Flying is so Safe already that to make it any Safer is nearly Statistically Impossible
Air travel is the safest way to travel. People are far more likely to die on the way to the airport than in an airplane. Air plane accidents and incidents are so rare these days that when one happens it is huge news. For weeks some networks devoted near 24/7 coverage of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. Even though they had nothing to report. But that didn’t stop them from going to air to speculate about what happened. Because an airplane just disappearing like that is extremely rare.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigates aircraft accidents and incidents to determine the cause. And to come up with new ways to make aviation safer. But improving safety any more is getting difficult. And costly. They put a cost on the loss of life and compare that to the cost for the airlines (and the people who buy their tickets) to implement a proposed change. And then judge the likelihood that spending that money will actually save any lives. They could reduce the number of deaths from flying to zero simply by grounding all aircraft permanently. But the flying public wants to fly. And is apparently willing to fly even if there is a slim chance of dying.
When a plane crashes because of an event that is statistically likely to happen, say, one in 100 million flights it’s hard to justify the added expense. As that cost will not make flying any safer statistically. This is the problem with making flying safer today. It is so safe already that to make it any safer is nearly statistically impossible. And spending more resources to try and make it safe 100% of the time is just not possible. And it’s just too costly to try.
Racism is so Trivial in the Aggregate that it could not prevent a Black Child from growing up to be President
There are a lot of people on the left who say we need a dialogue on race. Because there is still racism in this country. Not Southern Democrat Jim Crowe racism. But systemic racism that stacks the deck against blacks. Despite that ‘racist’ America having elected a black president. Twice. Who appointed a black man as attorney general. Eric Holder. America’s top cop. This couldn’t have happened without a majority of white voters voting for President Obama. As blacks make up only approximately 13.1% of the population while whites make up approximately 77.9% (see United States Census QuickFacts).
So there may be some racism in America. But clearly not a lot of it. For if there was a lot of it there would have been enough people to vote against President Obama. But there wasn’t. And he won reelection. Even though his record wasn’t that good. On the economy. Or on national security. So there would have been a lot of reasons to vote against him. Especially if the American people were racist. But this didn’t happen. Suggesting that America is not as racist as those on the left would have you believe.
Sure, there is racism in America. As there is everywhere. And always will be. But is it systemic? Is it impossible for a black child to grow up to be the president of the United States? To be the top cop in the land? No. Because these things have happened. So is it necessary to focus the Justice Department only on racial injustice in the United States? Even those on the left will concede that things are a lot better now than they ever were. So should the Justice Department focus on removing the last vestiges of racism when if doing so will be very difficult if not impossible? As some people simply cannot be reasoned with? If these people were running the country perhaps it would be. But they’re not. These instances of racism are isolated incidents. So trivial in the aggregate that they could not prevent a black child growing up to be president.
Despite all of their Efforts to End Racism they haven’t reduced the Need to End Racism
A lot of people voted for President Obama to end racism once and for all. To move away from our racist past. But it seems like the left finds more racism than ever since President Obama’s election. In fact, they call any criticism of President Obama an act of racism. Making it difficult to criticize the president. As no one wants to be labeled a racist. In fact the left uses this to try and shut down debate over policy issues. Unable to defeat conservatives in the arena of ideas (as conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1) they are quick to try and shut down debate with charges of racism.
Even Attorney General Eric Holder responded angrily when testifying in Congress. Later when speaking to a mostly black audience he asked was there ever an attorney general or a president treated as poorly as he and President Obama? (Yes, there were. Especially when they were Republican). Implying that the people’s representatives, and, therefore, the people, were racist. So he can stand morally indignant as he stood in contempt of Congress. The victim. A lot in the media have come to his support. While few criticized him. Because no one wants to be called a racist. And because no one does it is a very powerful way to shift attention away from any wrongdoing by shifting the attention to those accusing you of said wrongdoing. A tactic right from the far-left strategist Saul Alinsky’s playbook (see Corrupt AG’s Feigned Outrage Shouldn’t Be Distraction posted 4/10/2014 on Investors.com).
The NTSB is trying to remove the last vestiges of air travel deaths. Which is more and more difficult to do these days as there are so few ways left to improve aviation safety. There are a lot of people trying to end racism. But if you listen to them the problem of racism has never been worse. Despite the success of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Who actually benefit from this perceived racism. As they can discount any criticism of them because they’re black. And the American people are racist. Despite these same American people being responsible for their success. For a country with a 77.9% white population could have been racist enough to prevent the election of a black president. And they were given two opportunities to show just how racist they are. But didn’t. Still, the charge of racism is a powerful weapon in their arsenal. Which is why despite all of their efforts to end racism they haven’t reduced the need to end racism. For if they did that they may just have to answer for their policies.
Tags: attorney general, black, black president, Congress, conservatives, criticism, debate, end racism, Eric Holder, liberals, President Obama, racism, racist, shut down debate, systemic racism, top cop, white
The CEO of Mozilla resigned for Thinking ‘Incorrectly’
In 2008, Brendan Eich donated $1,000 to support California Proposition 8. A proposal to keep marriage in California between only a man and a woman. Proposition 8 passed as most Californians agreed with Brendan Eich. They did not want to change law, tradition and custom. The left has determined that the people of California are hate-filled people. And liberal judges have since overruled the will of the people of California.
So who is Brendan Eich? Until recently he was the CEO of Mozilla. The company that puts out the internet browser Firefox. He rose to CEO this year. He cofounded Mozilla Foundation in 1998. So he’s been there for awhile. And did good work. To rise to CEO you have to be pretty darn good. And you can’t be a monster. For if you are a monster the odds are slim of becoming CEO. For it tends to garner bad press.
Well, as it turns out, exercising your free speech can make you a monster. A hate-filled individual. Which the left said he was. Because of this $1,000 donation. Just because he thought like the majority of all Californians. That marriage should be between a man and a woman. And because he did the left demanded his resignation for daring not to think ‘correctly’ like them. So he did. He resigned for thinking ‘incorrectly’.
Conservatives were not Welcomed at a Feminist Conference on Inclusivity
This is not the only ‘thought crime’ the left has leveled at someone. For anyone that dares to think differently from them they call a thought criminal. And do everything in their power to silence them. For the ‘tolerant’ left is very intolerant of anyone that thinks differently from them. Because the left hates dissenting views. Especially those of conservatives. As there are about two conservatives for every liberal they face a lot of dissenting views. So they have a lot of ‘thought crime’ to police.
Universities are mostly liberal these days. And whenever a conservative is invited to speak the thought police come out. They protest. They heckle. They throw pies. Just ask Ann Coulter. Even when conservatives are invited back to their alma maters to give a commencement speech the thought police turn out to keep them from speaking. Just ask Dr. Ben Carson. Or Condoleezza Rice.
Feminists on university campuses are particularly intolerant to other points of view. Even at a feminist conference about inclusivity. Everyone was welcomed. Except conservative women. In fact, the feminists at this conference identified a woman as being a conservative. Telling the students gathering there that they shouldn’t talk to her. Because conservatives were not welcomed at this conference on inclusivity. Just ask Katherine Timpf.
It’s hard to Pass your Agenda when you’re Outnumbered Two to One
Liberals have long wanted to revive the fairness doctrine. For the one area they can’t control is talk radio. And they don’t like what they’re saying on talk radio. So they want to shut them up. To balance the content broadcasted over the public airwaves. As determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Which could, of course, find that 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh a day is not balanced. And require that he give up an hour or two of his time for an opposing viewpoint. Hence the moniker the ‘Hush Rush Bill‘.
The left has been warning us about the calamity of global warming for the last three decades or so. Telling us if we don’t act now the world will end within the decade. But the people aren’t quaking with fear. Some are even debunking their ‘science’. With real science. Something the left does not like. And they want to do something about. They want to shut them up. Some even want to jail them.
Conservatives don’t do this. They don’t call for boycotts or resignations when people exercise their right to free speech. They don’t throw pies at people. They don’t pressure universities to shut down debate by preventing someone from speaking that disagrees with them. They don’t warn young women that someone ‘thinks wrong’. That they shouldn’t talk to ‘wrong thinkers’. They don’t try to balance the content in the liberal-dominated media. And they don’t put politics over science. Liberals do. But conservatives don’t.
There have been some in history that put politics above everything else. Just like liberals do. People who punished those who said the wrong things. And punished those for thinking wrong. They had state censorship. Propaganda. And jail for those who weren’t like them. Or worse. Things the left would love to do to stifle all debate. Because it’s hard to pass your agenda when you’re outnumbered two to one. So who are these people from history? Nazis. And communists. Yes, liberals are about as open-minded and tolerant as Nazis and communists were.
Tags: Brendan Eich, California, communists, conservatives, debate, dissenting views, Fairness Doctrine, feminist, free speech, Global Warming, hate-filled, inclusivity, intolerant, liberal, Mozilla, Nazis, open-minded, Proposition 8, science, talk radio, thought crime, thought criminal, thought police, tolerant
The Founding Fathers were Gentlemen of the Enlightenment with Sound Philosophical Beliefs
Politicians have to win elections. They have to persuade and convince people to vote for them. Once upon a time that meant vigorous debate where candidates explained why their way was the better way. Going right back to the Founding. Where Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson bitterly contested each other’s vision for the country. And the debate often got dirty. Such as when Hamilton’s political enemies exposed his extramarital affair with the con-woman Mrs. Reynolds who seduced Hamilton with the purpose of blackmailing him. Who wanted to use this information to say he was involved in a bigger scheme with Mr. Reynolds in defrauding the federal government.
Treasury Secretary Hamilton met three gentlemen of the political opposition in private. Admitting to his affair. And proved beyond a shadow of doubt that all money paid to the blackmailers came from Hamilton’s private funds. Not a penny came from the Treasury Department. According to 18th century gentlemanly behavior the matter was closed. The affair was a personal matter. It would be imprudent to make it a public issue. But upon Hamilton’s retirement a bitter political enemy leaked this information to a scandalmonger. James Callender. Who wrote a book exposing this private matter. The History of the United States for the Year 1796. Jefferson had helped to finance Callender. And reveled in Hamilton’s scandal. But when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. And Jefferson did. For Callender published articles confirming rumors that Jefferson had fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings.
Politics then were just as dirty as they are today. And often crossed the line. But underneath all the scandals and mudslinging there were philosophical principles. They did these things for principle. For they feared the opposition and what their policies would do the fledgling nation. There was political patronage and political corruption. But above that was a battle of competing political ideology. Waged by men well read in history. Familiar with John Locke. And Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu. Icons of the Enlightenment. Whose philosophies can be found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. These Founding Fathers were rich propertied men. Established in their careers. Who had little left to prove. These gentlemen of the Enlightenment did what they did not for money or political favor. So they could live a more comfortable life. They did these things out of principle. Based on sound philosophical beliefs.
The Democrats try to Scare the Bejesus out of People to Get and Keep the Republicans out of Office
It’s not like that anymore. Instead of rich successful people entering politics for selfless reasons people of no accomplishments enter politics to become rich and powerful. Who have no principles. Who will buy and sell anyone to remain in power. Of course they don’t campaign by saying this. Instead, their campaigns are based on hopes and fears. And the telling a lot of lies. With little principle. Or sound philosophical beliefs.
In 2008 President Obama campaigned on hope and change. To get away from the partisan politics of the past. Democrats continue to peddle hope. Health care for everyone. College degrees for everyone. High-paying green jobs and energy independence. A return of manufacturing jobs. Spending our way out of recession with Keynesian stimulus spending. A bigger social safety net. Talking to our enemies instead of going to war with them. And making them like us by resolving all of our differences with diplomacy. That we can have whatever we want. If only we got the Republicans out of office.
While at the same time the Democrats try to scare the bejesus out of people if we don’t get and keep the Republicans out of office. For the Republicans want to take away birth control and abortion from women. And keep them from being independent and having careers. The poor will remain poor. The rich will get richer. And the hungry will die. Slavery will be reinstituted. The Republicans will tax the middle class more so they can give tax breaks to rich corporations. They will burden the nation with massive deficits with their tax cuts for the rich. Global warming will continue unchecked. Our drinking water will be polluted. And our atmosphere will become poisonous to breathe. All because Republicans put profit before people.
The Left tells a lot of Lies to Win Elections because all they have are Failed Keynesian Economic Policies
Republicans, on the other hand, peddle the hope that we can return to the prosperity of Ronald Reagan. By cutting tax rates. For throughout U.S. history whenever the government cut tax rates prosperity followed. As well as flooded the treasury with tax dollars. For contrary to the fear peddling of the Democrats cuts in tax rates have historically increased tax revenue. And can again. As Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1984, it can be Morning in America again. We can be prouder, stronger and better.
While at the same time Republicans like to scare people with national security issues. The Clinton administration handled terrorist attacks against America in the courts. Which emboldened America’s enemies into an escalation of attacks resulting in 9/11. The one in 2001. Not the attack in 2012 on the U.S consulate in Benghazi. While the Democrats believe our enemies hate us because George W. Bush made them hate us with his cowboy swaggering ways. And that was the only reason. Even though Bush had little time to swagger before the attacks on 9/11. Those in 2001. Not the ones in 2012. The Republicans say our enemies hate us for who we are. As we are too Christian. And allow our women to have careers and use birth control and abortion. Something our enemies won’t allow their women to have.
President Obama did not end partisan politics. He lied about that. For his administration has been perhaps the most partisan in U.S. history. With no interest whatsoever in compromise. He and the Democrats continue to lie about the Reagan tax cuts. And the Bush tax cuts. Blaming tax cuts for all our woes. And our deficits. Despite those tax cuts increasing tax revenue. They lied about a war on women. Having one of their cronies in the mainstream media create it by asking Mitt Romney if he wanted to take away women’s birth control. And they continuously spread the lie that the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes. When the top 10% of income earners pay about 70% of all federal income taxes.
So the Left tells a lot of lies to win elections. Because that’s all they have. They do not have a Morning in America they can talk about. Just failed Keynesian economic policies. Like the 4 years of Jimmy Carter. The 4 years of President Obama. And what may have been the 4 years of Bill Clinton had it not been for the Republicans taking control of Congress 2 years into his presidency. Of course the Republicans can tell a lie, too. The big one being their claim of being conservative like Ronald Reagan. As they too often fall for the lies coming from the Left. And appear more interested in living a comfortable life than sound philosophical beliefs.
Tags: 9/11, abortion, Alexander Hamilton, birth control, Bush, Callender, debate, deficits, Democrats, elections, Enlightenment, fear, Founding Fathers, Hamilton, hope, Jefferson, Keynesian, lies, Morning in America, partisan, philosophical beliefs, philosophical principles, politicians, politics, principles, Reagan, Republicans, Reynolds, Ronald Reagan, scandals, tax cuts, Thomas Jefferson, war on women, women
The Uncivil Calling the Civil Uncivil
Civility. Civility. Civility. That’s all we hear. That we must be more civil. Too much partisanship in the country. We need to fight less. And work together more. Of course, the people saying this just took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections. But they sure were singing a different song before that shellacking.
Civility? Please. Was wishing Rush Limbaugh dead civil? Was wishing Sarah Palin dead civil? Was making a movie based on a ‘what if’ assassination of George W. Bush civil? Was wishing Dick Cheney dead civil? Was wishing Sean Hannity dead civil? Was throwing a pie at Ann Coulter civil? Was saying you’d have sex with Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Elisabeth Hasselbeck because they’re hot even though you hate them civil? Was dropping a crucifix in a glass of urine and calling it art civil? I could go on. But that should suffice to make the point.
Is this truly a cry for civility? Or simply a way to neuter the opposition’s power? By calling political dissent uncivil? Now that they have lost their power? My, how things change. Once upon time it was patriotic to debate and disagree. Of course, that’s only when the ‘wrong people’ were in power. Apparently.
This Nutcase came from the Left
The shooting rampage in Arizona showed the consequences of the lack of civility (i.e., when conservatives debate and disagree). At least, so thought those on the left. Until some of the facts started coming out. Turns out that the shooter was more of a leftist than a rightwing radical. That’s right, this Nutcase came from the Left.
He didn’t listen to talk radio. Didn’t follow Sarah Palin. Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity. Glenn Beck. Or anyone on the Right. In fact, one of his favorite books was the Communist Manifesto. Which is not a conservative manifesto. And he was a conspiracy nut. One of his favorite films was Zeitgeist: The Movie. A film citing conspiracy theories about Christ (He was just a myth), the 9/11 attacks, bankers manipulating the international monetary system, etc. And these are, of course, theories held by people on the Left. It’s pretty clear that if anyone incited Jared Loughner with vitriolic rhetoric, it was those on the left.
Doesn’t matter. Still the cry for civility rings out. Even though a lack of civility clearly didn’t prompt Loughner to do anything. It was his insanity that did. Even so, we still need to be civil. And not debate or disagree. With the liberal left. Because that incivility could create a Jared Loughner. Even though it didn’t here.
Forget the Paranoid Schizophrenia. Focus on the Vitriolic Political Debate.
The Arizona shooter was oblivious to all the incivility around him. It was the paranoid schizophrenia rattling around his head driving him. Not all that vitriolic political debate that is supposedly ruining our nation. Still, it is a time to reflect. To step back and take a look at ourselves and say, “Hey. We can be better.” Or so David Brooks writes about in the New York Times (see Tree of Failure posted 1/13/2011).
But over the past few decades, people have lost a sense of their own sinfulness. Children are raised amid a chorus of applause. Politics has become less about institutional restraint and more about giving voters whatever they want at that second. Joe DiMaggio didn’t ostentatiously admire his own home runs, but now athletes routinely celebrate themselves as part of the self-branding process.
So, of course, you get narcissists who believe they or members of their party possess direct access to the truth. Of course you get people who prefer monologue to dialogue. Of course you get people who detest politics because it frustrates their ability to get 100 percent of what they want. Of course you get people who gravitate toward the like-minded and loathe their political opponents. They feel no need for balance and correction.
Brooks makes some good points. And the Left should listen to them. Because he’s talking about them. When George W. Bush was president Hillary Clinton said it was patriotic to debate and disagree. Now she says that this leads to domestic terrorism. No doubt she and her fellow Democrats believe they alone speak the truth. And that they have no need for balance or correction. Because they are always right and loathe their political opponents. Especially when they get shellacked in the midterm elections.
They’re Civil in North Korea. And Oppressed
Holding hands and singing kum bay ya isn’t going to change anything. Because we don’t agree. If everyone in the country agreed it wouldn’t be the United States. It would be North Korea. And they’re very civil there. Especially when it comes to the government that’s oppressing them. But I don’t think we want that kind of civility here.
Debate is good. Dissent is good. It prevents the rise of tyrants. That’s why Americans can debate and disagree. That process has prevented the rise of tyrants. And we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss that process.
Tags: 2010 midterm elections, Arizona shooting rampage, calling political dissent uncivil, civil, civility, conspiracy nut, conspiracy theories, debate, debate and disagree, debate is good, dissent is good, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, incivility, Jared Loughner, lack of civility, midterm elections, nutcase, paranoid schizophrenia, Partisanship, patriotic to debate and disagree, political dissent, uncivil, Vitriolic Political Debate, vitriolic rhetoric
GOVERNMENT FIXES PROBLEMS. Or so they say. And the people think. When something isn’t right in the country, the people demand that government do something about it. And politicians are more than happy to oblige. It strokes their egos. Increases their budgets. Their staffs. And they get to do what they like best. Tell others what to do. Well, that, and spend money.
Politicians are happiest when government grows. Because when it does, there’s more stuff to do. More people to manage. Bigger offices to move into. More people to hire. And the more they hire, the more people are indebted to them. Who love them. Respect them. Are in awe of them. Which inflates their egos even more. As if that was even possible. And, of course, there’s more money to spend.
As government grows, so does their job security. I mean, there may come the day that the good people may not reelect them. As devastating as that may be, they can be comforted in the fact that they will leave Washington far richer than they were upon entering Washington. And there’ll always be a place for them in an ever expanding government. A cabinet position. An agency position. Or, perhaps, they’ll be named a czar. Of something. In charge of a policy issue. Away from the oversight powers of Congress. Anything is possible. As long as government grows. And there is more money to spend.
And just why is that? Why does government continue to grow? Simple. They don’t fix problems. They’re always ‘fixing’ problems. But they’re never fixed. They’re always a work in progress. Because a fixed problem doesn’t require their services any longer.
DON’T THINK SO? Suppose the government gives you a federal job. An important one. You’re in charge of the Office of Getting People to Happily Accept the Banning of Smoking in Public Places. They give you a big office. A staff. A budget. And a title. You feel pretty good. Important. You diligently go about your work. You take polls. You analyze data. You place public service announcements. You intensify your polling before and after local laws are implemented banning smoking in public places.
You analyze your data. You correlate satisfaction with dissatisfaction. Pacification with irritability. Your numbers look good. As more and more localities ban smoking from most public spaces the more your numbers show that the satisfaction/dissatisfaction ratio is trending favorably. The trending is flatter with pacification/irritability but the trending is still favorable. You conclude that these new laws come in, on average, at 9.875. And that’s very good on the scale you created to measure overall effectiveness and acceptance of new laws to influence social behavior. You happily report your findings to your superior.
“What are you,” your superior asks, “stupid? Trying to put yourself out of a job? Are you trying to cut my budget? Because that’s exactly what’s going to happen if you turn in a report like this. Now here’s what you’re going to do. You’re going to report that your findings indicate some improvements in some select demographics. But overall there is still much work to do. Then write up a proposal for additional work required and throw in a budget that increases your current budget by 12%. For starters. Then I’ll critique your findings and find your funding request insufficient because of a mistake you made in your analysis. Have it on my desk by the end of the week.”
Sound ridiculous? That’s probably because it is. And probably all too true. I mean, how many federal programs do politicians shut down because they were successful in achieving their objective? I think few. If any. Because no one wants to put themselves out of a job. Especially a federal job. Because there’s no job like a federal job. At least, not in the private sector.
IN THE PRIVATE sector, your work has to have value. When people are voluntarily paying for goods or services, you can’t have fat payrolls and fat budgets to produce goods and services no one wants. You can only do that when government pays. And by government I mean you and me. With our taxes. Which we have little choice but to pay. For we are forced to under penalty of law. Which can be pretty persuasive in making you pay for stuff you don’t want. For we wouldn’t normally give away our hard-earned pay for the ridiculous wastes of resources known as government work. To make the lives of federal workers better than ours. And speaking of federal workers, what’s that joke? Question: What is federal work? Answer: Work for the unemployable. There’s a lot of truth in that. For a lot of these people couldn’t make it in the private sector. And if they had to, they would only do so with the utmost bitter resentment. They’d resent the longer hours. The huge cut in pay. The huge cut in benefits. And the accountability.
You see, in the private sector, failure has consequences. People get fired. If a business is losing money because of silly projects they’re pursuing, the board of directors will fire the corporate officers. If it’s a small business, the owner may lose his or her life savings. And their house (which is often mortgaged up to the hilt to support their business). There will be change after failure. And it will be painful to many. Unfeeling. Cold. But necessary. But it’s different in government.
When politicians fail, they reward themselves. When their policies fail, the politicians simply say they need more time to make those policies work. And more money. That’s always the answer. And they get away with it. More money. Keep throwing money at the problem. No matter what a train wreck their programs turn out to be. Or what the unintended consequences are.
POLITICIANS LIKE TO tinker. Often in things they shouldn’t. Because when they do, bad things often happen. Those unintended consequences. For when it comes down to it, they’re not very smart. They could have graduated from their Ivy League schools at the top of their class, but they often know squat about the things they’re meddling in. Most of them are lawyers. And what does a lawyer know about economics? Foreign policy? National security? Bupkis. But it never stops them.
And it doesn’t even matter. Because their motives were honorable. They acted with the best of intentions. At least, that’s what they say. As do their supporters. And when everything goes to hell in a handbasket, they don’t mind. Just more problems for government to fix. More programs. More staff. And more money to spend.
Of course, we ultimately pay the price for their actions. Whether it’s recession, depression or a more dangerous world to live in. Which is often the case. More times than not.
EVER WONDER WHY everything is a crisis? Because a crisis needs urgent action. By politicians in Washington. And that urgent action is typically vast new government programs with an exploding federal bureaucracy. Along with explosive federal spending. And because it’s a crisis, there’s no time to lose. If we don’t take immediate action the consequences could be dire. There’s no time for debate. For opposition. To read a bill. No. We have to act and we have to act NOW. Before this crisis gets any worse.
And when things do get worse after we take all that urgent action, you know what they’ll say? That they were wrong? Yeah, right. In some fantasy world maybe. No. Instead, they’ll say just imagine how bad things would have been if they didn’t act like they did. That we should be thankful things are only as bad as they are, for they could have been a whole lot worse if government didn’t act. Why, they’ll be patting themselves on the back. While you suffer more.
Hard to fight that logic. I mean, they can say anything. If their action takes unemployment to record levels, they can say unemployment would have been twice as high if they didn’t do what they did. Twice as high would be worse. But how do they know it would have been twice as high? How can they prove it? Well, they don’t have to. Because you can’t disprove it. And those who gamble know that a tie goes to the house. So they’re right. Because you can’t prove otherwise. So they act accordingly. And their supporters go along. And the answer to the new problems that are worse than the original problems? You guessed it. More of the same. More government programs. More government spending. At least, that’s what the historical record shows.
POLITICIANS LOVE FAILURE. They thrive on it. It gives them life. Success, on the other hand, destroys them. Removes their raison d’être. Their reason for being. A prospering nation, after all, doesn’t need government to fix anything. And that’s no good. Especially if that’s the business you’re in. Fixing things. Fixers need to fix. But it needs to remain a work in progress. So there’s still fixing to do. Always. And forever.
And they’ll never let a good crisis go to waste.
Tags: accountability, agency position, analysis, benefits, Big Government, bill, board of directors, budgets, Business, cabinet position, Congress, consequences, corporate officers, crisis, czar, debate, demographics, depression, Economics, effectiveness, expanding government, failure, federal bureaucracy, federal job, federal programs, federal spending, foreign policy, goods or services, government programs, government work, issue, Ivy League, job security, laws, lawyers, life savings, more dangerous world, mortgaged up to the hilt, national security, never let a good crisis go to waste, opposition, oversight, payrolls, policy, politicians, private sector, prospering nation, recession, small business, smoking, social behavior, spend money, taxes, throwing money at the problem, train wreck, unemployable, unemployment, unintended consequences, urgent action, value, Washington