Barack Obama has now been elected the first President of the United States that was not of white Anglo-Saxon descent. While historic for sure, how much better off will racial relations in our country be as a result?
Our nation has adopted a host of policies aimed at rebalancing the cosmic scales of justice that were skewed by slavery. From racial set-asides in gov't contracting to affirmative action programs in college admissions, each of these ostensibly to offset disadvantage rooted in the echos of slavery.
However, the problem with such programs is that no one has ever bothered to define success. How do we know when the scale has balanced? How do we know when we've done enough modern discrimination and racism to offset previous years of discrimination and racism? Most importantly, who gets to define the criteria that define this point?
I think having a black President is probably necessary for full racial healing, but it is not sufficient to bring healing about. For healing to occur in society, as in the body, further hurt must stop. As our parents told us, if you keeping picking at that scab, it will never heal.
Unfortunately, there are people in our society who have become quite wealthy convincing black people that someone is continually "picking at the scab." By fomenting racial unrest and training people to see things by race first, they have enriched themselves and bankrupted race relations in this country.
I do not think that there will be healing of race relations in this country until Black Americans decide to stop looking for or fabricating reasons to feel victimized. Blaming all of life's ills on a racial injustice can only take you so far. The fact that it took so long to elect a black man President may very well be a sad legacy of slavery. But is every ill in Black American similarly part of that legacy? Illegitimacy? Black-on-black crime? Disproportionately high abortion rate? Low levels of academic achievement?
In the end, racial healing in the US requires not only the end of racism in white America, but also the end of many self-destructive behaviors in the black community that are destroying it from within.
No goverment program can heal the black community-- it can only come from within.
Black Americans have a rich heritage and plenty to be proud of. But they have their greatest days still ahead, on the other side of the culture of victimization.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The myth of "Big Oil"
Yes, the "Big Oil" that Barack Obama has targeted for a windfall profits tax is actually Small Oil. At least it is when compared against the giants it must compete against on the international market. Consider this testimony from an executive at Exxon Mobil. His company produces less than 3% of the world's oil, and less than 2% of its energy. Yet this is the largest of the "Big Oil" companies demonized by the economically ignorant politicians in Washington.
So, if we punish these companies and make it harder for them to do business by taxing them heavily, what happens to oil prices? Gas prices? The price of everything? It turns out that everything gets more expensive for all of us, and the people who benefit are 1) our enemies in foreign countries, and 2) the politicians in Washington who get more tax dollars with which to go out and buy votes and/or enrich themselves.
No one likes the idea of oil companies making digusting amounts of money off the backs of average people. But when these funds are used to invest in future oil production and pursue advanced technology, it's not such a bad thing. Especially when you consider what would happen if those profits went to Russia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, or Venezuela. Those countries would rather fund terrorists, build up their military, or enrich their tin pot dictator leadership than do research.
Given our options, I'd prefer that our gov't didn't drive us towards COMPLETE DEPENDENCE on oil from countries that hate us by taxing out of existence the few remaining "American" energy companies.
So, if we punish these companies and make it harder for them to do business by taxing them heavily, what happens to oil prices? Gas prices? The price of everything? It turns out that everything gets more expensive for all of us, and the people who benefit are 1) our enemies in foreign countries, and 2) the politicians in Washington who get more tax dollars with which to go out and buy votes and/or enrich themselves.
No one likes the idea of oil companies making digusting amounts of money off the backs of average people. But when these funds are used to invest in future oil production and pursue advanced technology, it's not such a bad thing. Especially when you consider what would happen if those profits went to Russia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, or Venezuela. Those countries would rather fund terrorists, build up their military, or enrich their tin pot dictator leadership than do research.
Given our options, I'd prefer that our gov't didn't drive us towards COMPLETE DEPENDENCE on oil from countries that hate us by taxing out of existence the few remaining "American" energy companies.
Monday, October 6, 2008
More Frequent Updates Coming
I've been neglecting to update this blog as often as I should. That will be changing now. Look for more frequent updates in the future.
For now, I'll leave you with some great links that you may end up bookmarking.
First is the Powerline Blog. These guys have incredible insight from a Conservative Ivy League-educated Lawyer's perspective. This is updated frequently, so it bears checking often.
Next, I'll link you to the columns of the incomparable Thomas Sowell. His common-sense analysis of economics and race in America is high informative.
There are others in the works, so check back later:)
JLH
For now, I'll leave you with some great links that you may end up bookmarking.
First is the Powerline Blog. These guys have incredible insight from a Conservative Ivy League-educated Lawyer's perspective. This is updated frequently, so it bears checking often.
Next, I'll link you to the columns of the incomparable Thomas Sowell. His common-sense analysis of economics and race in America is high informative.
There are others in the works, so check back later:)
JLH
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Farm Subsidy Fraud
Every five years or so in America, there is a traditional re-examination of the Government's policy towards the nation's farmers, including the massive program of entitlements and market manipulations collectively known as the Farm Bill.
The most recent Farm Bill included the usual bit of farm subsidies to growers of various sundry crops-- corn, soybeans, wheat, etc. The politicians take advantage of the occasion to trumpet their concern for those "poor family farmers" in America-- you know, the ones who are scraping to get by and who NEED all this government handout financed by the increasingly generous American taxpayers. So, we taxpayers write checks to farmers and pay them to NOT grow certain products-- in theory to ensure the price of a given commodity crop will be high enough to sustain on honest living for those poor family farmers, and "ensure food security" for all of us. Or at least, this is the sales pitch broadcast loudly and broadly to the American people.
But the truth is quite different than that. In the recent edition of The Economist, it was noted that the average American farmer's net income is one third higher than the income of the average American non-farmer. Where then are the struggling family farms who deserve such massive flows of government largesse?
But even more aggregious is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Farm Bill money doesn't even go to the "struggling" family farmers. The majority of it is a gift-wrapped handout to massive agribusinesses like ConAgra Foods and Archer Daniels Midland. Other recipient are similarly less deserving-- hobby farmers like Ted Turner and Sam Donaldson also benefit handsomely from the government financing their particular fondness for the rural vacation.
As if this kind of government intervention into the food market was not yet foolhardy enough, the Gov't has generously mandated the adoption of Ethanol as a fuel additive in many locales-- a move no doubt cheered by the big corn-producing agribusinesses who already have money coming out their ears (if you'll pardon a pun).
So the government mandates something that will drastically increase the demand for corn, which is the primary source for ethanol production. As you may remember from Economics 101, this increase in demand has raised the price for Corn.
But because farmers can choose which crops to grow and will understandably act in their own interest and plant the crop that will make them the most money, we have now seen more corn planted where soy beans or other farm commodities were once planted. The net result is that the price of all crops goes up because of supply shortfalls.
You can see this everywhere you look at your local grocer; bread, milk, eggs, and many vegetables are substantially more expensive than at any point in recent history.
Thus the combined effect of the Farm Bill and the ethanol mandate is that we taxpayers are paying Billions of dollars a year to make our own food more expensive and our cars less efficient.
Now, this alone should suffice to anger you. But to illustrate just how absurd is this policy, let's change the names of the actors and keep the principle the same.
Imagine that tomorrow a member of Congress introduces the Gasoline Bill. Like food security, fuel security is absolutely essential to our modern lives. As we cannot live without food, we cannot live without gas. Because it is so important to our lives, we MUST safeguard the producers of the product. Thus, the Gasoline Bill, which proposes to pay oil companies in America billions of dollars a year to NOT refine oil into the products we need. This will ensure that the price of gasoline goes up to the $5/gallon mark essential to the prosperity of the small family oil company.
How would you feel about billions of your tax dollars being used to make gasoline more expensive for you? Now, my little parallel isn't perfect-- but far more appropriate than one might think since both are commodities for which there is a global market.
The history of governments big and small intervening in free markets is one full of case studies where a great number of people paid a price to enrich a much smaller and more powerful few.
--Abby's Dad
The most recent Farm Bill included the usual bit of farm subsidies to growers of various sundry crops-- corn, soybeans, wheat, etc. The politicians take advantage of the occasion to trumpet their concern for those "poor family farmers" in America-- you know, the ones who are scraping to get by and who NEED all this government handout financed by the increasingly generous American taxpayers. So, we taxpayers write checks to farmers and pay them to NOT grow certain products-- in theory to ensure the price of a given commodity crop will be high enough to sustain on honest living for those poor family farmers, and "ensure food security" for all of us. Or at least, this is the sales pitch broadcast loudly and broadly to the American people.
But the truth is quite different than that. In the recent edition of The Economist, it was noted that the average American farmer's net income is one third higher than the income of the average American non-farmer. Where then are the struggling family farms who deserve such massive flows of government largesse?
But even more aggregious is the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Farm Bill money doesn't even go to the "struggling" family farmers. The majority of it is a gift-wrapped handout to massive agribusinesses like ConAgra Foods and Archer Daniels Midland. Other recipient are similarly less deserving-- hobby farmers like Ted Turner and Sam Donaldson also benefit handsomely from the government financing their particular fondness for the rural vacation.
As if this kind of government intervention into the food market was not yet foolhardy enough, the Gov't has generously mandated the adoption of Ethanol as a fuel additive in many locales-- a move no doubt cheered by the big corn-producing agribusinesses who already have money coming out their ears (if you'll pardon a pun).
So the government mandates something that will drastically increase the demand for corn, which is the primary source for ethanol production. As you may remember from Economics 101, this increase in demand has raised the price for Corn.
But because farmers can choose which crops to grow and will understandably act in their own interest and plant the crop that will make them the most money, we have now seen more corn planted where soy beans or other farm commodities were once planted. The net result is that the price of all crops goes up because of supply shortfalls.
You can see this everywhere you look at your local grocer; bread, milk, eggs, and many vegetables are substantially more expensive than at any point in recent history.
Thus the combined effect of the Farm Bill and the ethanol mandate is that we taxpayers are paying Billions of dollars a year to make our own food more expensive and our cars less efficient.
Now, this alone should suffice to anger you. But to illustrate just how absurd is this policy, let's change the names of the actors and keep the principle the same.
Imagine that tomorrow a member of Congress introduces the Gasoline Bill. Like food security, fuel security is absolutely essential to our modern lives. As we cannot live without food, we cannot live without gas. Because it is so important to our lives, we MUST safeguard the producers of the product. Thus, the Gasoline Bill, which proposes to pay oil companies in America billions of dollars a year to NOT refine oil into the products we need. This will ensure that the price of gasoline goes up to the $5/gallon mark essential to the prosperity of the small family oil company.
How would you feel about billions of your tax dollars being used to make gasoline more expensive for you? Now, my little parallel isn't perfect-- but far more appropriate than one might think since both are commodities for which there is a global market.
The history of governments big and small intervening in free markets is one full of case studies where a great number of people paid a price to enrich a much smaller and more powerful few.
--Abby's Dad
Friday, April 11, 2008
Changing Course
It's April 11th. That means I have been officially unemployed for over four months. They say the economy is slowing and that "recession" is looming. Oil futures are toying with record levels on a daily basis. What is there to be happy about?
To start with, I have a wonderful wife and an adorable daughter, both of whom I cherish. Oil prices and recessions will not take them from me. I also have the luxury of having very generous family willing to take us in while we are in transition between our past and future lives, forestalling the draining of our life savings.
I never imagined being in this situation-- a grown man well out of college and still having to wrestle with what I want to be when I "grow up." Yet I find myself in that very place, struggling to stretch my resume qualifications towards something new and different that I'd rather do. The military didn't do me much of a huge favor in this regard. I have tons of expertise and experience in doing things I felt somewhat ambivalent towards. Such is the whim of military bureaucracies.
On the one hand, there is a palpable sense of freedom when you decide
to completely alter the course of your life, as career changes can certainly do. You can throw off previous limits and pursue your passion.
But on the other hand, pursuing your passion is fraught with insecurity. I just happen to have a wife and daughter that have their own passions-- like eating, having a roof overhead, and perhaps even saving money for college.
Where to draw the line between what you can do and what you wish to do?
While I firmly believe that happiness is mostly a choice, I also believe that the decisions we make can make happiness either very elusive or much easier to attain. I'm hoping to find something I wish to do that just happens to provide reasonably for our family.
One lead I'm considering is becoming a federal agent. This is pretty good for the old ego, what with a fancy badge and a gun and all that. After all, Brad Pitt only gets to pretend he has all that. The pay is enough and the work would be meaningful. But it's very slow going to actually get to that job and I'm not keen to postpone my next career for the amount of time required to join this field. Government bureacracies generally move at a glacial pace, and there is a lot of valuable months of my life that would be squandered remaining in the near-perpetual transition state required by such a career choice.
Unfortunately, what my experience qualifies me to do doesn't interest me that much, and my interests are things I'm not technically qualified to do. My resume says I can manage airports and motor vehicle fleets, and just generally lead people and get things done. But I'd rather do something involving creative problem solving-- like engineering. I'm only qualified to do that in a broad sense by education. Maybe it willbe back to school for me?
If I can find a company willing to look past my resume and see that I'm much more than that-- then I could perhaps find a chance to expand beyond the pigeonhole of my current situation and pursue something more challenging and more satisfying.
So while this time is not without its stresses, I am beyond blessed to even have a chance to change, or to even be where I'm at in life. There are so many people stuck in miserable jobs they hate, with no realistic chance to escape. The are many other who can't even find a job-- some are in a career experiencing challenging times-- others are facing severe personal problems: divorce, addiction, depression, you name it. This time is not easy for me, but it is so much easier for us that it could be, and easier than it is for many others in similar conditions.
I'm so thankful that God has always been faithful in providing for me and my family. I trust that the choices I make are honoring to Him and reflect His will for us.
--Abby's Dad
To start with, I have a wonderful wife and an adorable daughter, both of whom I cherish. Oil prices and recessions will not take them from me. I also have the luxury of having very generous family willing to take us in while we are in transition between our past and future lives, forestalling the draining of our life savings.
I never imagined being in this situation-- a grown man well out of college and still having to wrestle with what I want to be when I "grow up." Yet I find myself in that very place, struggling to stretch my resume qualifications towards something new and different that I'd rather do. The military didn't do me much of a huge favor in this regard. I have tons of expertise and experience in doing things I felt somewhat ambivalent towards. Such is the whim of military bureaucracies.
On the one hand, there is a palpable sense of freedom when you decide
to completely alter the course of your life, as career changes can certainly do. You can throw off previous limits and pursue your passion.
But on the other hand, pursuing your passion is fraught with insecurity. I just happen to have a wife and daughter that have their own passions-- like eating, having a roof overhead, and perhaps even saving money for college.
Where to draw the line between what you can do and what you wish to do?
While I firmly believe that happiness is mostly a choice, I also believe that the decisions we make can make happiness either very elusive or much easier to attain. I'm hoping to find something I wish to do that just happens to provide reasonably for our family.
One lead I'm considering is becoming a federal agent. This is pretty good for the old ego, what with a fancy badge and a gun and all that. After all, Brad Pitt only gets to pretend he has all that. The pay is enough and the work would be meaningful. But it's very slow going to actually get to that job and I'm not keen to postpone my next career for the amount of time required to join this field. Government bureacracies generally move at a glacial pace, and there is a lot of valuable months of my life that would be squandered remaining in the near-perpetual transition state required by such a career choice.
Unfortunately, what my experience qualifies me to do doesn't interest me that much, and my interests are things I'm not technically qualified to do. My resume says I can manage airports and motor vehicle fleets, and just generally lead people and get things done. But I'd rather do something involving creative problem solving-- like engineering. I'm only qualified to do that in a broad sense by education. Maybe it willbe back to school for me?
If I can find a company willing to look past my resume and see that I'm much more than that-- then I could perhaps find a chance to expand beyond the pigeonhole of my current situation and pursue something more challenging and more satisfying.
So while this time is not without its stresses, I am beyond blessed to even have a chance to change, or to even be where I'm at in life. There are so many people stuck in miserable jobs they hate, with no realistic chance to escape. The are many other who can't even find a job-- some are in a career experiencing challenging times-- others are facing severe personal problems: divorce, addiction, depression, you name it. This time is not easy for me, but it is so much easier for us that it could be, and easier than it is for many others in similar conditions.
I'm so thankful that God has always been faithful in providing for me and my family. I trust that the choices I make are honoring to Him and reflect His will for us.
--Abby's Dad
Sunday, April 6, 2008
First Post
Hi there! This is the first post of what will likely become a somewhat lengthy blog. It is my intention to offer my analysis of current events as well as share things that reflect my personal interests. I trust that this blog will be to its readers a source of inspiration, perspective and understanding. I can't promise those results, just my heartfelt efforts towards that end.-- Abby's Dad
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)