Ordering room service could be a challenge at the Heartbreak Hotel. This hotel is the metaphorical location for where our nation is today. Founded on the principles of freedom and opportunity, we have regressed into a nation that has become threatened by the government that we have elected. Throughout the centuries and decades since our beginning, we have mistakenly placed our trust in the hands of professional politicians.
As a reformed politico, I can now confess that most politicians remind me of the nerdy little twit in the class who always raises his hand while the “pick me, pick me” pleas ooze from every pore of his pathetic affirmation-seeking body. He or she was the type who would stand in front of an unlit candle while waiting for the light to shine on their precocious little personalities. They want to be liked. They seek to be loved. They lust to be adored. They become the people who appear on our ballots during every election cycle. The office they seek may change, but they are our professional politicians, our perpetual candidates. Term limits? No problem, we’ll just rotate offices among those of us who have been divinely chosen to run…to lead…to run again.
To justify their reasons for seeking political office they must broaden the scope and the reach of government. Bigger government equals a brighter light; big government is the bigger candle that our professional political class covets. Most of us are busy people. We have jobs to do and families to nurture. We go about our daily lives without worrying too much about what is going on in the hallowed halls of the courthouse, the state capitol or in Washington. We continue to vote for the little attention-seeking weasels, time after time, because they’re “nice guys’ or they appear to “really care.” While we have been toiling to fulfill our responsibilities and maybe, attempting to get a little bit ahead, our “public servants” have been erecting an unwieldy, unworkable and un-Constitutional governmental structure. The behemoth is the Heartbreak Hotel.
It is comprised of so many rooms that it is impossible for the average guest to navigate his way around the place. The charges for staying there grow greater everyday, but the quality of service degrades nearly as fast. Meanwhile, the cheerful little spotlight-suckers continue to remind us that they have been instrumental in the construction of this grand edifice. They proudly proclaim that they have sponsored, co-sponsored or supported many of the critical rooms in our hotel of happiness. What they have failed to tell us is that the Heartbreak Hotel was not built on its original foundation. It has been constructed on a slab of deceit.
For those of us who are uneasy while living in the Heartbreak Hotel, we discover that we must leave. For us to continue to reside there would ultimately lead to ruin. We are warned by other guests and the self-serving “staff” that we cannot move outside the hotel and expect to be effective. Maybe they’re right, but dammit…the hotel is unsafe, the hotel is unhealthy, and I refuse to bite my tongue and stay there any longer. So, goodbye Heartbreak Hotel, I’m hauling outta’ here, but I’ll be back with a new set of builders.
Please comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
I'm Sorry
If only Brenda Lee were here to cry out “I’m Sorry,” or maybe Roy Orbison could (if he were still with us) plaintively croon “Crying.” After sitting through the State of the Union address on Wednesday night, I felt as if I had been in some therapy session involving basic victimology. I actually felt unclean.
Mr. President, you will be 50 years old when you leave office in 2012. Isn’t it time that you began to wear long pants? Isn’t it time for you to “man up,” and stop the incessant whining and moaning that characterize your public appearances? Your bi-columnar address to the nation followed a pattern that has become all too familiar to those of us who observe the political scene. One column lists the disadvantages and barriers that work in concert to deny you your self-perceived place in the pantheon of history. The other column while liberally laced with the first-person pronoun is dedicated to the reinforcement of your obviously superior position among mortals.
Frankly, Mr. President, I find your shameless self promotion to be tiresome, and your childish whining and blame-casting to be excruciatingly annoying. Seventy minutes is much too long for someone in your position to be immersed in self adulation and self pity. It is unseemly. It is un-Presidential. It is not at all helpful.
Oh yes, you tossed a couple of bones about the strength and the character of the people. Anyone who closely followed the speech knew that those were simple rhetorical devices devised to soften the overwhelming self-absorbed nature of your speech. By the way, Mr. President, what is the state of the Union? I must have missed your veiled reference. Are we safer or stronger? Are we richer or poorer? Will we survive your socialist policies through sickness and health? Just askin’. Mr. President, I’m sorry because your potentially shining moment was so sorry also.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Mr. President, you will be 50 years old when you leave office in 2012. Isn’t it time that you began to wear long pants? Isn’t it time for you to “man up,” and stop the incessant whining and moaning that characterize your public appearances? Your bi-columnar address to the nation followed a pattern that has become all too familiar to those of us who observe the political scene. One column lists the disadvantages and barriers that work in concert to deny you your self-perceived place in the pantheon of history. The other column while liberally laced with the first-person pronoun is dedicated to the reinforcement of your obviously superior position among mortals.
Frankly, Mr. President, I find your shameless self promotion to be tiresome, and your childish whining and blame-casting to be excruciatingly annoying. Seventy minutes is much too long for someone in your position to be immersed in self adulation and self pity. It is unseemly. It is un-Presidential. It is not at all helpful.
Oh yes, you tossed a couple of bones about the strength and the character of the people. Anyone who closely followed the speech knew that those were simple rhetorical devices devised to soften the overwhelming self-absorbed nature of your speech. By the way, Mr. President, what is the state of the Union? I must have missed your veiled reference. Are we safer or stronger? Are we richer or poorer? Will we survive your socialist policies through sickness and health? Just askin’. Mr. President, I’m sorry because your potentially shining moment was so sorry also.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Monday, January 25, 2010
Say what?
I hear the latest economic recovery plan includes forgiving the student debt of those seeking to enter into government work. Wow, brilliant, if only we would have thought of that sooner. UGH!!!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Stars and Stripes
Stars and Stripes:
Do you watch American Idol? Is it in your “can’t miss” category of weekly scheduling? What about Dancing with the Stars? Watch the Daily Show? Are you familiar with Lindy Lohan’s complete rap sheet or the daily challenges for Brittany Spears? Obviously these are rhetorical questions that beg the question: How pervasive is the cult of celebrity in the United States? Anyone who has an opinion can express it without fear of having the government prohibiting free non-threatening expression. That’s chiseled in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Many of the pop culture stars have opinions, and they share them freely and frequently. What puzzles me is that so many people view the celebrity statements as serious and worthy of consideration. Just because someone has attained a level of “stardom,” doesn’t necessarily mean that their opinions are notable. If the celeb has done something that merits our attention and has “walked the walk,” then perhaps their pronouncements should be considered. Otherwise having a high “Q” rating or positive name identification does not translate into knowledge about public policy. When a star has earned her/his stripes, then I’ll listen. A final example is celebrity assuming more credibility than it deserves is the Wednesday morning headline on the “Drudge Report” suggesting that Scott Brown may/should run for president. Give me a break; he hasn’t yet gotten a key to the Capitol men’s room. One of the big problems with a professional political class (like Mandarin eunuchs) is the assumption that the politico will be seeking the next higher office. Service? What service?
Crockpots and Skillets:
As I have struggled with my newly formed political I.D., I’ve been searching for a metaphor that accurately and picturesquely describes my sense of the two-party duopoly.
I believe that our country is firmly on the path toward tyranny. The power of government at all levels is growing. In my view it’s an ominous evolution that will stifle the human spirit. The progressives and their cohorts are cooking my goose in a skillet. Hot and fast with a splattering of grease. Unfortunately, some people get burned, but every cook drops an egg once in a while. The “conservatives,” on the other hand, use a crockpot to heat my honker. A little expansion of Medicare RX here, a tiny bit of eroded rights there, a smaller tax increase over there, just a pinch of further regulation, and Viola’ add a spoon full of sugar (rhetoric) and the dinner will go down.
Progressives/statists have no boundaries. They want to control it all (except themselves). They surge forward, gobbling up power as fast as they can. Conservatives (picture tweed jacket, bow tie and horned-rim glasses) say, “Government should not overreach, there are limits, and to prove it, we will draw those limits with this pencil.” Libertarians say, “Wait a minute! Drawing with a pencil is worthless; you’ll continue to move the line. Go back to the Constitution, and stay within the boundaries. If you want to move the line, then amend it.” Skillets and crockpots…either way your goose gets cooked.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Do you watch American Idol? Is it in your “can’t miss” category of weekly scheduling? What about Dancing with the Stars? Watch the Daily Show? Are you familiar with Lindy Lohan’s complete rap sheet or the daily challenges for Brittany Spears? Obviously these are rhetorical questions that beg the question: How pervasive is the cult of celebrity in the United States? Anyone who has an opinion can express it without fear of having the government prohibiting free non-threatening expression. That’s chiseled in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Many of the pop culture stars have opinions, and they share them freely and frequently. What puzzles me is that so many people view the celebrity statements as serious and worthy of consideration. Just because someone has attained a level of “stardom,” doesn’t necessarily mean that their opinions are notable. If the celeb has done something that merits our attention and has “walked the walk,” then perhaps their pronouncements should be considered. Otherwise having a high “Q” rating or positive name identification does not translate into knowledge about public policy. When a star has earned her/his stripes, then I’ll listen. A final example is celebrity assuming more credibility than it deserves is the Wednesday morning headline on the “Drudge Report” suggesting that Scott Brown may/should run for president. Give me a break; he hasn’t yet gotten a key to the Capitol men’s room. One of the big problems with a professional political class (like Mandarin eunuchs) is the assumption that the politico will be seeking the next higher office. Service? What service?
Crockpots and Skillets:
As I have struggled with my newly formed political I.D., I’ve been searching for a metaphor that accurately and picturesquely describes my sense of the two-party duopoly.
I believe that our country is firmly on the path toward tyranny. The power of government at all levels is growing. In my view it’s an ominous evolution that will stifle the human spirit. The progressives and their cohorts are cooking my goose in a skillet. Hot and fast with a splattering of grease. Unfortunately, some people get burned, but every cook drops an egg once in a while. The “conservatives,” on the other hand, use a crockpot to heat my honker. A little expansion of Medicare RX here, a tiny bit of eroded rights there, a smaller tax increase over there, just a pinch of further regulation, and Viola’ add a spoon full of sugar (rhetoric) and the dinner will go down.
Progressives/statists have no boundaries. They want to control it all (except themselves). They surge forward, gobbling up power as fast as they can. Conservatives (picture tweed jacket, bow tie and horned-rim glasses) say, “Government should not overreach, there are limits, and to prove it, we will draw those limits with this pencil.” Libertarians say, “Wait a minute! Drawing with a pencil is worthless; you’ll continue to move the line. Go back to the Constitution, and stay within the boundaries. If you want to move the line, then amend it.” Skillets and crockpots…either way your goose gets cooked.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Speaking Personally
There are times that I feel like Sisyphus (no, that’s not a lisper talking about an STD). Oh, by the way, this is going to be a bipolar piece of writing as I attempt to share my thoughts and tag them with parenthetical asides as I meander through the landscape of my once-fertile mind. I am radically ticked off. I look around me as I skim through my daily reading of the news (usually about two to two and a half hours), and I see madness. One would think if you know me or read my work, that I would feel quite at home in the center of madness. That’s not the case, however, because even crazy people sometimes perceive that craziness is nuts. I have a passion for freedom. Throughout my sixty-some years that passion has varied from a tiny ember in my soul to a flaming inferno of frustration. As a child, I would chafe at the rules of my parents. Usually, I recognized the reasoning behind them, but I resisted and resented their application. I know…I know…I know that no one else can look at me and discern exactly what it is that I am thinking at that moment. They may have some sense of my thoughts, but they do NOT know precisely what is fermenting in my conscious self. I knew this at a very early age, therefore, I became starkly aware of my uniqueness…and correspondingly, aware of the unique properties of every person.
As one who struggled to grow up in the Sixties, I went through much of the dissonance associated with one who wants to “find himself” without totally disengaging from the planet. In my moments of self examination I often wondered if those who had preceded me had their own quiet moments of self examination. Perhaps they were too busy scuffling for food and shelter to have the luxury of thoughtful introspection. But then I discovered that the philosophers of the ages gone by had questioned many of the same issues as I…and in most cases had done so more thoroughly and more lucidly than my feeble quest for answers. So, maybe I’m not so unique…which technically speaking, means that I’m not unique, but at this very moment, in this place, under these circumstances…I am unique. (Stupid metaphor coming, ask my daughter about it) Like a snowflake that is unique (I still can’t grasp this concept), I fall into an environment or an age and blend into the snow bank. Is my uniqueness now gone? Or is it merely suppressed by the millions of unique snowflakes clustered around me? Is it possible that underlying the softly falling snow is a cacophony of sub-auditory shouts screaming “Hey, its me, I’m here, hear me, see me!”
To the point: So far this exercise has seemed to be wallowing in self aggrandizement. I suspect, however, that everyone goes through a similar process at some stage in her/his life. If this is in fact true, then the burning yearning for freedom is present in each of us. Some of us hide it in order to be liked. Some of us have it extinguished by others who degrade us or denigrate our dreams. Some resist the efforts to drown the spark and fight back with a vengeance. Here I sit in my mid-sixties on my 5-acre little patch of paradise. I should be relishing my time to write, to garden and to create sawdust in my woodworking shop. Instead, I’m becoming politically active again…against my better judgment. Rather than maximizing my precious moments with my three grandchildren, I engage in a flurry of activity for a cause that seems lost. That little spark is now a conflagration, the lonely snowflake doesn’t want to melt into nothingness.
I am now a Libertarian. Yes, I have joined a band of misfit dope smokers, wild-eyed anarchists, adamant atheists and geeks. I have also united with people from all walks of life and various backgrounds who KNOW that the unrestrained growth of government will dampen the spark of liberty in each of us. They and I know that as government grows larger and more oppressive, it consumes the oxygen of opportunity, the air of dreams, and the hope of freedom. In our historic past when freedom-lovers felt the crush of too much government or restriction, they pulled-up their stakes, loaded their wagons and headed west. There are not too many places for the freedom-lovers to go now, so many of us have come together to take freedom back from the dream stealers. As many of you know, I used to be a Republican…an ardent one. But the party and too many of its representatives have failed. They give lip-service to the basic principles of freedom, then tag along trying to “improve” liberal legislation rather than fighting to defeat it. Too many Republicans have joined the professional political class where holding the job outranks doing what is best for the country and their constituents. So, I’ve attached myself to a motley group of rank amateurs who merely want freedom to thrive.
I am a Christian. A fundamental, evangelical born-again believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Some might think that my faith would place me 180 degrees from the political position that I have embraced. Au contraire, dear Reader, three bedrock elements of Biblical Christianity are faith, grace and freedom. Original Christian believers do not want an oppressive overbearing government to dictate the parameters of their belief. Many of the early colonialists migrated to our shores to escape repressive state-supported churches. As long as the state has an interest in religious behavior, then an individual’s practice of faith will be circumscribed or limited. Grace is God’s gift to me as a result of Christ’s going to the cross, taking MY sin with Him into death, and rising to life. As a result of his paying the debt for my deplorable words and deeds, I am free to reconstruct my life, my attitudes, and my priorities without the monumental guilt of my past transgressions. Does Grace suggest that everything I do from now on is guiltless? No, of course not. The gift of grace has made me more cognizant of my weaknesses and my hurtful actions, but grace has freed me from the paralyzing fear of erring or seeking the approval of others. Some place their faith in the government. I know from my experience that their faith has been misplaced. Some place their faith solely in themselves. With all due respect to their intellects and their motives, that’s not enough for me. Through my personal experience, I know how lacking, how fragile and how misplaced it is to trust only in oneself. So give me freedom surrounded by a bunch of headstrong Libertarians, and I will practice my faith without harassment while having ample opportunities to explain it and share during typical Libertarian bull sessions.
This column to some degree has been a cathartic undertaking. On the other hand, it is only a beginning. I don’t know if anyone will read this…or read all of it. Perhaps someone who loves me will read it and call the EMT’s to come and take me away to the funny farm. I suspect that if I were confined by the folks in the white coats that it might be somewhat akin to how our entire country will be sometime in the future. So I’m a born-again, born-again (yes, I meant that twice) Libertarian. I may be crazy and have some loony associates, but our goals are worthy. I’m sure that some people thought that John Hancock or Nathan Hale were crazy. I know they thought that way about Sam Adams and Tom Paine. I joyfully join this ragtag group who truly love this country, but more importantly…love freedom. Freedom works anywhere, anytime. Other generations fought for our freedom (many of them Christians), now we must fight to restore our freedom. Please go to http://www.lp.org/
and http://www.lpo.org/ to get just a tiny taste of freedom.
Please respond or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
As one who struggled to grow up in the Sixties, I went through much of the dissonance associated with one who wants to “find himself” without totally disengaging from the planet. In my moments of self examination I often wondered if those who had preceded me had their own quiet moments of self examination. Perhaps they were too busy scuffling for food and shelter to have the luxury of thoughtful introspection. But then I discovered that the philosophers of the ages gone by had questioned many of the same issues as I…and in most cases had done so more thoroughly and more lucidly than my feeble quest for answers. So, maybe I’m not so unique…which technically speaking, means that I’m not unique, but at this very moment, in this place, under these circumstances…I am unique. (Stupid metaphor coming, ask my daughter about it) Like a snowflake that is unique (I still can’t grasp this concept), I fall into an environment or an age and blend into the snow bank. Is my uniqueness now gone? Or is it merely suppressed by the millions of unique snowflakes clustered around me? Is it possible that underlying the softly falling snow is a cacophony of sub-auditory shouts screaming “Hey, its me, I’m here, hear me, see me!”
To the point: So far this exercise has seemed to be wallowing in self aggrandizement. I suspect, however, that everyone goes through a similar process at some stage in her/his life. If this is in fact true, then the burning yearning for freedom is present in each of us. Some of us hide it in order to be liked. Some of us have it extinguished by others who degrade us or denigrate our dreams. Some resist the efforts to drown the spark and fight back with a vengeance. Here I sit in my mid-sixties on my 5-acre little patch of paradise. I should be relishing my time to write, to garden and to create sawdust in my woodworking shop. Instead, I’m becoming politically active again…against my better judgment. Rather than maximizing my precious moments with my three grandchildren, I engage in a flurry of activity for a cause that seems lost. That little spark is now a conflagration, the lonely snowflake doesn’t want to melt into nothingness.
I am now a Libertarian. Yes, I have joined a band of misfit dope smokers, wild-eyed anarchists, adamant atheists and geeks. I have also united with people from all walks of life and various backgrounds who KNOW that the unrestrained growth of government will dampen the spark of liberty in each of us. They and I know that as government grows larger and more oppressive, it consumes the oxygen of opportunity, the air of dreams, and the hope of freedom. In our historic past when freedom-lovers felt the crush of too much government or restriction, they pulled-up their stakes, loaded their wagons and headed west. There are not too many places for the freedom-lovers to go now, so many of us have come together to take freedom back from the dream stealers. As many of you know, I used to be a Republican…an ardent one. But the party and too many of its representatives have failed. They give lip-service to the basic principles of freedom, then tag along trying to “improve” liberal legislation rather than fighting to defeat it. Too many Republicans have joined the professional political class where holding the job outranks doing what is best for the country and their constituents. So, I’ve attached myself to a motley group of rank amateurs who merely want freedom to thrive.
I am a Christian. A fundamental, evangelical born-again believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Some might think that my faith would place me 180 degrees from the political position that I have embraced. Au contraire, dear Reader, three bedrock elements of Biblical Christianity are faith, grace and freedom. Original Christian believers do not want an oppressive overbearing government to dictate the parameters of their belief. Many of the early colonialists migrated to our shores to escape repressive state-supported churches. As long as the state has an interest in religious behavior, then an individual’s practice of faith will be circumscribed or limited. Grace is God’s gift to me as a result of Christ’s going to the cross, taking MY sin with Him into death, and rising to life. As a result of his paying the debt for my deplorable words and deeds, I am free to reconstruct my life, my attitudes, and my priorities without the monumental guilt of my past transgressions. Does Grace suggest that everything I do from now on is guiltless? No, of course not. The gift of grace has made me more cognizant of my weaknesses and my hurtful actions, but grace has freed me from the paralyzing fear of erring or seeking the approval of others. Some place their faith in the government. I know from my experience that their faith has been misplaced. Some place their faith solely in themselves. With all due respect to their intellects and their motives, that’s not enough for me. Through my personal experience, I know how lacking, how fragile and how misplaced it is to trust only in oneself. So give me freedom surrounded by a bunch of headstrong Libertarians, and I will practice my faith without harassment while having ample opportunities to explain it and share during typical Libertarian bull sessions.
This column to some degree has been a cathartic undertaking. On the other hand, it is only a beginning. I don’t know if anyone will read this…or read all of it. Perhaps someone who loves me will read it and call the EMT’s to come and take me away to the funny farm. I suspect that if I were confined by the folks in the white coats that it might be somewhat akin to how our entire country will be sometime in the future. So I’m a born-again, born-again (yes, I meant that twice) Libertarian. I may be crazy and have some loony associates, but our goals are worthy. I’m sure that some people thought that John Hancock or Nathan Hale were crazy. I know they thought that way about Sam Adams and Tom Paine. I joyfully join this ragtag group who truly love this country, but more importantly…love freedom. Freedom works anywhere, anytime. Other generations fought for our freedom (many of them Christians), now we must fight to restore our freedom. Please go to http://www.lp.org/
and http://www.lpo.org/ to get just a tiny taste of freedom.
Please respond or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Friday, January 15, 2010
Fighting the Tide
In a column I wrote for another venue (Buckeye Libertarian, LPO.org due in February), I used a beach/tide metaphor to describe the present political environment in the United States. Now that I have become fully infatuated with nautical metaphors, I want to develop another one to illustrate the differences between Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians. It’s not a perfect metaphor, but if it were perfect, then it wouldn’t be a metaphor, it would be what is. I once worked with a corporate training company that sought to teach supervisory personnel how to communicate using word pictures. The theory was that some people are visual learners and some retain information better from an auditory source, therefore word pictures should be an effective tool for both of them.
Imagine a small island. We’ll name it Freedom Island, and it sits in the bay a couple of miles from the mainland. It’s a tropical island that is rich in natural resources that are sufficient for everyone to survive and thrive. Some people might think of Freedom Island as utopian because of the bounty that’s available. Others aren’t so sure. They believe that because the residents of Freedom Island have to climb the trees to pick the fruit, to till the rich soil to raise the crops or to hunt and fish for meat, then the island lifestyle is unnecessarily demanding. They whine that not everyone is capable of climbing, farming or hunting with a high level of skill. They complain that some trees are more productive than others. They bemoan the fact that some residents awaken before others in order to acquire the best farmland or fishing hole. They call an island-wide meeting, and insist that all the crops, housing, water and meat be pooled and distributed equally. Fortunately for Freedom Island the true believers in redistribution were few, and their demands were defeated. In a huff, the Complainers decided to leave the island and go to the mainland. They hysterically demanded that “the island” provide them with a boat for the journey, and chose a 16 footer with the only two motors to make the trip. Seeing that they would be left behind without a boat with motors, and feeling some pity for the complainers, another group of residents asked for a boat to follow the Complainers to the mainland. We’ll name them the Followers. Those who remained on the island called themselves “The Doers,” and they wished the others good fortune as they cast off for the journey to the other side.
The Complainers revved the engines wide open as they streaked across the water to the promised land of equality and fairness. The Followers left shortly thereafter with all eight members rowing in unison as they trailed the speeding Complainers. It was an incoming tide to the mainland and both boats made remarkable progress. The Complainers arrived on the mainland and joyfully celebrated their escape from Freedom Island. The mainland was barren and harsh, but everyone there was equal. The Followers were rowing as diligently as they could, but their arms, backs and shoulders were aching. The tide stopped. The waters became calm, and the Followers could go no further. They were halfway between the island and the mainland, and they called for help. Meanwhile, their boat began to leak…slowly sinking into the water. Their cries were more frantic, but the Complainers couldn’t hear them because their joyous celebration drowned out the pleas for help. One Doer on the island shore heard the distant voices and sprang into action. He jumped into the only remaining boat and rowed toward the Followers. He noted as he rowed that the Followers boat continued to slowly drift toward the mainland, but he discerned that their craft would sink before they reached the shore. He rowed on without stopping.
Finally, the diligent Doer reached the Followers’ foundering boat. He helped them into his tiny watercraft. Because the boat would be overloaded, he had them discard their excess baggage. The only gear permitted on the little was the bare essentials. The Doer began to row back to the island as the Followers thankfully expressed their relief about returning to Freedom. It took a long time for the Doer to steer the tiny heavy craft across the bay to Freedom Island, but when they finally arrived, the Followers kissed the soil and exclaimed that they never really wanted to leave. The only reason for their abandoning Freedom Island, they claimed, was because so many other people wanted to go to the mainland. End of story.
Unless you are a complete dolt, you understand that the Complainers are Democrats/ Progressives, the Followers are Republicans/Conservatives and the Doers are Libertarians. Dump the excess baggage. Turn this boat around. Row against the tide for freedom. The left is racing toward a socialist/fascist state while the right is drifting just behind them. The Right doesn’t turn it around. It merely slows down the drift to tyranny. Only by supporting and electing someone whose principles are smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom can we turn the tide. I hope that we aren’t too late. I hope that the boat doesn’t sink before we can save the republic. It’s the principles that matter. The people are incidental.
Please comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Imagine a small island. We’ll name it Freedom Island, and it sits in the bay a couple of miles from the mainland. It’s a tropical island that is rich in natural resources that are sufficient for everyone to survive and thrive. Some people might think of Freedom Island as utopian because of the bounty that’s available. Others aren’t so sure. They believe that because the residents of Freedom Island have to climb the trees to pick the fruit, to till the rich soil to raise the crops or to hunt and fish for meat, then the island lifestyle is unnecessarily demanding. They whine that not everyone is capable of climbing, farming or hunting with a high level of skill. They complain that some trees are more productive than others. They bemoan the fact that some residents awaken before others in order to acquire the best farmland or fishing hole. They call an island-wide meeting, and insist that all the crops, housing, water and meat be pooled and distributed equally. Fortunately for Freedom Island the true believers in redistribution were few, and their demands were defeated. In a huff, the Complainers decided to leave the island and go to the mainland. They hysterically demanded that “the island” provide them with a boat for the journey, and chose a 16 footer with the only two motors to make the trip. Seeing that they would be left behind without a boat with motors, and feeling some pity for the complainers, another group of residents asked for a boat to follow the Complainers to the mainland. We’ll name them the Followers. Those who remained on the island called themselves “The Doers,” and they wished the others good fortune as they cast off for the journey to the other side.
The Complainers revved the engines wide open as they streaked across the water to the promised land of equality and fairness. The Followers left shortly thereafter with all eight members rowing in unison as they trailed the speeding Complainers. It was an incoming tide to the mainland and both boats made remarkable progress. The Complainers arrived on the mainland and joyfully celebrated their escape from Freedom Island. The mainland was barren and harsh, but everyone there was equal. The Followers were rowing as diligently as they could, but their arms, backs and shoulders were aching. The tide stopped. The waters became calm, and the Followers could go no further. They were halfway between the island and the mainland, and they called for help. Meanwhile, their boat began to leak…slowly sinking into the water. Their cries were more frantic, but the Complainers couldn’t hear them because their joyous celebration drowned out the pleas for help. One Doer on the island shore heard the distant voices and sprang into action. He jumped into the only remaining boat and rowed toward the Followers. He noted as he rowed that the Followers boat continued to slowly drift toward the mainland, but he discerned that their craft would sink before they reached the shore. He rowed on without stopping.
Finally, the diligent Doer reached the Followers’ foundering boat. He helped them into his tiny watercraft. Because the boat would be overloaded, he had them discard their excess baggage. The only gear permitted on the little was the bare essentials. The Doer began to row back to the island as the Followers thankfully expressed their relief about returning to Freedom. It took a long time for the Doer to steer the tiny heavy craft across the bay to Freedom Island, but when they finally arrived, the Followers kissed the soil and exclaimed that they never really wanted to leave. The only reason for their abandoning Freedom Island, they claimed, was because so many other people wanted to go to the mainland. End of story.
Unless you are a complete dolt, you understand that the Complainers are Democrats/ Progressives, the Followers are Republicans/Conservatives and the Doers are Libertarians. Dump the excess baggage. Turn this boat around. Row against the tide for freedom. The left is racing toward a socialist/fascist state while the right is drifting just behind them. The Right doesn’t turn it around. It merely slows down the drift to tyranny. Only by supporting and electing someone whose principles are smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom can we turn the tide. I hope that we aren’t too late. I hope that the boat doesn’t sink before we can save the republic. It’s the principles that matter. The people are incidental.
Please comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Branding freedom
Kellyanne Conway made a speech last week that I found very interesting. As an accomplished pollster and poll analyst, she examined the motivations for current voters in various demographic groups. She made one point that really caught my attention, and that observation will be the focus of this column.
“(in the present environment) most consumers are brand loyal but not brand monogamous.”
In other words, we have strong preferences, but occasionally drift outside our circle of comfort. The reasons for aberrations may be many but generally revolve around circumstances that encourage us to alter our usual patterns of purchasing. One such example may be price. If a competing brand of similar quality is demonstrably cheaper than our normal, then we may opt to consume the competitor. Perhaps the unfamiliar brand is a new entry into the market, and we buy it to compare with our traditional one. Possibly, our normal brand is temporarily out of stock, therefore we pick up what, we hope, is a viable stand-in.
So how does Kellyanne’s pithy observation apply to Today’s political scene? Consider the term “brand loyal” to reflect traditional Democrats and Republicans. Voters are generally party-loyal for three primary reasons: Family tradition, the party platform, or personal involvement. But when the brand becomes disagreeable or not up to its expected standards, then the voter may to test another variety. From my own experience I have heard people condemn the unresponsiveness of the two Old Parties. They vote for them because they’re loyal and unsure of the reliability of an “off” brand. Alternate brands, especially Libertarians, must seize the opportunity that massive voter discontent with the two majors has developed. While I am aware that some within the Libertarian Party sneer at those who remain blindly attached to the dying duopoly, it is time to swallow the bile and actively recruit those who may be privately questioning their previous loyalty.
Just as some Democrats jumped the fence and voted for Reagan, so too did some Republicans support Obama. Perhaps in both cases (certainly the present one) they may have felt “burned,” but that sense of betrayal works in our favor because it illustrates the paucity of honor and consistency within the other parties. We can sell our message by emphasizing our long-lasting fealty to the ideal of a smaller government that is faithful to its Constitutional roots. We can emphasize that our commitment to lower taxes will generate more funds for economic activity, and thus create more jobs, more growth and more prosperity. Finally…our greatest brand is freedom. True political and economic freedom isn’t enough. People, citizens, voters must exercise every element of freedom that does not threaten a civil society. They must be allowed to do so without any suggestion of government interference. Polls and anecdotal evidence seem to suggest that a huge number of U.S. voters are willing to hear the Libertarian message. We are tasked to deliver that message of freedom in such a way that our audience believes we care about their well-being, and that we seek victory for our own selfish reasons.
Please comment or respond: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
“(in the present environment) most consumers are brand loyal but not brand monogamous.”
In other words, we have strong preferences, but occasionally drift outside our circle of comfort. The reasons for aberrations may be many but generally revolve around circumstances that encourage us to alter our usual patterns of purchasing. One such example may be price. If a competing brand of similar quality is demonstrably cheaper than our normal, then we may opt to consume the competitor. Perhaps the unfamiliar brand is a new entry into the market, and we buy it to compare with our traditional one. Possibly, our normal brand is temporarily out of stock, therefore we pick up what, we hope, is a viable stand-in.
So how does Kellyanne’s pithy observation apply to Today’s political scene? Consider the term “brand loyal” to reflect traditional Democrats and Republicans. Voters are generally party-loyal for three primary reasons: Family tradition, the party platform, or personal involvement. But when the brand becomes disagreeable or not up to its expected standards, then the voter may to test another variety. From my own experience I have heard people condemn the unresponsiveness of the two Old Parties. They vote for them because they’re loyal and unsure of the reliability of an “off” brand. Alternate brands, especially Libertarians, must seize the opportunity that massive voter discontent with the two majors has developed. While I am aware that some within the Libertarian Party sneer at those who remain blindly attached to the dying duopoly, it is time to swallow the bile and actively recruit those who may be privately questioning their previous loyalty.
Just as some Democrats jumped the fence and voted for Reagan, so too did some Republicans support Obama. Perhaps in both cases (certainly the present one) they may have felt “burned,” but that sense of betrayal works in our favor because it illustrates the paucity of honor and consistency within the other parties. We can sell our message by emphasizing our long-lasting fealty to the ideal of a smaller government that is faithful to its Constitutional roots. We can emphasize that our commitment to lower taxes will generate more funds for economic activity, and thus create more jobs, more growth and more prosperity. Finally…our greatest brand is freedom. True political and economic freedom isn’t enough. People, citizens, voters must exercise every element of freedom that does not threaten a civil society. They must be allowed to do so without any suggestion of government interference. Polls and anecdotal evidence seem to suggest that a huge number of U.S. voters are willing to hear the Libertarian message. We are tasked to deliver that message of freedom in such a way that our audience believes we care about their well-being, and that we seek victory for our own selfish reasons.
Please comment or respond: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Lobbyists are necessary.
Lobbyists and special interests are necessary in the United States. I know you’re thinking that my week off has resulted in my turning to the dark side. After all, haven’t politicians and activists of every stripe been denouncing the evil influence of special interests for decades? Doesn’t every candidate for every office pledge that lobbyists are persona non grata if you would elect them to office? Aren’t we all aware that if special interests weren’t involved with government, then many more beneficial programs could be funded properly? If it weren’t for evil lobbyists so the sentiment assumes, then our elected representatives would not succumb to temptation.
So what is a special interest that is represented by a lobbyist (or legislative liaison, government affairs representative, or legislative director)? A special interest is a group, industry, or trade association that shares a common concern. If you’re a Methodist, Jew, Catholic, or Pentecostal, you belong to a special interest. Perhaps you operate a small business, farm, non-profit service agency, foundry or tax preparation service, and then you are part of a special interest. If you want to save the spotted owl or if you are an hourly logger, then you have special interests that may compete with one another. As long are there are two or more people who are reliant on certain outcomes, then there will be competing special interests. In a pluralistic society like the United States with 300 million residents the cacophony of interests can, at times, be deafening. Yielding to various interests is much easier in a homogeneous nation where many beliefs, desires and goals are shared. When one examines any legislative measure in the U.S., one is aware that “garbage in/garbage out” is not the sole province of the digital world.
The current method of legislating has the distinctive aroma of a road kill skunk…only with more lingering effects. As a prime example let’s look at property taxes. I chose them because they are primarily a local factor. There are many categories of property within any given locale: federal lands, state lands, church property, non-profit agency property, commercial (heavy, light, retail), multiunit-housing, single-family, blended, agricultural (CAUV), and on and on. Each type is uniquely taxed or exempted with variations from community to community. The various interests that are represented by their property concerns are numerous, and each group or interest seeks to minimize the impact of tax policy. Multiply this contention by fifty states or thousands of communities across the nation, and you can perceive why professional lobbyists may be necessary to protect the interests of the multiple groups. Now, compound that by a federal tax code that exceeds forty thousand pages (40,000) or literally thousands of state and federal agencies, bureaus and departments that promulgate rules, regulations and directives from thousands of vaguely written laws, resolutions and ordinances. Given a pluralistic nation of 300 million persons, it is logical to assume that EVERY governmental action has a positive effect for some citizens or groups and a negative or neutral impact for the others. To navigate this maze of law and rulemaking requires a commitment of time and a level of expertise beyond that possessed by the average citizen (unless you’re a hefty campaign contributor). Lobbyists are necessary. Bottom line in the lobby game: Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. The government always gets the remains.
My twisted imagination came up with the following fictional example of the process:
Bureaucrat A: Last year four people were severely injured when they fell off the top step of a stepladder.
Bureaucrat B: What don’t we mandate a restraining bar at the top of every ladder?
A: Won’t work ‘cuz the idiots will step over the bar.
B: Maybe we could require that the top step be electrified so that they can’t stand on it.
A: Hmmmm…might work. It would cost about $53.00 per ladder, so it just might work.
Lobbyist: Wait a minute. $53.00 per ladder. No way! How about we place a sticker on every ladder warning them of the danger? Works for cigarettes, and we can do it for $3.50 per ladder.
A: The sticker would have to be bilingual.
Lobbyist: OK, that’s $3.75 per ladder.
B: What about the illiterates and the Chinese speaking people?
A: We have no regulations for those circumstances.
It’s stupid, I know, but not completely far-fetched. In this theoretical example, the lobbyist saved more than $49.00 per ladder. How many ladders were sold because the price did not jump an additional forty-nine dollars? How many ladder building jobs were created or saved because of the timely intervention by that astute ladder lobbyist? Don’t forget the new jobs that were created by the safety sticker maker. Oh, by the way, after the sticker requirement was implemented, a similar number of people were injured because of their failure to heed the warning. Of course, they were probably illiterate or Chinese.
How do we stop the battle among various competing interests and the resultant maze of rules and regulations? Simple…reduce the size and scope of government. To do so would mean that we must take more personal responsibility. If you were to fall off the top step of the stepladder, then you should not sue the ladder company because of your stupidity. Support and vote for candidates who are committed to reducing the size of government (and by extension, taxes). The simpler the system is, the less necessary it is for special interests to intervene. So yes, lobbyists are necessary in the present environment, but if we have the courage and the will to reduce government to a reasonable manageable size, then we could encourage many lobbyists to get real jobs.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
So what is a special interest that is represented by a lobbyist (or legislative liaison, government affairs representative, or legislative director)? A special interest is a group, industry, or trade association that shares a common concern. If you’re a Methodist, Jew, Catholic, or Pentecostal, you belong to a special interest. Perhaps you operate a small business, farm, non-profit service agency, foundry or tax preparation service, and then you are part of a special interest. If you want to save the spotted owl or if you are an hourly logger, then you have special interests that may compete with one another. As long are there are two or more people who are reliant on certain outcomes, then there will be competing special interests. In a pluralistic society like the United States with 300 million residents the cacophony of interests can, at times, be deafening. Yielding to various interests is much easier in a homogeneous nation where many beliefs, desires and goals are shared. When one examines any legislative measure in the U.S., one is aware that “garbage in/garbage out” is not the sole province of the digital world.
The current method of legislating has the distinctive aroma of a road kill skunk…only with more lingering effects. As a prime example let’s look at property taxes. I chose them because they are primarily a local factor. There are many categories of property within any given locale: federal lands, state lands, church property, non-profit agency property, commercial (heavy, light, retail), multiunit-housing, single-family, blended, agricultural (CAUV), and on and on. Each type is uniquely taxed or exempted with variations from community to community. The various interests that are represented by their property concerns are numerous, and each group or interest seeks to minimize the impact of tax policy. Multiply this contention by fifty states or thousands of communities across the nation, and you can perceive why professional lobbyists may be necessary to protect the interests of the multiple groups. Now, compound that by a federal tax code that exceeds forty thousand pages (40,000) or literally thousands of state and federal agencies, bureaus and departments that promulgate rules, regulations and directives from thousands of vaguely written laws, resolutions and ordinances. Given a pluralistic nation of 300 million persons, it is logical to assume that EVERY governmental action has a positive effect for some citizens or groups and a negative or neutral impact for the others. To navigate this maze of law and rulemaking requires a commitment of time and a level of expertise beyond that possessed by the average citizen (unless you’re a hefty campaign contributor). Lobbyists are necessary. Bottom line in the lobby game: Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. The government always gets the remains.
My twisted imagination came up with the following fictional example of the process:
Bureaucrat A: Last year four people were severely injured when they fell off the top step of a stepladder.
Bureaucrat B: What don’t we mandate a restraining bar at the top of every ladder?
A: Won’t work ‘cuz the idiots will step over the bar.
B: Maybe we could require that the top step be electrified so that they can’t stand on it.
A: Hmmmm…might work. It would cost about $53.00 per ladder, so it just might work.
Lobbyist: Wait a minute. $53.00 per ladder. No way! How about we place a sticker on every ladder warning them of the danger? Works for cigarettes, and we can do it for $3.50 per ladder.
A: The sticker would have to be bilingual.
Lobbyist: OK, that’s $3.75 per ladder.
B: What about the illiterates and the Chinese speaking people?
A: We have no regulations for those circumstances.
It’s stupid, I know, but not completely far-fetched. In this theoretical example, the lobbyist saved more than $49.00 per ladder. How many ladders were sold because the price did not jump an additional forty-nine dollars? How many ladder building jobs were created or saved because of the timely intervention by that astute ladder lobbyist? Don’t forget the new jobs that were created by the safety sticker maker. Oh, by the way, after the sticker requirement was implemented, a similar number of people were injured because of their failure to heed the warning. Of course, they were probably illiterate or Chinese.
How do we stop the battle among various competing interests and the resultant maze of rules and regulations? Simple…reduce the size and scope of government. To do so would mean that we must take more personal responsibility. If you were to fall off the top step of the stepladder, then you should not sue the ladder company because of your stupidity. Support and vote for candidates who are committed to reducing the size of government (and by extension, taxes). The simpler the system is, the less necessary it is for special interests to intervene. So yes, lobbyists are necessary in the present environment, but if we have the courage and the will to reduce government to a reasonable manageable size, then we could encourage many lobbyists to get real jobs.
Comment or email: cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)