Ages ago, after enduring endless rants about President Bush, I would ask, "Has he done anything right?" It was about the only legal technique to silence a liberal at the time.
With the tables turned and with an unpopular Democratic president, I will ask the same question. Has President Obama done anything right?
My own answer is yes, I love that he has whacked Osama, and today the Yemenese/American Al somethingorother and remember the Seals taking out the pirates? Not nearly enough to garner a vote from me, but its something.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
On Saving Jobs
Perhaps you have heard that Democrat Governor Bev Perdue has suggested canceling the 2012 elections. Some partisans are seeking to make this a big issue of course. As for me, I think she is merely trying to help beef up Obama's "jobs saved" numbers.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
First Friday Follies
First Fridays has been a success beyond, I am sure, even the most optimistic prognosticators. So let us destroy it.
A little background. To the best of my recollection, the idea of First Fridays was introduced by former mayor Jim Smith's wife Joyce, who had witnessed such an event in Michigan. I for one thought it a bit silly to have on a Friday as I thought a full fledged street festival or two would have been a better idea. Anyway, First Friday's began several years ago as an effort to get folks downtown to beef up exposure and sales at downtown businesses. Fastforward to today and we routinely have thousands of people flocking to downtown for First Fridays. For the most part the crowd is pretty upscale and largely devoid of troublemakers. And the crowds have increased in part because the city, wisely in my view, has opted to look the other way with respect to open intoxicants on the sidewalks. People just like to walk around with a beer now and again. Regarding sales, as a downtown retailer, I can attest to the fact that First Fridays is not just a drinking event. People buy stuff and that was the whole idea.
But leave it to a handful of the perpetually disgruntled to have an axe to grind. The crowds are too big! Someone has been sneaking in alcohol in a cooler! Someone might get drunk and cause trouble! We might get sued!
The solution to these minor or hypothetical problems is of course to crack down on the open intoxicants on the street according to the pd's - the perpetually disgruntled's. The pd's are seeking meetings with the mayor, the chief of police or whomever else might work to undermine the event. If they are loud and determined enough, they might just force the hand of law enforcement, who may then crack down on the open intoxicants. Before long the crowds will dwindle, the enthusiasm will be gone, the event will wither away along with the customers and the sales. But hey, at least we won't get sued!
A little background. To the best of my recollection, the idea of First Fridays was introduced by former mayor Jim Smith's wife Joyce, who had witnessed such an event in Michigan. I for one thought it a bit silly to have on a Friday as I thought a full fledged street festival or two would have been a better idea. Anyway, First Friday's began several years ago as an effort to get folks downtown to beef up exposure and sales at downtown businesses. Fastforward to today and we routinely have thousands of people flocking to downtown for First Fridays. For the most part the crowd is pretty upscale and largely devoid of troublemakers. And the crowds have increased in part because the city, wisely in my view, has opted to look the other way with respect to open intoxicants on the sidewalks. People just like to walk around with a beer now and again. Regarding sales, as a downtown retailer, I can attest to the fact that First Fridays is not just a drinking event. People buy stuff and that was the whole idea.
But leave it to a handful of the perpetually disgruntled to have an axe to grind. The crowds are too big! Someone has been sneaking in alcohol in a cooler! Someone might get drunk and cause trouble! We might get sued!
The solution to these minor or hypothetical problems is of course to crack down on the open intoxicants on the street according to the pd's - the perpetually disgruntled's. The pd's are seeking meetings with the mayor, the chief of police or whomever else might work to undermine the event. If they are loud and determined enough, they might just force the hand of law enforcement, who may then crack down on the open intoxicants. Before long the crowds will dwindle, the enthusiasm will be gone, the event will wither away along with the customers and the sales. But hey, at least we won't get sued!
Monday, September 19, 2011
Who is Zea?
I encountered a woman the other day wearing a "who is Zea?" T-shirt. So I asked. She turned around, showing the rest of the shirt. Zea is the Zion (Illinois) Education Association. The lady then volunteered that they wear the T-shirt every Friday at school and that it helps not having to think about what to wear that day.
Perhaps it is time for the Zion school district to consider a dress code for teachers. A teachers union is not an innocuous organization. Right or wrong, teachers unions engage in negotiations that, by definition, have two (or more) sides. As such, they can and do lead to contentious exchanges in a given locality.
Why should such an organization be allowed to not-so-subtly propagandize to a captive audience of school children?
Perhaps it is time for the Zion school district to consider a dress code for teachers. A teachers union is not an innocuous organization. Right or wrong, teachers unions engage in negotiations that, by definition, have two (or more) sides. As such, they can and do lead to contentious exchanges in a given locality.
Why should such an organization be allowed to not-so-subtly propagandize to a captive audience of school children?
Monday, September 12, 2011
Why Not Vigilance?
I am glad its 9/12. I can't stand looking at pictures of the burning World Trade Center, people jumping to their deaths etc... still too raw and probably always will be.
Why 9/11 inspires some Americans to lecture us about religious tolerance is a mystery to me. There is only one religion that should use the occasion to lecture its members about religious tolerance and that religion is Islam. It was people inspired by their Islamic faith - correctly interpreted or not - who hijacked airplanes and used them to kill innocents. The battle for tolerance must be fought within the Islamic religion and I stand with all Muslims who condemn the evil perpetrated on 9/11. And I will be damned if I will have tolerance for those who thank Allah for 9/11.
I propose we stop talking incessantly about tolerance on 9/11. It would be far more appropriate to talk about vigilance. We need to physically stop anyone or any group that would perpetrate 9/11 style evil against us. We must also be vigilant in confronting the philosophical underpinnings or justifications for such evil. And those justifications and religious rationalizations are found to varying degrees among far too many Muslims in this world. Vigilance rather than tolerance is the proper response to such a threat.
Why 9/11 inspires some Americans to lecture us about religious tolerance is a mystery to me. There is only one religion that should use the occasion to lecture its members about religious tolerance and that religion is Islam. It was people inspired by their Islamic faith - correctly interpreted or not - who hijacked airplanes and used them to kill innocents. The battle for tolerance must be fought within the Islamic religion and I stand with all Muslims who condemn the evil perpetrated on 9/11. And I will be damned if I will have tolerance for those who thank Allah for 9/11.
I propose we stop talking incessantly about tolerance on 9/11. It would be far more appropriate to talk about vigilance. We need to physically stop anyone or any group that would perpetrate 9/11 style evil against us. We must also be vigilant in confronting the philosophical underpinnings or justifications for such evil. And those justifications and religious rationalizations are found to varying degrees among far too many Muslims in this world. Vigilance rather than tolerance is the proper response to such a threat.
Monday, September 05, 2011
Economic Development 101
I have to give Racine mayor John Dickert credit for scrapping the money hemorrhaging artist relocation program. Read all about it here.
That said, I think he should also scrap the equally doomed NSP, aka the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Instead, the mayor is doubling down. According to the JT article: "The next step, the mayor said, will be to move Neighborhood Stabilization Program efforts into the Uptown area next year. Those federal funds may be used to buy foreclosed homes and either rehabilitate them or raze them and rebuild."
The artist relocation program and the NSP house flipping program are virtually identical schemes. They use federal money to buy up distressed properties. They pour lots of money and time into them and then sell them at a huge loss.
There is simply no way that this will work. The city must comply with all sorts of regulations that mom and pop house flippers can avoid, thus driving up the costs well beyond the properties potential selling price. The city further ensures losses by insisting on home ownership, thus reducing the potential number of buyers which in turn puts downward pressure on the sale price.
Top down, government directed economic development just doesn't work, locally or nationally - consider stimulus packages 1 - ? If we must spend our federal money on local redevelopment efforts, it would make far more sense to keep the government out of it as much as possible.
Here is a suggestion. Don't interfere with development efforts. Recognize that developments of all kinds will result in investment, therefor jobs and ultimately higher property values that you can tax. Recognize also that developers aren't developing in large part because they know full well that you will tax the hell out of them. Alleviate this reality based fear with a check, courtesy of unwitting taxpayers from everywhere. Put simply, reduce the cost of investing, those costs that you have driven through the roof with high taxes and a hypermeddling - yah I made that word up - economic development team. Do this and we might get some actual development in this town.
That said, I think he should also scrap the equally doomed NSP, aka the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Instead, the mayor is doubling down. According to the JT article: "The next step, the mayor said, will be to move Neighborhood Stabilization Program efforts into the Uptown area next year. Those federal funds may be used to buy foreclosed homes and either rehabilitate them or raze them and rebuild."
The artist relocation program and the NSP house flipping program are virtually identical schemes. They use federal money to buy up distressed properties. They pour lots of money and time into them and then sell them at a huge loss.
There is simply no way that this will work. The city must comply with all sorts of regulations that mom and pop house flippers can avoid, thus driving up the costs well beyond the properties potential selling price. The city further ensures losses by insisting on home ownership, thus reducing the potential number of buyers which in turn puts downward pressure on the sale price.
Top down, government directed economic development just doesn't work, locally or nationally - consider stimulus packages 1 - ? If we must spend our federal money on local redevelopment efforts, it would make far more sense to keep the government out of it as much as possible.
Here is a suggestion. Don't interfere with development efforts. Recognize that developments of all kinds will result in investment, therefor jobs and ultimately higher property values that you can tax. Recognize also that developers aren't developing in large part because they know full well that you will tax the hell out of them. Alleviate this reality based fear with a check, courtesy of unwitting taxpayers from everywhere. Put simply, reduce the cost of investing, those costs that you have driven through the roof with high taxes and a hypermeddling - yah I made that word up - economic development team. Do this and we might get some actual development in this town.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Cognitive Indifference
The Obama administration, via the Eric Holder Justice Department, sued to block an AT&T and T-Mobile merger. In so doing, they offered a great rationale in favor of breaking up the government monopoly on education by saying the merger "would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the country facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services." So there is the proof that they know the damage caused by monopolies, but Obama and the left nonetheless is intent on keeping the government education monopoly rolling. This might cause some on the left to experience cognitive dissonance, but then again, that condition presupposes cognition.
Actually, in this regard, I don't really think the left is being stupid. Rather, I think they know full well that the government education monopoly results in "higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality." This is not "for the children." It is for the left to keep as much power as possible. I would have more respect for the left if they were merely stupid, but consigning children to education wastelands while using them to maintain political power is unconscionable.
Actually, in this regard, I don't really think the left is being stupid. Rather, I think they know full well that the government education monopoly results in "higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality." This is not "for the children." It is for the left to keep as much power as possible. I would have more respect for the left if they were merely stupid, but consigning children to education wastelands while using them to maintain political power is unconscionable.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Burglars Welcomed
The JT has an article today about a would be candy business and a controversy over their burglar bars.
To summarize the articles contents, there is a proposal for candy store in the inner city that has come before the city council. The building that would house the candy store has burglar bars. The city council has voted to approve a conditional use permit allowing the burglar bars while Mayor Dickert has promised to veto approval, noting that "bars are a horrible example of what the city should be."
I am of the opinion that the government should not concern themselves with how business or property owners protect their property from criminals. Will the city pay for the losses when the candy store is burglarized? Of course not.
The larger problem is, as I have stated numerous times in the past, the conditional use permitting requirement. In bygone days, property uses were constrained only by zoning decisions. When I opened my business in Racine several years ago, there was no conditional use permit required. I was setting up a business in an area zoned for business and I was not required to grovel to local politicians. This is how it should be.
However, we now have a conditional use permit requirement. This allows all business property decisions to be subject to political considerations. Risks abound when opening a business as it is, but the conditional use permit greatly magnifies said risks. Typically, there is considerable time, energy, and money expended prior to any business venture. In Racine now, even legal businesses in properly zoned areas are prevented by government from opening. Why bother considering Racine as a place to invest?
Of course property owners and politicians have divergent interests. Politicians, in this case are interested in combatting a perception of crime. The business owner is interested in combatting actual crimes. To politicians, burglar bars harm their fight against the perception of crime. To a property owner, burglar bars help their fight against actual crime. As you can clearly see, the needs of the politicians are quite different from the needs of this property owner. And now, thanks to the conditional use permit, property owners can now be used to fulfill the needs of politicians. That is not why people buy property and it will of course undermine a property's value.
Now on to this crime perception problem. If there were no crime in Racine I could fathom an argument outlawing burglar bars, video surveillance, heck, even locks. But crime exists and government has no business preventing people from efforts to deter crime. The city should join in this effort to combat actual crimes and, to the extent they are successful, the image problem will go away.
Perhaps the real problem with burglar bars for politicians is that they are a visual reminder of the politicians failure to control crime. But then, when your policies create incentives for criminals, what should you expect?
To summarize the articles contents, there is a proposal for candy store in the inner city that has come before the city council. The building that would house the candy store has burglar bars. The city council has voted to approve a conditional use permit allowing the burglar bars while Mayor Dickert has promised to veto approval, noting that "bars are a horrible example of what the city should be."
I am of the opinion that the government should not concern themselves with how business or property owners protect their property from criminals. Will the city pay for the losses when the candy store is burglarized? Of course not.
The larger problem is, as I have stated numerous times in the past, the conditional use permitting requirement. In bygone days, property uses were constrained only by zoning decisions. When I opened my business in Racine several years ago, there was no conditional use permit required. I was setting up a business in an area zoned for business and I was not required to grovel to local politicians. This is how it should be.
However, we now have a conditional use permit requirement. This allows all business property decisions to be subject to political considerations. Risks abound when opening a business as it is, but the conditional use permit greatly magnifies said risks. Typically, there is considerable time, energy, and money expended prior to any business venture. In Racine now, even legal businesses in properly zoned areas are prevented by government from opening. Why bother considering Racine as a place to invest?
Of course property owners and politicians have divergent interests. Politicians, in this case are interested in combatting a perception of crime. The business owner is interested in combatting actual crimes. To politicians, burglar bars harm their fight against the perception of crime. To a property owner, burglar bars help their fight against actual crime. As you can clearly see, the needs of the politicians are quite different from the needs of this property owner. And now, thanks to the conditional use permit, property owners can now be used to fulfill the needs of politicians. That is not why people buy property and it will of course undermine a property's value.
Now on to this crime perception problem. If there were no crime in Racine I could fathom an argument outlawing burglar bars, video surveillance, heck, even locks. But crime exists and government has no business preventing people from efforts to deter crime. The city should join in this effort to combat actual crimes and, to the extent they are successful, the image problem will go away.
Perhaps the real problem with burglar bars for politicians is that they are a visual reminder of the politicians failure to control crime. But then, when your policies create incentives for criminals, what should you expect?
Monday, August 22, 2011
Cranleyism Is Here!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fascism is here, says Sean Cranley in a JT commentary. If you manage to ignore the usual blather - comparisons to Mussolini etc..._ that make up 95% of the screed and search hard for the scary facts, well, here they are: Robin Vos is apparently chairman of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) Wisconsin and he attended their national convention.
There is so little "there" there that it is no wonder Sean has to hyperventilate about fascism, secret organizations run by scary corporations intent to "take power away from the people and enact laws favorable to mega-global corporations" blah blah blah.
Last time I checked, people, via voluntary association with others, still have the right to petition their government. That is what ALEC and virtually every other lobbying outfit does. It is true of course that some such associations have undue influence that is harmful to society - government unions come to mind- but the real problem with ALEC is that Sean disagrees with their agenda.
To which I respond with a big Hitleresque yawn.
There is so little "there" there that it is no wonder Sean has to hyperventilate about fascism, secret organizations run by scary corporations intent to "take power away from the people and enact laws favorable to mega-global corporations" blah blah blah.
Last time I checked, people, via voluntary association with others, still have the right to petition their government. That is what ALEC and virtually every other lobbying outfit does. It is true of course that some such associations have undue influence that is harmful to society - government unions come to mind- but the real problem with ALEC is that Sean disagrees with their agenda.
To which I respond with a big Hitleresque yawn.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Flexible Founders
A day or so ago one Nikki Fisher submitted a letter to the JT editor asserting a "founding fathers' mandate of free education for all." And today, I challenged this assertion at root river siren, here, scroll to "In Defense of Teachers" thread. Read the lefty responses for fun. I especially enjoyed Sean's efforts, including his citing of section 16 of Jefferson's Land Ordinance of 1785 for "establishing a mechanism for funding public education."
You won't find anything remotely approaching a mandate for a free public education from our founders, as none exists. But the exercise will provide a window into the essence of leftiness, wherein you can twist, fabricate, exaggerate, etc... until you have convinced yourself that what you wish to be true is indeed true, actual truth be damned.
You won't find anything remotely approaching a mandate for a free public education from our founders, as none exists. But the exercise will provide a window into the essence of leftiness, wherein you can twist, fabricate, exaggerate, etc... until you have convinced yourself that what you wish to be true is indeed true, actual truth be damned.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Bush To Blame
I nearly laughed out loud when listening to Don Rosen's radio program this morning. He and another liberal were talking about Obamacare while trying to figure out any reasons why conservatives were against it. All they could come up with was that they opposed it because Obama favored it. Really Don?
Here's one. How about the breathtaking assertion that the federal government, for the very first time, can force individuals to purchase a product from a private company.
I have a question or two for Don Rosen. Why is it that you are unable to accurately summarize a conservative argument? Did George Bush do this to you?
Here's one. How about the breathtaking assertion that the federal government, for the very first time, can force individuals to purchase a product from a private company.
I have a question or two for Don Rosen. Why is it that you are unable to accurately summarize a conservative argument? Did George Bush do this to you?
A Homophobic Nightmare
I was selling my wares this weekend at a Chicago street festival well known as the biggest party for gays in the midwest. My tent was positioned directly opposite the events premiere concert stage. Unbeknownst to me, someone from the cast of Glee was to perform there. Everything was going along just fine until the concert started, at which point the crowd suddenly and dramatically overwhelmed the area, and I found myself in the way of thousands of Glee fans. My booth was surrounded and the pressure from the massive crowd nearly upended my tables and I seriously considered the possibility that my entire display would be overrun by the crowd. Alas I and my merchandise survived and, while this was not by any stretch an ideal situation for commerce, I am now able to amuse myself by having survived what must surely be a homophobes worst nightmare - being crushed to death by a horde of Glee fans.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Money Relocation Project a Smashing Success
Racine's ballyhooed Uptown Artist Relocation Program, now in its fourth year, has relocated zero artists. It has relocated, as in lost, over $400,000 in taxpayer money. Yes, the city bought a building for $120 K, renovated it to the tune of $400 K, and flipped it for $111 K to some folks who will open a Chinese restaurant.
A horrific failure? Not according to program director Brian O'Connell. "We're getting a lot of the things we got into the Uptown project for" O'Connell told the RJT.
What were getting is zero artists and a $400,000 plus loss. If the city views this as a success, what, I wonder, would they consider failure.
A horrific failure? Not according to program director Brian O'Connell. "We're getting a lot of the things we got into the Uptown project for" O'Connell told the RJT.
What were getting is zero artists and a $400,000 plus loss. If the city views this as a success, what, I wonder, would they consider failure.
Classism, Ageism, Racism?
The Journal Times today reports a new RUSD policy wherein a photo ID is required to attend a football game. Why would RUSD want to discriminate against the poor, the elderly, and minorities?
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Broke Teacher Fallacy
If I had any hair I would have pulled it all out listening to WRJN's Don Rosen this morning. Before I tuned in, apparently a public employee explained his or her financial burdens caused by Governor Walker's controversial bill limiting union bargaining power. Said employee now paid X number of dollars more for benefits than before the passage of the Walker bill. According to Mr Rosen this "lost" money would not be spent at local businesses etc....., harming them and also lowering the take for government, meaning fewer services etc....
I had to call into the show, but before I got through another caller made a valiant effort to educate Mr Rosen, to no avail. I likewise was unsuccessful.
Mr Rosen commits a common mistake. He was only able to grasp the consequences of the money not in the hands of the public employee. He was unable to consider the additional money not confiscated by government that remained in the hands of taxpayers.
I believe there is even a name for this mistake. I think it is called the broken window fallacy. If someone were to throw a brick threw my window, I would no doubt spend money having my window replaced. This would be good for window makers and installers. The window installer would go to the restaurant perhaps after getting paid and this would be good for the restaurant etc....
What Don Rosen apparently fails to realize is that the money spent for my window otherwise could have gone for other purchases, helping other businesses etc... Likewise he fails to realize that the money not spent by taxpayers for the public employee is money that might be spent in restaurants etc...
It isn't exactly a wash. It is better for people to spend their own money as they are more likely to spend it wisely compared to those spending other people's money.
I had to call into the show, but before I got through another caller made a valiant effort to educate Mr Rosen, to no avail. I likewise was unsuccessful.
Mr Rosen commits a common mistake. He was only able to grasp the consequences of the money not in the hands of the public employee. He was unable to consider the additional money not confiscated by government that remained in the hands of taxpayers.
I believe there is even a name for this mistake. I think it is called the broken window fallacy. If someone were to throw a brick threw my window, I would no doubt spend money having my window replaced. This would be good for window makers and installers. The window installer would go to the restaurant perhaps after getting paid and this would be good for the restaurant etc....
What Don Rosen apparently fails to realize is that the money spent for my window otherwise could have gone for other purchases, helping other businesses etc... Likewise he fails to realize that the money not spent by taxpayers for the public employee is money that might be spent in restaurants etc...
It isn't exactly a wash. It is better for people to spend their own money as they are more likely to spend it wisely compared to those spending other people's money.
Good Point
Leave it to the great philosopher/economist Dr Sowell to make a great point missed by everyone else. That is, our debt ceiling laws do not in fact put a ceiling on our debt.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
An Explanation
I thought I should take a moment and explain the lack of activity, on my part, with this blog. I suspect it is somewhat temporary, but I just haven't been thinking about politics too much lately. Rather, I have been enjoying the good weather, I have been riding my bike in an effort to drop some pounds (15 so far), I have been playing tennis with my son, work has picked up etc.... so I have been ignoring the blog for a bit. But carry on please and I will get back into it again when the spirit moves me.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Facts and Opinions
The Journal Times yesterday "separated facts from the spin" on school vouchers. This fact checking exercise found that it is indeed true that school vouchers "would cause property taxes to increase by $10 million in the program's third year when enrollment caps cease." Unified officials would lose roughly $10 million in funding because of school vouchers, yet, despite losing 4200 students or roughly 20% of the student body, they would find $0 savings, thus requiring a $10 million tax increase.
This "fact" tells us little to nothing about vouchers and all you need to know about Racine Unified. How is it possible that RUSD could lose twenty percent of their students and be unable to save any money? Consolidate, close a few schools perhaps. Reduce staff maybe. No and no apparently.
Is Unified management incompetent? Well yes, if you believe their goal is to provide the best education for children in the most cost effective manner for taxpayers. But I have long since recognized that educating children is a secondary objective for Racine Unified. The primary objective is to maximize the number of Unified employees and their wage, benefit and retirement haul. Once you realize this fact, you will also realize that Unified is extraordinarily competent in achieving its objectives.
So yes, it is a fact that Unified could lose twenty percent of its students and still demand the same $'s from the taxpayers. And it is my opinion that we should not give billions of $'s to so corrupt an organization.
This "fact" tells us little to nothing about vouchers and all you need to know about Racine Unified. How is it possible that RUSD could lose twenty percent of their students and be unable to save any money? Consolidate, close a few schools perhaps. Reduce staff maybe. No and no apparently.
Is Unified management incompetent? Well yes, if you believe their goal is to provide the best education for children in the most cost effective manner for taxpayers. But I have long since recognized that educating children is a secondary objective for Racine Unified. The primary objective is to maximize the number of Unified employees and their wage, benefit and retirement haul. Once you realize this fact, you will also realize that Unified is extraordinarily competent in achieving its objectives.
So yes, it is a fact that Unified could lose twenty percent of its students and still demand the same $'s from the taxpayers. And it is my opinion that we should not give billions of $'s to so corrupt an organization.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
On the Limits of Secular Morality
In my most recent post Sean writes "Both religion and morality are both the result of evolution, they're genetic. The difference between religious and secular morality is superficial."
I have heard some variant of this point on countless occasions and have often wondered and asked why an adherent to the secular world view would be motivated to behave morally. After all, there is no higher authority than the government, so why not do whatever suits you so long as you don't get caught? Inevitably the response is that via our logic we conclude that, if we want to be treated well by others, we will first treat others well. The golden rule in other words. Let us for the sake of argument ignore any religious connection to the golden rule and let us assume it is simply a product of the evolution and logic of mankind.
The golden rule absent God will not work. Suppose you were in the market for a gold watch. Suddenly a man appears before you on the street with just the watch you were looking for. He offers it for $1,000, roughly 20% less than the sale price at the established jewelry store. Just cause he is a swell guy, he offers a 5 year warranty when the jewelry store offers only 3 years. According to the golden rule, if you want to be trusted you should trust others first. You should buy the watch, but you violate the golden rule instead.
Another example. You are a wealthy individual with good credit. You have just been diagnosed with an incurable cancer and have but a few weeks to live. You have no heirs to worry about. Similarly, since you are about to die, you have no concerns in the least about how others may treat you in the future that doesn't exist for you. The golden rule has been rendered pointless for you. Time to screw some people who have wronged you. So you burn down the house of an ex. You blow up a business. You buy a very expensive car or two on credit and you trash them. The golden rule was useful for a while but not anymore. Why not have some fun?
If someone can explain how the golden rule can work absent a higher authority that serves to constrain our base impulses, please have a go at it.
I have heard some variant of this point on countless occasions and have often wondered and asked why an adherent to the secular world view would be motivated to behave morally. After all, there is no higher authority than the government, so why not do whatever suits you so long as you don't get caught? Inevitably the response is that via our logic we conclude that, if we want to be treated well by others, we will first treat others well. The golden rule in other words. Let us for the sake of argument ignore any religious connection to the golden rule and let us assume it is simply a product of the evolution and logic of mankind.
The golden rule absent God will not work. Suppose you were in the market for a gold watch. Suddenly a man appears before you on the street with just the watch you were looking for. He offers it for $1,000, roughly 20% less than the sale price at the established jewelry store. Just cause he is a swell guy, he offers a 5 year warranty when the jewelry store offers only 3 years. According to the golden rule, if you want to be trusted you should trust others first. You should buy the watch, but you violate the golden rule instead.
Another example. You are a wealthy individual with good credit. You have just been diagnosed with an incurable cancer and have but a few weeks to live. You have no heirs to worry about. Similarly, since you are about to die, you have no concerns in the least about how others may treat you in the future that doesn't exist for you. The golden rule has been rendered pointless for you. Time to screw some people who have wronged you. So you burn down the house of an ex. You blow up a business. You buy a very expensive car or two on credit and you trash them. The golden rule was useful for a while but not anymore. Why not have some fun?
If someone can explain how the golden rule can work absent a higher authority that serves to constrain our base impulses, please have a go at it.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Competing Morality
I am still scratching my head over the pronouncement, in the Racine Journal Times yesterday, by "public school officials," that school vouchers are "morally wrong."
From what moral system does this pronouncement flow? Since this is the public schools with their exquisite sensitivity about the separation of church and state, I am quite certain that this is not stemming from a traditional religious morality.
That leaves us with a secular progressive, godless based morality, and indeed, according to that system of morality, vouchers would be "morally wrong." Wrong because it weakens the state, which wants to be the ultimate authority on all issues, moral or otherwise. Wrong because it violates the belief that the state, given proper resources, will best prepare students for the future - a secularly progressive future.
Let us not kid ourselves. The public school system teaches religion all day long. It is a secular progressive religion and the state is the ultimate source of all that is good. And it doesn't want its religion having to compete against any others. Is it any wonder they thing vouchers are "morally wrong?"
From what moral system does this pronouncement flow? Since this is the public schools with their exquisite sensitivity about the separation of church and state, I am quite certain that this is not stemming from a traditional religious morality.
That leaves us with a secular progressive, godless based morality, and indeed, according to that system of morality, vouchers would be "morally wrong." Wrong because it weakens the state, which wants to be the ultimate authority on all issues, moral or otherwise. Wrong because it violates the belief that the state, given proper resources, will best prepare students for the future - a secularly progressive future.
Let us not kid ourselves. The public school system teaches religion all day long. It is a secular progressive religion and the state is the ultimate source of all that is good. And it doesn't want its religion having to compete against any others. Is it any wonder they thing vouchers are "morally wrong?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)