“In the future, hot air will be the most widely traded commodity on the planet”.
What are the mechanics behind Cap and Trade? The regulations set forth by the government on carbon emissions are designed to punitively manipulate businesses into improving their systems such that they meet said regulations. Given that the trading of carbon emission credits has doubled in the last year and is expected to exceed $2 trillion a year, it should be noted that a great number of businesses (namely clearing houses and banks) will stand to profit hugely. Simply stated, others in this world will benefit from the punishments doled out to American businesses. At what point will those same banks, traders, and investors be disinclined to make available the financial resources businesses need to improve their systems? I can’t believe it will take very long, at all. It will be at the moment in time that we’ve finally ensured that no measure of success will ever be achieved, and the failure will be attained with mortal certitude.
Where is the morality in this? Where is the morality in profiting from the punishments of others? Allow me to be a hyperbolist for a moment and posit that the day will come where punishments will make for good “action” in Vegas. “I’ll give you 5 to 1 odds that SCAQMD (Southern California Air Quality Management District) comes down on {insert manufacturer of choice, here}, and hits them with a fine that will cost them {pick a dollar figure}. Double-or-nothing that they lay off jobs to recuperate the costs.”
Coming back to reality, it’s not hard to extend the metaphor to Wall Street, the Nikei, or any other international exchange that trades “carbon credits”. Again, where is the morality in this system? Should we simply accept that cost of American jobs is the price we pay for propping up undeveloped countries in the third world? How much are we willing to sacrifice for the sake of global citizenship?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
It's no joke...
I’m tired. I’m tired from having the same conversation. I’m tired of being condescended to by people who have the least stable foundation from which to even try it. I’m tired of being personally attacked when my opinion runs contrary to others with whom I’m conversing. Most of all, I’m tired of dealing with people whose politics are their substitute for religion.
Think about it. The last time you had a spirited discussion with a liberal, think about how it went. Were you called “uneducated”? Did it devolve into a series of unmitigated, malevolent character attacks? Did any evidence-based discourse ever take place? Perhaps it might have included emotional arguments disguised as logic. The moment you hit the wrong button (e.g. using the “S” word), an atomic bomb went off in the room. It was as though you penned a cartoon about Mohammed. It was as though you were Judas and your pockets jingled with silver. Heretics being stoned in the middle of the town square were treated better. And if that injury wasn’t enough, they were family…
There is no one who actually knows me (you’d be surprised how little family can know you) that would ever characterize me as ‘uneducated’. My Bachelor of Science degree notwithstanding (from a private university, by the way), I spend a great deal of energy absorbing information on a broad array of topics, enough to be conversant, if not fluent. That, of course, includes exploring the perspectives of those with whom I’d likely disagree. But this is where I typically get shut down. This is what tires me. There’s a fine line between persistent and stubborn, and in these cases I’ve been less successful in knowing just when to quit, of knowing when further discourse is not going to yield any new intelligence.
I can’t purge the argument from my head though, (which is probably why I persist to begin with), so there has to be some outlet; thus, this blog. It’s a long prologue to this topic, but, all of that was in my head, too. Warning: this is a logical, evidence-based argument.
Obama is a socialist; my eighth grade civics class and Wikipedia agree.
Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state, public or common worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.
As I also learned in Civics, it is not a political system it is an economic system distinct from capitalism. Socialists believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.
Are you a socialist?
· Do you believe there is an unfair concentration of power and wealth within a small populace?
· Do you believe that wealth should be more evenly distributed among the populace?
· Do you believe that production, distribution, and trade should be nationalized?
· Do you believe in the selective nationalization of key industries, dominating inordinately large segments of the whole economy?
· Do you believe in tax-funded welfare programs?
· Do you believe in regulation of markets?
Affirmative responses to all of these confirm that you believe in socialism. Fewer affirmative responses move you further to the right of socialism, but still well within the definitions of market socialist and social democrat.
Seriously, whatever happened to getting what you earned? I’ll tell you what happened; we lost touch with one another and, therefore, lost the perspective of what it takes to earn what we have. I continue to wonder if, under a socialist economic system, the minimum wage would evolve into the standard wage. One hour of worked performed by anybody, doing anything, would be worth the same.
Now, there is a fair argument to be made that Obama is a market socialist. Many of the tenets he espouses fit that model: production is publicly owned (General Electric, General Motors, et al); prices are determined though government committee (e.g. the proposed panel “managing” the national health care system); employee owned/managed enterprises (e.g. any business whose union has controlling interest). But the argument falls apart as soon as you examine his statements and actions, such as his appointment of a Supreme Court judge for her position on social equality. For the love of Pete, “redistribution of wealth” was a campaign slogan. I’m beginning to get the sense that those who would cast aspersions at others being “uneducated” are realizing it within themselves; they’re realizing that they didn’t understand what he was saying during the campaign. They just thought he was the best looking, most well-spoken president we’ve had in a while.
Think about it. The last time you had a spirited discussion with a liberal, think about how it went. Were you called “uneducated”? Did it devolve into a series of unmitigated, malevolent character attacks? Did any evidence-based discourse ever take place? Perhaps it might have included emotional arguments disguised as logic. The moment you hit the wrong button (e.g. using the “S” word), an atomic bomb went off in the room. It was as though you penned a cartoon about Mohammed. It was as though you were Judas and your pockets jingled with silver. Heretics being stoned in the middle of the town square were treated better. And if that injury wasn’t enough, they were family…
There is no one who actually knows me (you’d be surprised how little family can know you) that would ever characterize me as ‘uneducated’. My Bachelor of Science degree notwithstanding (from a private university, by the way), I spend a great deal of energy absorbing information on a broad array of topics, enough to be conversant, if not fluent. That, of course, includes exploring the perspectives of those with whom I’d likely disagree. But this is where I typically get shut down. This is what tires me. There’s a fine line between persistent and stubborn, and in these cases I’ve been less successful in knowing just when to quit, of knowing when further discourse is not going to yield any new intelligence.
I can’t purge the argument from my head though, (which is probably why I persist to begin with), so there has to be some outlet; thus, this blog. It’s a long prologue to this topic, but, all of that was in my head, too. Warning: this is a logical, evidence-based argument.
Obama is a socialist; my eighth grade civics class and Wikipedia agree.
Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state, public or common worker ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.
As I also learned in Civics, it is not a political system it is an economic system distinct from capitalism. Socialists believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.
Are you a socialist?
· Do you believe there is an unfair concentration of power and wealth within a small populace?
· Do you believe that wealth should be more evenly distributed among the populace?
· Do you believe that production, distribution, and trade should be nationalized?
· Do you believe in the selective nationalization of key industries, dominating inordinately large segments of the whole economy?
· Do you believe in tax-funded welfare programs?
· Do you believe in regulation of markets?
Affirmative responses to all of these confirm that you believe in socialism. Fewer affirmative responses move you further to the right of socialism, but still well within the definitions of market socialist and social democrat.
Seriously, whatever happened to getting what you earned? I’ll tell you what happened; we lost touch with one another and, therefore, lost the perspective of what it takes to earn what we have. I continue to wonder if, under a socialist economic system, the minimum wage would evolve into the standard wage. One hour of worked performed by anybody, doing anything, would be worth the same.
Now, there is a fair argument to be made that Obama is a market socialist. Many of the tenets he espouses fit that model: production is publicly owned (General Electric, General Motors, et al); prices are determined though government committee (e.g. the proposed panel “managing” the national health care system); employee owned/managed enterprises (e.g. any business whose union has controlling interest). But the argument falls apart as soon as you examine his statements and actions, such as his appointment of a Supreme Court judge for her position on social equality. For the love of Pete, “redistribution of wealth” was a campaign slogan. I’m beginning to get the sense that those who would cast aspersions at others being “uneducated” are realizing it within themselves; they’re realizing that they didn’t understand what he was saying during the campaign. They just thought he was the best looking, most well-spoken president we’ve had in a while.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
My Free Speech
Do not tell me to calm down! Do not tell me that I shouldn’t be emotional! Do not, do not, do NOT infringe upon my free speech! My speech is intelligent, emotional, and has some color. Don’t you dare presume to suppress any part of that composition! My free speech is mine and I control how I deliver it. Now, shut-up and take it like a man!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
