It
has recently been reported that some public schools are forbidding
their students from displaying in any way their acceptance by a college
of their choice. They cannot high five or brag to anyone. Their
teachers cannot congratulate them in class. The reason? Why the poor
little student who was not accepted might be upset. Their ego might be
harmed by the fact that someone fared better than they. Some of these
schools even go so far as to advise students to refer any student they
see crying to the counselor’s office. There they can receive the solace
they so desperately need.
It
is hard to believe but there are some public schools that have
eliminated the valedictorian program. Again the reason is so that other
less accomplished students will not suffer damage to their poor self
image. Apparently being the best is no longer considered a good thing.
We wouldn’t want all the others, slackers, goof offs and under achievers
to feel bad. It would seem that the “educational community” believes we
all are equal and no one should stand out. It is somewhat similar to a
little league game where all of the players get a trophy whether they
win or lose.
Well
guess what? That ain’t the real world. The world is a competitive
place. Success both in getting a good job and succeeding in that job is
not a matter of chance. Employers are looking for the best. They seek
out the best students because they rightfully believe these people will
become the best employees. Members of the “educational community” seem
to think that all the world is like their school where everybody just
goes through life with a guaranteed job and their future is secure just
because they show up. I sometimes wonder if these kinds of thoughts are
the results of aging 60’s hippies. Many of them who survived their
excesses of youth are now in positions of authority. A lot of them
gyrated toward education because they thought it would be an easy life
with a lot of time off. The big difference is that they have to bathe on
a regular basis, but I guess they could make that concession.
The
problem with most of our public schools is they really do not know what
it takes to succeed in the real world. The same is true, in large
measure, in colleges. Most members of the academic set have never
actually faced life in a competitive world with profit as the ulterior
motive. Tenure is an artificial commodity that exists in educational
institutions in order to insure the jobs of educators whether they are
competent or not. That is not a part of the real world. In the real
world you have to produce or else.
I
have even heard of schools that choose not to give out any grades on
anything. This, they opine, means that no one would ever fail and their
little images of themselves would not suffer. Of course it also means no
one could ever succeed. A side benefit from such a system to the
teachers is there is no way of determining the proficiency of that
teacher. Are they competent or are they not? There is no way to know.
Here
is an inescapable truth. Most people coming out of school will have to
earn a living. Most will have to get a job and perform and their bruised
self image is their problem. There are no free rides or free lunches.
So, my advice, “Suck it up Buttercup.” Study and learn your lessons
whether your teacher is competent or not. In the final analysis it is
going to be up to you.
Ron Scarbro April 25, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
MORE FOOD POLICE NONSENSE
This
morning I was watching a TV program and here comes the “food police.”
She was a gorgeous twenty-something hard body whose task it was to teach
me the evils of sugar. According to her most of the food we eat in this
country is poisonous and we are all doomed unless we change our ways.
She proffered that the sugar content in virtually everything was just
too high and that eating these foods would kill us. It was just a matter
of time. It’s a good thing she was pretty otherwise I would have tuned
her out immediately.
Last week some young man, again very young, was talking about that fatal food, fat. His thesis was that virtually all of the foods we eat are loaded with fat and it was going to kill us. Both of the young food police people were passionate about their positions. I am sure that in their heart of hearts they believe what they are saying.
In the very recent past the Mayor of New York City launched a campaign to curtail the consumption of salt. He also signed into law an edict that regulates the type of cooking oil that can be used by restaurants. It would seem there is no area of our freedom of choice that is immune from the long arm of the “do gooders” and those who believe they know best.
Well I have some thoughts for them. My father recently died at the ripe old age of 92. He was born and raised in the south. He ate the southern diet from the time he was born until his death. What is the southern diet? Have you heard of Paula Deen? The southern diet consists of a lot of pork, both the meat and the fat. Often the fat is used to make gravy. Mostly that gravy is poured over biscuits and mashed potatoes. Vegetables are cooked in bacon grease. I mean all vegetables. Butter is a common condiment. Other meats are seemingly always fried. You have to do that so you will have some grease left over to make the gravy.
I myself am a son of the south. I love the southern diet. My wife, on the other hand, is a little more picky about what she eats. Oh well, you can’t please everybody. If someone told me that I would have to stop eating the foods I love and change to boiled meat, steamed vegetables, no gravy, no biscuits and no butter or else, I think I would have to take or else. There are some things that are worse than death. For example steamed vegetables, boiled meat, etc. My father had a good life. He lived it on his terms and I assure you, he never once concerned himself with the fat or sugar content of the foods he ate.
I truly understand one’s food choices are very personal. There are mayonnaise people and there are mustard people, and you know who you are. For that reason, I promise never to criticize your choices. I will never make fun of you for destroying perfectly good food by trying to satisfy the food police. Chicken needs to be fried. Mashed potatoes need gravy. Biscuits need butter. For me to deny these truths is a choice with which I would not be comfortable.
Oh and by the way, the young hard bellies who feel the need to lecture me on food choices will, if they are lucky, grow old and their hard bodies will sag, and their tight skin will show the years like the rest of us. And who knows, they might even become fortunate enough some day to taste real food before they die. I can only hope they will be so lucky. If they ever do, they will quickly turn in their food police badges.
Ron Scarbro April 18, 2012
Last week some young man, again very young, was talking about that fatal food, fat. His thesis was that virtually all of the foods we eat are loaded with fat and it was going to kill us. Both of the young food police people were passionate about their positions. I am sure that in their heart of hearts they believe what they are saying.
In the very recent past the Mayor of New York City launched a campaign to curtail the consumption of salt. He also signed into law an edict that regulates the type of cooking oil that can be used by restaurants. It would seem there is no area of our freedom of choice that is immune from the long arm of the “do gooders” and those who believe they know best.
Well I have some thoughts for them. My father recently died at the ripe old age of 92. He was born and raised in the south. He ate the southern diet from the time he was born until his death. What is the southern diet? Have you heard of Paula Deen? The southern diet consists of a lot of pork, both the meat and the fat. Often the fat is used to make gravy. Mostly that gravy is poured over biscuits and mashed potatoes. Vegetables are cooked in bacon grease. I mean all vegetables. Butter is a common condiment. Other meats are seemingly always fried. You have to do that so you will have some grease left over to make the gravy.
I myself am a son of the south. I love the southern diet. My wife, on the other hand, is a little more picky about what she eats. Oh well, you can’t please everybody. If someone told me that I would have to stop eating the foods I love and change to boiled meat, steamed vegetables, no gravy, no biscuits and no butter or else, I think I would have to take or else. There are some things that are worse than death. For example steamed vegetables, boiled meat, etc. My father had a good life. He lived it on his terms and I assure you, he never once concerned himself with the fat or sugar content of the foods he ate.
I truly understand one’s food choices are very personal. There are mayonnaise people and there are mustard people, and you know who you are. For that reason, I promise never to criticize your choices. I will never make fun of you for destroying perfectly good food by trying to satisfy the food police. Chicken needs to be fried. Mashed potatoes need gravy. Biscuits need butter. For me to deny these truths is a choice with which I would not be comfortable.
Oh and by the way, the young hard bellies who feel the need to lecture me on food choices will, if they are lucky, grow old and their hard bodies will sag, and their tight skin will show the years like the rest of us. And who knows, they might even become fortunate enough some day to taste real food before they die. I can only hope they will be so lucky. If they ever do, they will quickly turn in their food police badges.
Ron Scarbro April 18, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
IS IT ATHENS OR IS IT LOS ANGELES?
Los
Angeles, California has just announced that unless they immediately
change their entire financial set-up, they will have to file bankruptcy.
They are facing a budget shortfall of hundreds of millions and that
deficit is growing every day. The city officials have proposed tax
increases as well as privatizing many of the city’s services. Unfunded
liabilities such as retirement funds are facing massive shortages. Of
course, as you would imagine, there are still some who are fighting this
inevitability. The “kick the can down the road” crowd is alive and
well. The state of California is in no better shape though. They are
facing many of the same problems as their most populated city. Unlike
the Federal Government, state and local governments cannot operate with
deficit budgets. They have to balance. It would appear that Greece has
come to California.
Now, lest you begin to feel smug, many states and municipalities are in the same boat. For the past several years governments have spent as if the money would never dry up. They have not even considered the possibility that the gravy train could come to an end. We used to say they have spent like a “drunken sailor.” I was told recently, however, that the difference was that drunken sailors spent their own money while governments spend other people’s money. Regardless of how we got to this point, we are here.
It is simple enough to look across the sea to countries such as Greece to see what is on the horizon for us. The Federal Government has already told many states that there will be no bail-out. Apparently all that money has already been spent for political favors and other phony/baloney “green” projects under the guise of stimulus.
Greece has had to initiate new austerity programs and completely change their tax and spending in order to be bailed out by the European Union. Otherwise they would now be in default. Greek citizens are having a difficult time dealing with their new normal. They are still today rioting in the streets. Is that the future for Los Angeles? When retirement checks bounce, will those recipients, teachers, policemen, and firefighters, hit the streets and march in protest?
Margaret Thatcher once said that the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. Liberalism and socialism are intimately related and clearly the money is drying up. Governments have to understand that there are limits on how much they can tax and spend. The producers among us will not continue to support the non-producers. We cannot continue to live with massive budget deficits.
What is it going to take for us, all of us, to realize this is a dead end street? Will we have to face countrywide bankruptcy? Who would bail us out? We are the last bastion of free enterprise left on earth. If we go under, the world goes under.
Two things have to happen immediately. Number one, we have to get our economic engine back on track. That can only be done by the government getting out of the way and allowing it to occur. We must eliminate onerous regulations and restrictions. Rein in the EPA. Reduce the tax burden on business to allow for their growth. It is really simple. For government revenue to increase, we must have more contributors to the tax system. The second thing is that governments have to understand that they cannot be all things to all people. Politicians have to realize that they absolutely cannot continue to try to buy votes with spending programs. Spending has to coincide with revenue. Quit spending tomorrow’s revenue for today’s programs. If the money isn’t there, don’t vote for the program, period.
Quality California businesses are packing their bags and moving to Texas where the business climate is far more to their liking. Productive citizens are leaving that beautiful state as well.
California voters, you surely know what your problem is and yet you seem to ignore it. You keep electing liberal politicians who will never fix your situation. If you think the rest of the country is going to bail you out, you are sadly mistaken.
Ron Scarbro April 11, 2012
Now, lest you begin to feel smug, many states and municipalities are in the same boat. For the past several years governments have spent as if the money would never dry up. They have not even considered the possibility that the gravy train could come to an end. We used to say they have spent like a “drunken sailor.” I was told recently, however, that the difference was that drunken sailors spent their own money while governments spend other people’s money. Regardless of how we got to this point, we are here.
It is simple enough to look across the sea to countries such as Greece to see what is on the horizon for us. The Federal Government has already told many states that there will be no bail-out. Apparently all that money has already been spent for political favors and other phony/baloney “green” projects under the guise of stimulus.
Greece has had to initiate new austerity programs and completely change their tax and spending in order to be bailed out by the European Union. Otherwise they would now be in default. Greek citizens are having a difficult time dealing with their new normal. They are still today rioting in the streets. Is that the future for Los Angeles? When retirement checks bounce, will those recipients, teachers, policemen, and firefighters, hit the streets and march in protest?
Margaret Thatcher once said that the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. Liberalism and socialism are intimately related and clearly the money is drying up. Governments have to understand that there are limits on how much they can tax and spend. The producers among us will not continue to support the non-producers. We cannot continue to live with massive budget deficits.
What is it going to take for us, all of us, to realize this is a dead end street? Will we have to face countrywide bankruptcy? Who would bail us out? We are the last bastion of free enterprise left on earth. If we go under, the world goes under.
Two things have to happen immediately. Number one, we have to get our economic engine back on track. That can only be done by the government getting out of the way and allowing it to occur. We must eliminate onerous regulations and restrictions. Rein in the EPA. Reduce the tax burden on business to allow for their growth. It is really simple. For government revenue to increase, we must have more contributors to the tax system. The second thing is that governments have to understand that they cannot be all things to all people. Politicians have to realize that they absolutely cannot continue to try to buy votes with spending programs. Spending has to coincide with revenue. Quit spending tomorrow’s revenue for today’s programs. If the money isn’t there, don’t vote for the program, period.
Quality California businesses are packing their bags and moving to Texas where the business climate is far more to their liking. Productive citizens are leaving that beautiful state as well.
California voters, you surely know what your problem is and yet you seem to ignore it. You keep electing liberal politicians who will never fix your situation. If you think the rest of the country is going to bail you out, you are sadly mistaken.
Ron Scarbro April 11, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
THE WRONG SIDE
Regular
readers of these columns no doubt understand they are written from the
right side of political thinking. I think and write from the right side
because to me the opposite of right is wrong. Recently I have published
some columns on the skyrocketing price of gasoline and oil. As you might
expect, some from the other side have taken exception to some of my
more cogent comments. Today I will try to examine some of the comments
from the “wrong side.”
I have written that the high price of gasoline is laid at the feet of the President. He has failed in his duty to open up exploration and drilling. He has failed to approve the Keystone pipeline project. The “wrong side” would have you believe high prices are not Obama’s fault. They contend that oil prices are determined by world supply and demand and our president has no control over those prices. Actually, oil prices are only partially controlled by world demand and supply. Do you know what else determines the price? Speculation. Not just by supply and demand, but also by pure unadulterated speculation. So let us speculate for a moment.
What do you suppose would happen to the worldwide price of oil if President Obama held a press conference broadcast to the entire world, which most are anyway, and made the following announcements. The United States will immediately begin drilling in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico and open up all tapped wells which have already been drilled. The United States will immediately approve the Keystone Pipeline project and begin building enough refineries to handle the increased supply. In addition we will immediately begin drilling and recovering natural gas which has already been discovered. We will also increase our efforts to mine the coal which lies beneath our feet and convert this product into usable fuel. End of press conference.
The “wrong side” would have you believe that it would take years for any of this to actually affect the price of gasoline. Not so. This is what would really happen. The worldwide price of oil would immediately tumble. The supply of gasoline would dramatically increase to such a degree that those prices would also tumble. OPEC and all other worldwide suppliers of oil would see the handwriting on the wall and change their attitudes instantly. They know they cannot drink it. They also know that America has a larger supply of these natural resources than anyone else in the world.
Without question supply and demand are huge in determining the price of oil, but so is speculation. The speculators would see the same handwriting and would find a different way to lose their money.
Also there is no doubt that the “wacko environmentalist lobby” is in control of this administration’s actions. I am convinced that this whole bunch we have in charge in Washington actually prefer higher prices for fuel because it makes their phony over-priced green energy projects appear more viable. As I have mentioned in earlier pieces I am not opposed to alternate energy. I just believe we need a more intelligent approach. Knee jerk responses to these issues are a tactic of the “wrong side.”
I will continue to think and write from the right side of the political spectrum. It saddens me that the “wrong side” has gotten so much influence in this country. It saddens me that we will probably have to suffer greatly before they are rejected by the country as a whole. But I promise you this, they will be rejected.
Ron Scarbro April 4, 2012
I have written that the high price of gasoline is laid at the feet of the President. He has failed in his duty to open up exploration and drilling. He has failed to approve the Keystone pipeline project. The “wrong side” would have you believe high prices are not Obama’s fault. They contend that oil prices are determined by world supply and demand and our president has no control over those prices. Actually, oil prices are only partially controlled by world demand and supply. Do you know what else determines the price? Speculation. Not just by supply and demand, but also by pure unadulterated speculation. So let us speculate for a moment.
What do you suppose would happen to the worldwide price of oil if President Obama held a press conference broadcast to the entire world, which most are anyway, and made the following announcements. The United States will immediately begin drilling in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico and open up all tapped wells which have already been drilled. The United States will immediately approve the Keystone Pipeline project and begin building enough refineries to handle the increased supply. In addition we will immediately begin drilling and recovering natural gas which has already been discovered. We will also increase our efforts to mine the coal which lies beneath our feet and convert this product into usable fuel. End of press conference.
The “wrong side” would have you believe that it would take years for any of this to actually affect the price of gasoline. Not so. This is what would really happen. The worldwide price of oil would immediately tumble. The supply of gasoline would dramatically increase to such a degree that those prices would also tumble. OPEC and all other worldwide suppliers of oil would see the handwriting on the wall and change their attitudes instantly. They know they cannot drink it. They also know that America has a larger supply of these natural resources than anyone else in the world.
Without question supply and demand are huge in determining the price of oil, but so is speculation. The speculators would see the same handwriting and would find a different way to lose their money.
Also there is no doubt that the “wacko environmentalist lobby” is in control of this administration’s actions. I am convinced that this whole bunch we have in charge in Washington actually prefer higher prices for fuel because it makes their phony over-priced green energy projects appear more viable. As I have mentioned in earlier pieces I am not opposed to alternate energy. I just believe we need a more intelligent approach. Knee jerk responses to these issues are a tactic of the “wrong side.”
I will continue to think and write from the right side of the political spectrum. It saddens me that the “wrong side” has gotten so much influence in this country. It saddens me that we will probably have to suffer greatly before they are rejected by the country as a whole. But I promise you this, they will be rejected.
Ron Scarbro April 4, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
WHAT ARE THE FACTS?
Over
the past few years that I have been writing opinion pieces for various
newspapers and publications, there have been critics of some of my
columns. I know you are going to find that hard to believe but there are
some people who just do not agree with me and some are even vociferous
enough to offer their criticisms in writing to those newspapers. For an
opinion writer this is always a good thing though. First, you know
someone is reading your stuff, and secondly, you strike a nerve.
On more than one occasion the critics have used the same argument. It is almost as if they get their criticism from the same talking points. This is what they say. “Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but, they are not entitled to their own facts.” This, to me, is a very interesting position. It assumes that they, the critics, somehow have facts about particular situations or events that I do not have. It further assumes that the facts they possess are true and mine are false.
This is my contention. Unless you have first hand knowledge of an event either by witnessing it or by experiencing it, all you know about that event is what you have been told either by the media or some other news source. Then you have to assume that your source of news is true and without agenda.
Over the years during many of my debates with both fans and critics, I find many people read or listen to only the headlines and never dig into the whole story. In addition, I find my most vocal critics trust as their only source of news the major media outlets i.e., The New York Times, the big four TV networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN. Some even use as their news source PBS or NPR. I don’t think anybody has ever used FOX as a source of their disagreement with me but it could happen.
If these are your only sources of information, then you have no true idea of what the facts are. All of these so-called news sources are private businesses attempting to sell their services (news, commentary, etc.), and as such are edited down to a position that satisfies the agenda of their advertisers, shareholders, and managers. Facts become inconveniences that are dealt with as such.
And so you ask, “What are the facts?” I have found that the truth often lies in the middle. Take any story that is in the news, then watch, read, and listen to several sources of that story. Listen to the agenda that each reporter tries to sell. Whether you hear it or read it, it is there. The prejudice of the reporter or his organization will shine through. The liberal position will have the most sources, all the major media as previously reported in this piece, and the conservative position will be offered by FOX and AM talk radio. Of course there is also the Internet and it is all over the place. But, if you care enough, you can find the best semblance of the truth. It just takes a little work. Fortunately for you, my lucky readers, I do that for you. Seriously though, you have to be diligent. Just because The New York Times reports it doesn’t necessarily make it true. In fact that is all the more reason to be skeptical.
Many years ago in the simpler times, we had three TV networks and PBS ran kid’s programs. They told us what they wanted us to know and rarely did we question it. That has all changed now and the media has done it to themselves. If you really want to know the “facts,” either go beyond the headlines, use several sources, or just read my columns.
Ron Scarbro, March 28, 2012
On more than one occasion the critics have used the same argument. It is almost as if they get their criticism from the same talking points. This is what they say. “Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but, they are not entitled to their own facts.” This, to me, is a very interesting position. It assumes that they, the critics, somehow have facts about particular situations or events that I do not have. It further assumes that the facts they possess are true and mine are false.
This is my contention. Unless you have first hand knowledge of an event either by witnessing it or by experiencing it, all you know about that event is what you have been told either by the media or some other news source. Then you have to assume that your source of news is true and without agenda.
Over the years during many of my debates with both fans and critics, I find many people read or listen to only the headlines and never dig into the whole story. In addition, I find my most vocal critics trust as their only source of news the major media outlets i.e., The New York Times, the big four TV networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN. Some even use as their news source PBS or NPR. I don’t think anybody has ever used FOX as a source of their disagreement with me but it could happen.
If these are your only sources of information, then you have no true idea of what the facts are. All of these so-called news sources are private businesses attempting to sell their services (news, commentary, etc.), and as such are edited down to a position that satisfies the agenda of their advertisers, shareholders, and managers. Facts become inconveniences that are dealt with as such.
And so you ask, “What are the facts?” I have found that the truth often lies in the middle. Take any story that is in the news, then watch, read, and listen to several sources of that story. Listen to the agenda that each reporter tries to sell. Whether you hear it or read it, it is there. The prejudice of the reporter or his organization will shine through. The liberal position will have the most sources, all the major media as previously reported in this piece, and the conservative position will be offered by FOX and AM talk radio. Of course there is also the Internet and it is all over the place. But, if you care enough, you can find the best semblance of the truth. It just takes a little work. Fortunately for you, my lucky readers, I do that for you. Seriously though, you have to be diligent. Just because The New York Times reports it doesn’t necessarily make it true. In fact that is all the more reason to be skeptical.
Many years ago in the simpler times, we had three TV networks and PBS ran kid’s programs. They told us what they wanted us to know and rarely did we question it. That has all changed now and the media has done it to themselves. If you really want to know the “facts,” either go beyond the headlines, use several sources, or just read my columns.
Ron Scarbro, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
WE ARE A COMPROMISE BETWEEN MONARCHY AND ANARCHY
I
recently heard a debate concerning gay marriage. The debate caused me
to consider several things. This essay will not be about gay marriage
however. No, this writing will examine why we are what we are as a
country.
When our forefathers escaped Europe and settled in the new world, perhaps out of necessity they formed a group. The group dynamic made security more possible. The group was basically a co-op which produced food and shelter for all of the members of the group. The group formed militias to secure and defend themselves. They chose representatives to speak for them as to the passing of laws and rules. The representatives then enacted laws governing the group’s behavior. The obvious purpose of all this was to allow them to get along with each other and live in harmony with their neighbors. This then was the basis for our current form of government. We rejected the monarchy and we rejected anarchy. We became a compromise between monarchy and anarchy.
With the foregoing in mind, I want to go back to the debate concerning gay marriage. The advocates for gay marriage used the “libertarian” philosophy arguing that the group does not have the right to decide what sort of relationship any other couple can experience. It being none of any one else’s business. Carried out to its logical conclusion, this means that the group cannot decide how any other member of the group can live. Here are some questions that I would ask of this “libertarian” philosophy. Can we, as a group, have standards? Can there be norms? Do we have the right to decide what a marriage is? How about the decision as to when a person is a “legal” adult? Can we have laws against bigamy or polygamy? After all, whose business is it anyway? Can we have speed limits? Isn’t this a preemptive law designed to prevent a situation from happening before it happens? Simply asked, can we have any laws governing actions of any consenting adult member of the group? Let’s face it, everybody is not going to be happy or satisfied with all of the rules of a society. You can’t please everyone.
The libertarian philosophy is apparently that any legal decision by the majority is seen as tyranny against the minority. That certainly is an interesting position. The problem becomes one of group compatibility. Homosexual unions are just what they are, homosexual unions. They are not and could never be a marriage. To call such a union a marriage is an attempt to normalize an abnormal situation. That having been said, I personally don’t care that these unions exist. They do not affect me and as such are not my problem. I do believe, however, that there should be mechanisms for them to contract together if they so choose but, marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the standard the group has decided and there is no reason to change it.
Now, back to the theme of this essay. We are what we are because this is what we have chosen. Persons who wish to live peaceably within this group called America, must obey and adhere to the laws the group has deemed appropriate. If you don’t like a particular law, work to pass a different law. Should you decide that you just cannot obey any particular law, you disobey at your peril. Also there is nothing preventing you from running for office and being a part of the passing of laws. All you have to do is get enough people who think like you to elect you to an office. Then, of course, you have to convince your elected colleagues to go along with your thinking. Not simple, but doable. If your position is so out of the mainstream of societal thinking though, you may have some difficulty. Such is life.
We are a successful republic. We didn’t want monarchy and we certainly do not want anarchy. Our forefathers made good decisions and handed down a form of government that works and has staying power. It continues to be up to us to make certain this government prospers and grows. If we fail, we have only ourselves to blame.
Ron Scarbro March 21, 2012
When our forefathers escaped Europe and settled in the new world, perhaps out of necessity they formed a group. The group dynamic made security more possible. The group was basically a co-op which produced food and shelter for all of the members of the group. The group formed militias to secure and defend themselves. They chose representatives to speak for them as to the passing of laws and rules. The representatives then enacted laws governing the group’s behavior. The obvious purpose of all this was to allow them to get along with each other and live in harmony with their neighbors. This then was the basis for our current form of government. We rejected the monarchy and we rejected anarchy. We became a compromise between monarchy and anarchy.
With the foregoing in mind, I want to go back to the debate concerning gay marriage. The advocates for gay marriage used the “libertarian” philosophy arguing that the group does not have the right to decide what sort of relationship any other couple can experience. It being none of any one else’s business. Carried out to its logical conclusion, this means that the group cannot decide how any other member of the group can live. Here are some questions that I would ask of this “libertarian” philosophy. Can we, as a group, have standards? Can there be norms? Do we have the right to decide what a marriage is? How about the decision as to when a person is a “legal” adult? Can we have laws against bigamy or polygamy? After all, whose business is it anyway? Can we have speed limits? Isn’t this a preemptive law designed to prevent a situation from happening before it happens? Simply asked, can we have any laws governing actions of any consenting adult member of the group? Let’s face it, everybody is not going to be happy or satisfied with all of the rules of a society. You can’t please everyone.
The libertarian philosophy is apparently that any legal decision by the majority is seen as tyranny against the minority. That certainly is an interesting position. The problem becomes one of group compatibility. Homosexual unions are just what they are, homosexual unions. They are not and could never be a marriage. To call such a union a marriage is an attempt to normalize an abnormal situation. That having been said, I personally don’t care that these unions exist. They do not affect me and as such are not my problem. I do believe, however, that there should be mechanisms for them to contract together if they so choose but, marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the standard the group has decided and there is no reason to change it.
Now, back to the theme of this essay. We are what we are because this is what we have chosen. Persons who wish to live peaceably within this group called America, must obey and adhere to the laws the group has deemed appropriate. If you don’t like a particular law, work to pass a different law. Should you decide that you just cannot obey any particular law, you disobey at your peril. Also there is nothing preventing you from running for office and being a part of the passing of laws. All you have to do is get enough people who think like you to elect you to an office. Then, of course, you have to convince your elected colleagues to go along with your thinking. Not simple, but doable. If your position is so out of the mainstream of societal thinking though, you may have some difficulty. Such is life.
We are a successful republic. We didn’t want monarchy and we certainly do not want anarchy. Our forefathers made good decisions and handed down a form of government that works and has staying power. It continues to be up to us to make certain this government prospers and grows. If we fail, we have only ourselves to blame.
Ron Scarbro March 21, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DANCE
I
have no intention of trying to defend Rush Limbaugh. He has fared
pretty well so far without my help and he will probably do okay without
me now. That having been said, I thought his recent comments were
stupid. His choice of words was ridiculous. If you didn’t hear, he
basically referred to a young law school co-ed in very unfavorable
terms. In her testimony before Congress the girl tried to point out that
young law students just couldn’t afford to pay tuition and be expected
to pay for their birth control too, and that is why the government
should. Limbaugh’s point was that if the tax payers have to pay for her
birth control, she should be required to make available to those
taxpayers films of her sexual activity. He called her dirty names and in
so doing failed to make his point about free contraception. Limbaugh
has since apologized for his comments and well he should.
This sort of activity and rhetoric does very little to advance the conservative position that we should be self-reliant and responsible for ourselves. To this young lady I would just say, if you are going to dance, you should have to pay the band. After all, you don’t have to dance. If you are mature enough to have sex, you by all means should be mature enough to cover whatever expenses you may incur and responsible enough to deal with the outcome of your activity. Personally I don’t care if you choose to sleep around. I don’t care if you see higher education as party time. I don’t care about any of this as long as you pay your own way. If your parents are financing your education, what you do is their problem, not mine. The idea that taxpayers should fund your sexual activities is arrogant and just plain stupid.
I wonder sometimes how and why we have come to the place where we now are. How have we come to the decision that pregnancy is somehow a disease? When my wife and I were expecting our first child in the 60s, pregnancy was not even covered by our health insurance because pregnancy was considered normal, certainly not a disease. How is it that birth control is now considered health care? I just heard Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services for the Obama Administration, say that birth control reduces health care costs because fewer babies are born. It would appear that this administration doesn’t see these new people as possible contributors to our society or to our economic engine. I guess, be fruitful and multiply is just ancient philosophy.
I have written before that we today have the government we chose. These people we have in positions of importance and power are people we have chosen. If, as it turns out, they are morons, what does that say about our ability to choose?
Fortunately we have the opportunity to fix the mess we have gotten ourselves into. That is what elections are all about. Every two years we get to change out the House of Representatives and every six years we have the opportunity to get rid of the Senate. Each four years the President has to face the voters for their approval. We are rapidly approaching that time again. We absolutely must not fail. Another four years of what is going on now may just be the straw on the proverbial camel’s back. The world is counting on all of us.
Ron Scarbro March 14, 2012
This sort of activity and rhetoric does very little to advance the conservative position that we should be self-reliant and responsible for ourselves. To this young lady I would just say, if you are going to dance, you should have to pay the band. After all, you don’t have to dance. If you are mature enough to have sex, you by all means should be mature enough to cover whatever expenses you may incur and responsible enough to deal with the outcome of your activity. Personally I don’t care if you choose to sleep around. I don’t care if you see higher education as party time. I don’t care about any of this as long as you pay your own way. If your parents are financing your education, what you do is their problem, not mine. The idea that taxpayers should fund your sexual activities is arrogant and just plain stupid.
I wonder sometimes how and why we have come to the place where we now are. How have we come to the decision that pregnancy is somehow a disease? When my wife and I were expecting our first child in the 60s, pregnancy was not even covered by our health insurance because pregnancy was considered normal, certainly not a disease. How is it that birth control is now considered health care? I just heard Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services for the Obama Administration, say that birth control reduces health care costs because fewer babies are born. It would appear that this administration doesn’t see these new people as possible contributors to our society or to our economic engine. I guess, be fruitful and multiply is just ancient philosophy.
I have written before that we today have the government we chose. These people we have in positions of importance and power are people we have chosen. If, as it turns out, they are morons, what does that say about our ability to choose?
Fortunately we have the opportunity to fix the mess we have gotten ourselves into. That is what elections are all about. Every two years we get to change out the House of Representatives and every six years we have the opportunity to get rid of the Senate. Each four years the President has to face the voters for their approval. We are rapidly approaching that time again. We absolutely must not fail. Another four years of what is going on now may just be the straw on the proverbial camel’s back. The world is counting on all of us.
Ron Scarbro March 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
