- more antithetical to true conservatism -- than to do nothing."

The knock on the Republican Hoover administration is that it didn't do enough to respond to the Great Depression.
The knock on the Democratic Roosevelt administration is that its tax and spend policies lengthened and deepened the great depression.

If you're in a burning economic crises, you don't want to see your emperor fiddling on the violin while nature takes its course.

On the other hand, you don't want to see your emperor hiring legions of workers to build new palaces, just to keep people busy and money flowing.

We need an economic policy that satisfies political demand and makes economic sense.

Conservatism's Fatal Flaw? Hitting the bottom hurts too much.

2008-12-07T17:19:00.000-08:00

"Keep government out. Let the markets govern themselves. That is the way to growth and prosperity." This is the core of economic conservatism.

It sounds nice. But when the market is in a free fall, people don't want to wait for the crash when it hits bottom. It hurts too bad. So there is an incentive to aid the market. It has been that way since the 1930's.

When the depression of 1929 started, the conservative/Republican Hoover administration largely market forces continue. With skyrocketing unemployment and no safety net, the social costs were high. People did not want to pay the costs--Republicans were voted out and the Democratic era of government intervention to aid the economy, and the little guy, was introduced.

The Reagan Revolution convinced many people that free markets were the best path to renewed prosperity. But now we see that an unregulated (or misregulated) market led to a huge crash.

Alan Greenspan admitted his mistake-assuming that the markets could self-regulate.

Now the prevailing sentiment is: government intervention is needed to prevent a worse crash.

If you accept that some intervention is needed, the only issue is how much. Conservatism's central tenet--let market forces rule, free from government intervention--turns out to be (as Captain Barbossa famously said in Pirates of the Caribbean) "more of a guideline" than an "actual rule."

So conservatives and liberals agree on the fundamental principle: some government intervention is necessary and appropriate. The only question is: How Much?

Fixing Detroit

2008-11-21T23:09:00.001-08:00

Here’s how to fix the automotive industry.

First, deal with the union (UAW). Negotiate a contract that fixes wages & benefits at a level on a par with Japanese competitors. However, implement a stock equity ownership plan that issues stock to the hourly workers—so union members have a direct interest in profits and equity growth. Future income growth will be from equity, not higher per-hour wages. Make sure the union has a seat on the board. Align the union's interest with the profits of the company.

Second, set a new product goal: the best cars in the world. Nothing less. Get rid of the current junk. Current management has crashed and should be totaled out. It must go.

Nothing could be simpler. Let's roll.

The Parable of the Two Drivers--President-Elect Obama Gets Behind the Steering Wheel

2008-11-06T22:01:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time a family went on vacation. They decided to spend the week at Prosperityland Resort. They were exited and piled into the family minivan. Dad took driver’s seat and Mom got shotgun. The kids sat in the back rows—all of them, and there were a lot of kids.

Unfortunately, Mom and Dad couldn’t agree on the best way to get ProsperityLand—Mom wanted to take the Interstate and Dad thought the scenic route would be better. They also couldn’t agree who would drive. They compromised. Mom and Dad each put a hand on the steering wheel. Mom put her foot on the brake, and Dad put his foot on the gas. Off they went!

You can guess what happened. Every time Mom pulled the car to the right, Dad jerked it back to the left. When Dad accelerated, Mom put on the brakes to keep him from going too fast—especially if he was steering the car the wrong way. The car lurched left, rocked right, spun out and skidded to a stop, again and again and again. Every time the family thought they were making progress, Mom would tell Dad that they had made a wrong turn, and should go back—or vice versa.

The kids took the brunt of it; they got car sick; they tired of wasting their vacation time driving when they should have been at ProsperityLand. So they got together and said “STOP.”

“Mom—you stay on the passenger side. Let Dad drive alone for a while. Don’t touch the steering wheel and don’t touch the brakes. You can give Dad advice, but he doesn’t have to take it if he doesn’t want to. We’ll let Dad drive for four hours—and if he can’t get us to ProsperityLand his way, we’ll let you take a turn, Mom.” Mom wasn’t happy about it but she didn’t really have a choice.

Off they went again… This time the driving was smoother. The kids could enjoy the scenery out the window without getting car sick. They could only hope, ProsperityLand was around the corner…

This parable is one reason to be glad for the decisive national election results. President Elect Obama will have the steering wheel and the Democrats will be driving. For the last 4-8 years, the Democrats and Republicans have been pulling the steering wheel back and forth. We certainly have not been in Prosperityland—maybe we were going in the wrong direction, or maybe we just missed the exit. But with one party steering the country for a while, perhaps we’ll get to ProsperityLand a little faster; and if we don’t, the kids will give Mom a turn.

The Messenger Is More Important Than The Message

2008-10-26T18:32:00.000-07:00

I expect a strong victory by Barrack Obama in the upcoming presidential election.

There are parallels to the Reagan Revolution in 1980. In that election, Reagan demonstrated his skills as the "great communicator." He popularized conservatism by communicating his message of smaller government and less regulation. Reagan did it when the country was in an economic and political malaise, dissatisfied with the Carter administration. Reagan didn't bend his views to the popular will. Instead, he bent the public will to his views. Result: the country elected him, embracing conservative theories that hadn't been strongly advocated since the Goldwater era.

We're seeing the same phenomenon now. By the strength of his political charisma and communication skills, Obama is connecting with the middle range of the political spectrum. He is re-popularizing the traditional democratic liberal ideals of social improvement through governmental programs. He is bringing back a message that lost steam after the Johnson administration. Obama's programs are branded by Republicans as "tax and spend." But the messenger is so good that he can bring people around to his view.

These are hallmarks of major political figures: using the force of their communication skills to align public opinion with their policies. In this way, the Messenger is more important than the Message. Without the right Messenger, the Message is lost.

Obama + Biden, McCain + Palin All Consider Marriage To Be Between a Man and Woman

2008-10-25T14:48:00.000-07:00

Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin All Agree

Click the link on this video to see what Obama, Biden, Palin and McCain said about traditional marriage.
Another video: Obama favors civil unions, not gay marriage.

After being attacked by the gay community for supporting traditional marriage, Obama and Biden now oppose Prop. 8, although as far as I know they have not retracted their views on traditional marriage.

Yes on 8 is a vote to protect the definition of traditional marriage from being changed to include same-sex marriage. A Yes on 8 vote does not diminish the rights of gays under domestic partnerships.

France Says Same Sex Marriage Not The Same For Children

2008-10-23T21:44:00.000-07:00

According to this video, France decided not to authorize same-sex marriage.

PS: let me know if the link doesn't work.

Redefining marriage as the "exclusive love unit" or "elu."

2008-10-19T20:20:00.000-07:00

I looked up some of the results for "marriage" on dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) mar·riage –noun

1.	the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

American Heritage Dictionary - mar·riage

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

By a vote of 4-3 (a majority of 1), the California Supreme Court decided to change this "institution" from a union of a "man and woman" to a union of "two persons." Degendering marriage literally changes the definition of marriage, and in so doing, destroys it and replaces it with something different.

If society is going to invent a new type of union, we should have a new term to suggest its all encompassing, genderless nature.

I suggest the "elu," pronounced E (as in key)-LOO (as in tool). The word "elu" comes from an acronym (like scuba). Elu stands for "exclusive love unit." These three words sum up the essential characteristics of "marriage" according to the heterosexual and homosexual view:
Exclusive: the participants bind themselves together, to the exclusion of all others.
Love: the participants love each other
Unit: the participants agree to form a legal entity

By adding a letter at the end of elu we can describe the participants: "m" for "man" and also for "woman."

Thus: an elu is the union of two elums.

This is a fair way to resolve the dispute about whether gay or straight unions are the same thing, with three different gender-based combinations (man-man; man-woman; woman-woman). Let's create a new entity definition that takes the gender out of legal unions. The elu.

I now pronounce you elum and elum, until death do you part.

No on 8 = Yes on Hate; Prop 8 Opponents Deny Equal Speech and Equal Rights For Children

2008-10-16T20:37:00.000-07:00

There's a statue in my neighborhood of a traditional family--father, mother, son and daughter.

Gay-marriage proponents put up two "NO on 8" signs by the statute. Tonight I put up one "YES on 8" sign in front of the statute.

How long did the "YES on 8" sign last? Less than one hour.

Someone stole it--obviously a "NO on 8" proponent who can't stand to let others exercise their free speech rights. No one touched the "NO on 8" signs.

An isolated example? We'll see--but I don't think so. I have left many comments on various Proposition 8 blogs and not one has been posted online by any Prop 8 opponent. If "Yes on 8" doesn't pass, there won't be any tolerance for those who believe the traditional family is the the only family that affords equal rights to children.

Under the NO on 8 view, children are not treated equally. Some children will have two mothers, some two fathers, and some will have a father and mother. No children will have the right to a father and mother. As in Massachusetts, adoption agencies that believe in adoption of children into a traditional marriage will be prohibited from functioning under state law.

Dennis Prager Supports It--Reasons for Yes on Proposition 8

2008-10-13T22:13:00.000-07:00

Here's an excerpt from radio talk-show host Dennis Prager's online article about the state of the law, if left unchanged by Proposition 8:

"Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Indeed -- and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists -- the terms "male" and "female," "man" and "woman" will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, "male" and "female" are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father -- the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.

And what will happen after divorce -- which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley's "Brave New World." All thanks to the hubris of four individuals. But such hubris never goes unanswered. Our children and their children will pay the price."

See the full article by Dennis Prager here.

Paul Revere's Ride--in 2008

2008-10-12T20:26:00.000-07:00

In Boston recently, I stopped in front of the statute commemorating Paul Revere. I got to thinking, if Paul Revere were alive today, what would he warn us about?

The Terrorists are coming! The Terrorists are coming!
The Credit Crisis is coming! The Credit Crisis is coming!
The election is coming! The election is coming!

Things are much clearer in hindsight. The dangers facing us today seem diffuse and different. The best way to move ahead in an uncertain world is to to identify the most important priorities and follow those. And if you can find your own Paul Revere--someone who shares your priorities and is on the lookout for problems--follow Mr. Revere's advice.

Official Google Blog: Our position on California's No on 8 campaign

2008-10-11T16:23:00.000-07:00

Official Google Blog: Our position on California's No on 8 campaign

For the reasons listed below, I would have to disagree.

Proposition 8 and Equal Rights from a Child's Perspective

2008-10-11T15:33:00.000-07:00

Two people love each other, derive happiness from being together, and want to raise a family together. They want to join in marriage. Are all unions created equal? Proponents of gay marriage say yes. If marriage has no gender, then the answer would have to be yes. But marriage has always had a gender component. If you remove the gender from marriage, you create a civil union, but you destroy the concept of marriage.

Judges created gay marriage. Popular opinion did not. Nature did not.

Under the prior law, all people were treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. The law did not confer anything which nature did not. And every child at least had the theoretical right to a father and mother.

Under the current state of the law, marriage means a union of two people, not the union of a man and woman. Marriage is neutered.

Those who vote No on Proposition 8 will take gender out of marriage. This will mean that children will not have a legal right to a father and a mother. Children will not be treated equally. Some will get two mothers, some two fathers, and some will get one of each.

Nature never intended that. The law should not be in the position of telling children that they do not have a natural right to be raised by a loving mother and father in a marriage. We live in an imperfect world and situations occur all the time when children must be raised without a mother or father, and are better off than the alternative. But this is the result of problems in our imperfect world--problems which people should work to solve together. Ideally, our laws should not set be designed to create a situation in which a child has no right to be raised by a mother and father.

This does not deny the love that gay partners have for each other, or suggest in any way that they may not make wonderful parents. But to say that this relationship is identical to a traditional gender marriage ignores the reality of gender. Perhaps unfortunately, nature created people with gender. Gender causes lots of blessings and also a few challenges. Judicially declaring marriage to be free of gender may end up causing more problems than it solves.