About half of American girls eleven to seventeen regularly watch “reality” TV, with another 30% watching it sometimes. And it’s bad for them, according to a study sponsored by the Girl Scout Research Institute. Thirty-eight percent of these girls think a girl’s value is based on how she looks, for example compared with 28% of those who do not watch reality television. Almost 40% of the first group but only 24%of the second group believe “you have to lie to get ahead.”
The reason we can guess. What you see, if you see it often enough, begins to feel normal—even if you start watching it because you think it is not normal.
(In case you don’t know… “reality” TV is a genre of TV programs, supposedly unscripted, that show supposedly non-actors, i.e., “normal people,” in unusual or stressful situations. The language and behavior are street language and behavior, complete with vulgar words and ideas. On example of this kind of programming is the program, Wife Swap.)
Monday, January 9, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
The Larger the Government, The Smaller the Citizen
We live in an era of burgeoning government. One hallmark of the Obama Administration has been the Dodd-Frank Bill (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act H.R. 4173) designed to identify risks to the financial stability of the U.S. and promote market discipline. The other has been the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, designed to make health care much more of a responsibility of the Federal Government by adding layers of regulation into health care access.
I have looked as carefully as I can into these two bills; and I find them incomprehensible in their complexity and sheer size. In my opinion, they will almost double the size to the Federal Government.
We, as citizens of the United States, need to be very suspicious of such sweeping legislation and look at burgeoning governments of the past to evaluate such programs.
In The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, I read, “Empires, indeed governments generally, tend to be good things at first and bad things the longer they last. First they improve society’s ability to flourish by providing central services and removing impediments to trade and specialization; thus, even Genghis Kahn’s Pax Mongolica lubricated Asia’s overland trade by exterminating brigands along the Silk Road, thus lowering the cost of oriental goods in European parlors.” Later, however, a pattern was set which has been followed by governments ever since. Aging governments “employ more and more ambitious elites who capture a greater and greater share of the society’s income by interfering more and more in people’s lives as they give themselves more and more rules to enforce, until they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a lesson for today. Economists are quick to speak to speak of ‘market failure,’ and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from ‘government failure.’ Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of their customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.”
I have looked as carefully as I can into these two bills; and I find them incomprehensible in their complexity and sheer size. In my opinion, they will almost double the size to the Federal Government.
We, as citizens of the United States, need to be very suspicious of such sweeping legislation and look at burgeoning governments of the past to evaluate such programs.
In The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, I read, “Empires, indeed governments generally, tend to be good things at first and bad things the longer they last. First they improve society’s ability to flourish by providing central services and removing impediments to trade and specialization; thus, even Genghis Kahn’s Pax Mongolica lubricated Asia’s overland trade by exterminating brigands along the Silk Road, thus lowering the cost of oriental goods in European parlors.” Later, however, a pattern was set which has been followed by governments ever since. Aging governments “employ more and more ambitious elites who capture a greater and greater share of the society’s income by interfering more and more in people’s lives as they give themselves more and more rules to enforce, until they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a lesson for today. Economists are quick to speak to speak of ‘market failure,’ and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from ‘government failure.’ Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of their customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.”
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
State Department to Defend Islam Against Free Speech
The Wall Street Journal reported on 5 December on page A-17 that Hillary Clinton has invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to hold a conference in Washington to discuss ways in which governments can prevent their otherwise free newspapers from criticizing Islam. She has said that the conference is to build “muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance” into Western societies that criticize Islam.
For more than 20 years, the OIC has pressed Western governments to restrict speech about Islam. In 2009 the OIC issued fatwas calling for free speech bans, including “international legislation” aimed at protecting “the interests and values of [Islamic] society,” and for judicial punishment for public expression of apostasy from Islam. Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu emphasized that “no one has the right to insult another for their beliefs.” (I wonder if Mr. Ihsanoglu thinks that no one has the right to KILL other people because of their beliefs!)
The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but its leading member states’ practices are illustrative. These states are in the practice of severely punishing de facto “insulters” of Islam and condoning the attack upon their lives and families by Muslim vigilantes.
Civil society must vigorously protect the freedom of its press and of its speech. Any religion or world view that is worth its salt should stand in the strong winds of public criticism and prove its value by open debate. All religions of the world must stand and protect themselves publically, answering the following questions: Which religion teaches us to love our neighbor? Which religion teaches that we should tolerate differing opinions peaceably without resort to violent means for winning converts? Which religion convinces people to believe by means of persuasion rather than force?
Any religion that fails these questions must resort to such agencies as the United States State Department and to legislative coercion in order to protect itself from open debate.
Furthermore, I do not believe that our government has any business meddling in the freedom of our press or speech unless that expression is openly subversive of law and order in our society. Clearly, open criticism of Islam in the press of a Western nation is not disruptive, nor has it advocated overthrow of government based on religion. On the other hand, I cannot say that Islamic regimes have not advocated overthrow of non-Islamic governments. Islam has claimed suzerainty over governments in order to take complete control of them by their religion.
For more than 20 years, the OIC has pressed Western governments to restrict speech about Islam. In 2009 the OIC issued fatwas calling for free speech bans, including “international legislation” aimed at protecting “the interests and values of [Islamic] society,” and for judicial punishment for public expression of apostasy from Islam. Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu emphasized that “no one has the right to insult another for their beliefs.” (I wonder if Mr. Ihsanoglu thinks that no one has the right to KILL other people because of their beliefs!)
The OIC does not define what speech should be outlawed, but its leading member states’ practices are illustrative. These states are in the practice of severely punishing de facto “insulters” of Islam and condoning the attack upon their lives and families by Muslim vigilantes.
Civil society must vigorously protect the freedom of its press and of its speech. Any religion or world view that is worth its salt should stand in the strong winds of public criticism and prove its value by open debate. All religions of the world must stand and protect themselves publically, answering the following questions: Which religion teaches us to love our neighbor? Which religion teaches that we should tolerate differing opinions peaceably without resort to violent means for winning converts? Which religion convinces people to believe by means of persuasion rather than force?
Any religion that fails these questions must resort to such agencies as the United States State Department and to legislative coercion in order to protect itself from open debate.
Furthermore, I do not believe that our government has any business meddling in the freedom of our press or speech unless that expression is openly subversive of law and order in our society. Clearly, open criticism of Islam in the press of a Western nation is not disruptive, nor has it advocated overthrow of government based on religion. On the other hand, I cannot say that Islamic regimes have not advocated overthrow of non-Islamic governments. Islam has claimed suzerainty over governments in order to take complete control of them by their religion.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Should We Slow Down the Rich or Speed Up the Poor?
There is no question about American society, these days. The rich are becoming richer and the poor are becoming poorer. The spread between the two is becoming more marked every day. As I mentioned in my blog post of 23 November, the share of money going to the top 1% of earners in America has increased from 8% in the 1960’s to 20% today. At the same time, incomes of the lower income group have been stagnant for several decades. Observers have noticed that the middle income group has been decreasing in size.
Liberals insist that the way to remedy this situation is to tax the rich, knock them down in the economic hierarchy; and that is supposed to equalize our societal unbalance. I would propose a different approach to the same problem. My approach is founded on the fact that society is becoming more and more sophisticated and requiring of more sophistication in education and training.
I read in the newspapers that even in this recession and period of high unemployment; companies are having trouble finding skilled workers for blue-collar jobs. Welders, diesel mechanics, finish carpenters, etc. are in short supply—simply because those jobs require a higher level of training and education.
It is my opinion that instead of penalizing the upper income group for making money, our society should be working to train up more skilled blue-collar workers and white-collar executives and supervisors. That measure would narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.
Punishing the rich is an exercise in futility. Our government is experiencing a deficit if revenue; and overtaxing the rich will only decrease government revenues. One fact of taxation in the United states is that those who make $1 million/year accounted for about 0.2% of all tax returns but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with adjusted gross income above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of tax filers but paid 50.1% of the $866 billion in total personal income taxes. This means the top 3% paid more than the bottom 97%. Yet the 3% are the people that President Obama claims do not pay their fair share. Before the recession, the $200,000 income group paid 54.5% of the income tax. (Redacted from an editorial by Robert Barron in the Wall Street Journal 8/24/11)
The way to prosperity is to train up the poor and the uneducated to take their proper place in our economic scheme of things. Leave the rich alone and let them earn as much money as they can—that will benefit government revenues. But get the lower classes in our society to bring up their earning capacity.
Liberals insist that the way to remedy this situation is to tax the rich, knock them down in the economic hierarchy; and that is supposed to equalize our societal unbalance. I would propose a different approach to the same problem. My approach is founded on the fact that society is becoming more and more sophisticated and requiring of more sophistication in education and training.
I read in the newspapers that even in this recession and period of high unemployment; companies are having trouble finding skilled workers for blue-collar jobs. Welders, diesel mechanics, finish carpenters, etc. are in short supply—simply because those jobs require a higher level of training and education.
It is my opinion that instead of penalizing the upper income group for making money, our society should be working to train up more skilled blue-collar workers and white-collar executives and supervisors. That measure would narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.
Punishing the rich is an exercise in futility. Our government is experiencing a deficit if revenue; and overtaxing the rich will only decrease government revenues. One fact of taxation in the United states is that those who make $1 million/year accounted for about 0.2% of all tax returns but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with adjusted gross income above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of tax filers but paid 50.1% of the $866 billion in total personal income taxes. This means the top 3% paid more than the bottom 97%. Yet the 3% are the people that President Obama claims do not pay their fair share. Before the recession, the $200,000 income group paid 54.5% of the income tax. (Redacted from an editorial by Robert Barron in the Wall Street Journal 8/24/11)
The way to prosperity is to train up the poor and the uneducated to take their proper place in our economic scheme of things. Leave the rich alone and let them earn as much money as they can—that will benefit government revenues. But get the lower classes in our society to bring up their earning capacity.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Shall We Adopt China’s Ways?
Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union (SIEU) wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on 12/1/11 after he had returned from a trip to Chongqing, a city of 32 million people in western China. In the editorial, he extoled the praises of the Chinese economy. He reported that the bustling Chinese city is building new floor space at a rate of 1.5 million square feet daily, which will include 700,000 units of public housing annually. He reports that China’s 12th five year plan aims at a 7%/year growth plan for the general economy. Western China is programmed for a cloud computing program and automotive/aerospace production. The area is predicted to produce an annual growth rate of 12.5% with a 49% growth in tax revenue each year. Wages there are predicted to advance at a rate of 10%/year.
By way of contrast, Mr. Stern says that in the USA, we have seen a decade of high joblessness, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking of the middle class, and phenomenal gains in wealth by the top 1% of our country’s taxpayers.
His conclusion is that “America needs to embrace a plan for growth and innovation, with streamlined government as a partner with the private sector.” In other words, we need to become more like China.
I am under the impression that China is booming economically precisely because it has adopted western ways of entrepreneurship and combined that change with an extremely low wage scale for laborers—bordering on slave-labor-type wages.
I suppose we, Americans, could do the same as China—as Mr. Stern implies we should. It might require that we give up our penchant for civil rights, personal control of our lives separate from government, and the basic desires we have for human dignity.
But, what more might we expect from a labor leader like Mr. Stern. America’s tradition of profit-seeking entrepreneurship has served us well in the past; and I would guess that China’s use of our system is the main driving force behind that country’s economic success now. If we were to adopt China’s ways, we would obviously have to knuckle under to more government control over business—which effect is proving the death knell to American business under our present administration.
I believe in American private business ownership and the stimulus of true profit making.
Any of you who would like to read more about this subject can link to Mr. Stern’s editorial at (Adopt China's ways?)
By way of contrast, Mr. Stern says that in the USA, we have seen a decade of high joblessness, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking of the middle class, and phenomenal gains in wealth by the top 1% of our country’s taxpayers.
His conclusion is that “America needs to embrace a plan for growth and innovation, with streamlined government as a partner with the private sector.” In other words, we need to become more like China.
I am under the impression that China is booming economically precisely because it has adopted western ways of entrepreneurship and combined that change with an extremely low wage scale for laborers—bordering on slave-labor-type wages.
I suppose we, Americans, could do the same as China—as Mr. Stern implies we should. It might require that we give up our penchant for civil rights, personal control of our lives separate from government, and the basic desires we have for human dignity.
But, what more might we expect from a labor leader like Mr. Stern. America’s tradition of profit-seeking entrepreneurship has served us well in the past; and I would guess that China’s use of our system is the main driving force behind that country’s economic success now. If we were to adopt China’s ways, we would obviously have to knuckle under to more government control over business—which effect is proving the death knell to American business under our present administration.
I believe in American private business ownership and the stimulus of true profit making.
Any of you who would like to read more about this subject can link to Mr. Stern’s editorial at (Adopt China's ways?)
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
We Won’t Stop Until We Kill!
How should young teen-aged girls act? Well…you probably think they should be kind, polite, gentle, and considerate of others. I certainly agree with that kind of mind-picture of acceptable teen behavior. However, it is not always the way things work out in the real world.
Nancy and I have recently moved to a near western suburb of Cleveland, Ohio; and we work in a Christian tutoring program in the inner city of Cleveland; we teach reading skills using the Bible as a text. We serve a population of mostly second-generation African immigrant children. Last week a fight broke out in our classroom between two groups of young teen-aged girls. The weapons used were yelling, pushing, shoving, scratching, hair-pulling and flying fists. Over the ensuing week, one of the groups visited the homes of the other group and left graffiti on their doors and homes. Vile images, words, and threats were painted on the doors. One remark that appeared was, “We won’t stop until we kill!” The whole experience reminded us of the society where we lived in inner city Detroit 15 years ago. It is the picture of the typical rust belt, socially deteriorating, American city.
This kind of experience causes one to think. Hmmm…I wonder if even the Spirit of Christ can penetrate such social and psychological darkness. I wonder how much more liberal immigration policy America can tolerate before our whole society disintegrates into a violent maelstrom of destructiveness. What can we, as Christians, do to stem the tide of such social and spiritual chaos?
Well, I don’t think that Christ is helpless in this situation. I have faith that even out of this violence, hope can spring. But, we, Christians, absolutely must respond to this kind of destructiveness and social/spiritual darkness. We have to tend to these cities and do what we can do to counter such confusion of values and behavior. Please pray with us that Christ and His Spirit may reach the neighborhood where Nancy and I work. HE IS ABLE!!
Nancy and I have recently moved to a near western suburb of Cleveland, Ohio; and we work in a Christian tutoring program in the inner city of Cleveland; we teach reading skills using the Bible as a text. We serve a population of mostly second-generation African immigrant children. Last week a fight broke out in our classroom between two groups of young teen-aged girls. The weapons used were yelling, pushing, shoving, scratching, hair-pulling and flying fists. Over the ensuing week, one of the groups visited the homes of the other group and left graffiti on their doors and homes. Vile images, words, and threats were painted on the doors. One remark that appeared was, “We won’t stop until we kill!” The whole experience reminded us of the society where we lived in inner city Detroit 15 years ago. It is the picture of the typical rust belt, socially deteriorating, American city.
This kind of experience causes one to think. Hmmm…I wonder if even the Spirit of Christ can penetrate such social and psychological darkness. I wonder how much more liberal immigration policy America can tolerate before our whole society disintegrates into a violent maelstrom of destructiveness. What can we, as Christians, do to stem the tide of such social and spiritual chaos?
Well, I don’t think that Christ is helpless in this situation. I have faith that even out of this violence, hope can spring. But, we, Christians, absolutely must respond to this kind of destructiveness and social/spiritual darkness. We have to tend to these cities and do what we can do to counter such confusion of values and behavior. Please pray with us that Christ and His Spirit may reach the neighborhood where Nancy and I work. HE IS ABLE!!
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Increasing American Inequality—Why Is It Happening?
American polity is deteriorating; few can deny that. The Occupy movement is telling us that the masses of poor and middle class Americans are dissatisfied with the economic divisions that are rending apart our cities and our society. We all ask, “Why is this happening?”
At the beginning of the 20th Century, the main goal of American government was to make a better American. The two parties differed on how this was to be done; but the general goal was the same. Over the 1st 60 years of that century, the goal gradually shifted toward a goal of increasing the gross domestic product and distributing it evenly. All seemed to work well at first, and America became the dominant force in the world economy. However, the system began to come apart in the 1960’s and 70’s with the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam War. American liberalism seemed to be taking over; and American business influence on the society reached its nadir.
American business reacted. In the years after World War II, Americans had embraced the ideas of pluralism, which they thought would insulate them against the excesses of communism and fascism, the scourges of the early years of the 20th Century. But then, something very unexpected happened beginning in the 1960’s and 70’s. The voices of traditional American entrepreneurism began to speak loudly and effectively. The forces of egalitarian pluralism were beginning to fade, and selfish private special interests came back in force. Government began to enact laws that favored the rich and the mighty in business. As a result, we are now seeing an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. Thus—the Occupy movement!
Over the last few years, while the country has been suffering from economic recession, the rich have gotten even richer. And not just a little bit richer; a lot richer. In 2009, the average income of the top five percent of earners went up, while on average everyone else's income went down. This was not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a 40-year trend of ballooning incomes at the very top and stagnant incomes in the middle and at the bottom. The share of total income going to the top one percent has increased from roughly eight percent in the 1960s to more than 20 percent today.
All of these changes have not been due to the efforts of the rich. Labor unions have had a share in the cause of economic disruption because of their ever-increasing demands for higher and higher wages and benefits. The unions have effectively caused overseas businesses to prosper and to draw capital out of the United States. The business that went overseas added to the incomes of the already rich in our country.
Obviously, I do not know the answer to this developing economic inequality in our America. Nevertheless, I hope that we, Americans, will recognize the issues and will respond with generosity and true patriotism. We cannot continue to grab for the money and expect our country to flourish.
For those who would further inform themselves on this subject, I would refer them to http://bit.ly/vwGRvi . Thanks for reading!
At the beginning of the 20th Century, the main goal of American government was to make a better American. The two parties differed on how this was to be done; but the general goal was the same. Over the 1st 60 years of that century, the goal gradually shifted toward a goal of increasing the gross domestic product and distributing it evenly. All seemed to work well at first, and America became the dominant force in the world economy. However, the system began to come apart in the 1960’s and 70’s with the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam War. American liberalism seemed to be taking over; and American business influence on the society reached its nadir.
American business reacted. In the years after World War II, Americans had embraced the ideas of pluralism, which they thought would insulate them against the excesses of communism and fascism, the scourges of the early years of the 20th Century. But then, something very unexpected happened beginning in the 1960’s and 70’s. The voices of traditional American entrepreneurism began to speak loudly and effectively. The forces of egalitarian pluralism were beginning to fade, and selfish private special interests came back in force. Government began to enact laws that favored the rich and the mighty in business. As a result, we are now seeing an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. Thus—the Occupy movement!
Over the last few years, while the country has been suffering from economic recession, the rich have gotten even richer. And not just a little bit richer; a lot richer. In 2009, the average income of the top five percent of earners went up, while on average everyone else's income went down. This was not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a 40-year trend of ballooning incomes at the very top and stagnant incomes in the middle and at the bottom. The share of total income going to the top one percent has increased from roughly eight percent in the 1960s to more than 20 percent today.
All of these changes have not been due to the efforts of the rich. Labor unions have had a share in the cause of economic disruption because of their ever-increasing demands for higher and higher wages and benefits. The unions have effectively caused overseas businesses to prosper and to draw capital out of the United States. The business that went overseas added to the incomes of the already rich in our country.
Obviously, I do not know the answer to this developing economic inequality in our America. Nevertheless, I hope that we, Americans, will recognize the issues and will respond with generosity and true patriotism. We cannot continue to grab for the money and expect our country to flourish.
For those who would further inform themselves on this subject, I would refer them to http://bit.ly/vwGRvi . Thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
