Monthly Archives: January 2013
I’ve enjoyed the beer commercials lately so here’s another one.
Dennis Prager is someone who regularly brings up the situations of men and women on his radio. In my mind he does a good job of combining intelligence with common sense in an easily understood manner.
Just earlier today I heard a segment on his show about men, women, and love. I didn’t hear the whole segment so I don’t know if his statements were based on any piece of news or data.
Paraphrasing what he said is, “women want to hear I love you more, and men want to know they’re respected”.
Short, sweet, and true.
Women want to feel loved by their man, men being different, want something slightly different. They want to know they’re respected. Essentially what that means is that they want to know that the woman they love respects that love. That the love they give is not going to waste and is appreciated for its value.
Following yesterdays lead we feature another great beer commercial. Today’s brand is Pabst Blue Ribbon, and features a young Patrick Swayze.
At the end of National Lampoons Vacation Clark gets upset when the Griswolds arrive at Wally World only to find out the park is closed for two weeks for cleaning and repairs. Clark responds by saying he expects some Roy Wally fun and excitement. They buy the toys, watch the movies, and they deserve to be rewarded for it. Guess again Clark. Your reward, or what you deserve, is what you paid for. You bought the toys the not to support Roy Wally but for your kids own entertainment, same as you watched the movies. You got exactly what you deserve because that is what you chose.
This is perfect liberalism summed up. Transferring it to real life, you don’t deserve anything. You don’t get any more than what you earn for yourself. The expectation that you deserve something is absurd, that somehow you should get something as a minimal conselation prize is a joke.
For arguments sake let’s say you were guaranteed a consolation prize, a certain minimal standard. Why would you want to rely on just that? There’s no limit on what you can get for yourself so why would you take just the minimum standard anyway?
Of course that doesn’t matter anyway. Life’s not fair, it’s cold, short, and brutal. You don’t even get to decide if you want to participate, you just suddenly show up and have to work your way through it. Therefore it’s no surprise that people who expect to be treated, end up with unsatisfying and miserable lives. Funny thing that being complacent with minimum standards doesn’t really provide much.
Generally you can’t compare issues directly because they each have different circumstances. If they could be compared directly, then they would be the same issue and not even be compared.
With that said let’s compare issues.
Banning guns is the best way(according to progressives) to stop/reduce crime, in particular the 11,000 gun murders in America per year.
Therefore shouldn’t it follow that banning illegal aliens would reduce the amount of illegal immigration occurring?
Of course there different issues so this is where the circumstances would come in, which we’re going to overlook for now.
If in both instances it is a crime/bad thing, why is it being scorned in one manner and rewarded in the other.
My position on immigration is one of assimilation. When immigrants come to The United States of America to become Americans, I’m all for it. I believe that mentality is far more beneficial, for both the immigrant and country, than letting in every Juan, Luis, and Cesar who have no desire to become Americans and are simply here for the benefits.
Part of the problem is that they don’t speak English and are simply run through the system in order to beef up the system itself, but it is in no small part helped by so easily handing out so many rewards and benefits to those who make no effort to earn them.
The unmaking of Americans: How multiculturalism has undermined the assimilation ethic, by John Miller was written in 1998 and still perfectly handles the issue of immigration. The authors look through the history of American immigration provides examples left and right of properly supporting immigration versus the bureaucratic cow milking we have now.
I recently saw this Business Insider article from a link at Foseti. The article is Nearly 40% Of Private Sector Job Growth In December Was Subsidized By The Government.
It’s not the first time I’ve heard that similar type of headline in recent months.
It’s of course a very interesting topic. Progressives would likely point to it as an example of government creating jobs and improving the economy.
Except does it really? It immediately brought to mind a story from my own life. My mother’s birthday happens to be December 25th. I can say that because of that, I have only ever bought her(as in with my own money, and not my dad buying something and letting me gift it) maybe 3 birthday presents in 26 years.
I don’t believe my mother feels short-changed, but the reality is that she doesn’t get any birthday presents from me because I’m strictly thinking Christmas at the time of shopping. Her birthday never even crosses my mind, to be honest I’m largely unaware that she even has a birthday.
Just what the hell does this have to do with economics? A lot actually. When the government spends money(and it spends a lot), it has to get that money from somewhere and it gets it from the private economy. Therefore any money spent by the government is money not spent by the market. “But it still gets spent”, the progressive says. Except it comes with the immense and inefficient government overhead as well as the horrible guidance of being a government program that is 99% guaranteed to be useless in the first place.
Considering that government spending has increased by about half a trillion dollars since 5 years ago and over a trillion since 10 years ago there better be a whole helluva lot of jobs being created. If not what is all that money going to?