Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Work Coach


    Mike Rowe explains the experience that completely changed his reliance on the sacred cow narratives concerning work.

    Mike Rowe is one of those special people who has an experience that profoundly changes the way he thinks about things.  He's also special in the sense that he is able to relate difficult concepts to large audiences.  So the antiseptic definition of anagnorisis is suddenly and personally grasped by each member of the audience.
    Anagnorisis is the critical moment of recognition or discovery, especially preceding peripeteia.
    Peripeteia is a sudden turn of events or an unexpected reversal, especially in literary work.

    I've edited the transcript for brevity and added some commentary in blue colored text.  My purpose in featuring Mike Rowe is to demonstrate another example of an expert who is an expert because he discarded the narrative platitudes and re-examined everything he thought he knew about work.  What 'wisdom' forms success and what is ultimately a rosy path to self defeat.

    Mike Rowe -- [I got to tell you, it's such a great device though.  When you start to look for peripeteia, you find it everywhere.  I mean, Bruce Willis in "The Sixth Sense," right?  Spends the whole movie trying to help the little kid who sees dead people, and then, boom -- "Oh, I'm dead" -- peripeteia.  You know?  It's crushing when the audience sees it the right way.  Neo in "The Matrix," you know?  "Oh, I'm living in a computer program" -- that's weird.-- 

    Dirty Jobs was called to a sheep ranch.  Albert is the shepherd and is showing me my job as we're castrating sheep.  Albert grabs the scrotum and with a pocket knife snips the scrotum open and pushes the scrotum upward and then his head dips down, obscuring my view, but what I hear is a slurping sound and a noise that sounds like Velcro being yanked off a sticky wall and I'm not even kidding.  I said, "Stop.  This is nuts."  I mean, you know.  "This is crazy.  We can't do this."

    And Albert's like, "What?"

    And I'm like, "I don't know what just happened, but there are testicles in this bucket and that's not how we do it."

    And he said, "Well, that's how we do it."

    And I said, "Why would you do it this way? And before I even let him explain, I said, "I want to do it the right way, with the rubber bands."

    And he says, "Like the Humane Society?"

    And I said, "Yes, like the Humane Society.  Let's do something that doesn't make the lamb squeal and bleed, we can't do this."

    He says, "OK."  He goes to his box and he pulls out a bag of these little rubber bands.  Melanie (his wife) picks up another lamb, puts it on the post, band goes on the scrotum.  Lamb goes on the ground, lamb takes two steps, falls down, gets up, shakes a little, takes another couple steps, falls down.  I'm like, this is not a good sign for this lamb, at all.  Gets up, walks to the corner, it's quivering, and it lies down and it's in obvious distress.

    And I'm looking at the lamb and I say, "Albert, how long?  When does he get up?"

    He's like, "A day."

    I said, "A day!  How long does it take them to fall off?"

    "A week."

    Meanwhile, the lamb that he just did his little procedure on is just prancing around, bleeding stopped.  He's nibbling on some grass, frolicking.  And I was just so blown away at how wrong I was, in that second.  And I was reminded how utterly wrong I am, so much of the time.  And I was especially reminded of what an ridiculously short straw I had drawn that day because now I had to do what Albert had just done, and there are like 100 of these lambs in the pen, and suddenly this whole thing's starting to feel like a German porno, and I'm like...

    Albert hands me the knife.  I go in, I grab the scrotum, tip comes off.  Albert instructs, "Push it way up there."  I do.  "Push it further."  I do.

    The testicles emerge -- they look like thumbs, coming right at you -- and he says, "Bite 'em.  Just bite 'em off."  And I heard him, I heard all the words.  Like how did -- how did I get here?  It's one of those moments where the brain goes off on it's own:  and suddenly, I'm standing there, in the Rockies, and all I can think of is the Aristotelian definition of a tragedy.  You know, Aristotle says a tragedy is that moment when the hero comes face to face with his true identity.

    And I'm like, "What is this jacked-up metaphor?  I don't like what I'm thinking right now."  And I can't get this thought out of my head, and I can't get that vision out of my sight, so I did what I had to do, I went in and I took them.  I took them like this, and I yanked my face back.  And I'm standing there with two testicles on my chin.  And now I can't shake the metaphor.  OK, I'm still in "Poetics," in Aristotle, and I'm thinking -- out of nowhere, two terms come crashing into my head that I haven't heard since my classics professor in college drilled them there.  And they are anagnorisis and peripeteia.  Anagnorisis is the Greek word for discovery.  Literally, the transition from ignorance to knowledge is anagnorisis.  It's what our network does; it's what "Dirty Jobs" is.  And I'm up to my neck in anagnorises every single day.  Great.  The other word, peripeteia, that's the moment in the great tragedies, you know the moment where Oedipus suddenly realizes that hot chick he's been sleeping with and having babies with is his mother.  OK.  That's peripety or peripeteia.  And this metaphor in my head -- I got anagnorisis and peripeteia on my chin.]

    And now, Mike gets to the point of his theory at Ted Talks.  He's had an epiphany about how often and how tragically we get important things wrong and one of those things is how we've been misrepresenting the best motivations to labor and the types of work we should pursue.

    Mike Rowe -- [And now, when I talk about the show, I also start to talk about some of the other things I got wrong, some of the other notions of work that I've just been assuming are sacrosanct, and they're not.  People with dirty jobs are happier than you think.  As a group they're the happiest people I know.  And I don't want to start whistling "Look for the Union Label," and all that happy worker crap.  I'm just telling you that these are balanced people who do unthinkable work.  Roadkill picker-uppers whistle while they work.  I swear to God -- I did it with them.  They've got this amazing sort of symmetry to their life.  And I see it over and over and over again.

    So I started to look at passion, I started to look at efficiency versus effectiveness.  I started to look at teamwork and determination, and basically all those platitudes they call "successories" that hang with that schmaltzy art in boardrooms around the world right now.  That stuff is suddenly all been turned on it's head.

    Safety first?  What if OSHA got it wrong?  I mean, this is heresy, but what if it's really safety third?  I mean really.  What I mean to say is I value my safety on these crazy jobs as much as the people that I'm working with, but the ones who really get it done, they're not out there talking about safety first.  They know that other things come first, the business of doing the work comes first, the business of getting it done.  But your boss is prohibited informing you, his job is not to get you through the work day safe.  His job is to get you through richer.  You want to get home alive and whole, that's on you.

    -- what it all comes down to is this.  I formed a theory, we've declared war on work, as a society, all of us.  It's a civil war.  It's a cold war, really.  But, we've waged this war in the way of a message, what's really being said?  Your life would be better if you could work a little less, if you didn't have to work so hard, if you could get home a little earlier, if you could retire a little faster, if you could punch out a little sooner.

    So the thing to do is to talk about a PR campaign for work, manual labor, skilled labor.  Somebody needs to be out there talking about the forgotten benefits.  I'm talking about grandfather stuff, the stuff a lot of us probably grew up with but we've kind of lost a little.

    The war on work has casualties like any other war.  The infrastructure's the first one; declining trade-school enrollments are the second one.  Every single year:  fewer electricians, fewer carpenters, fewer plumbers, fewer welders, fewer pipefitters, fewer steamfitters.  The infrastructure jobs that everybody is talking about creating  are those guys  -- the ones that have been in decline, over and over.  Meanwhile, we've got two trillion dollars at a minimum (according to the American Society of Civil Engineers) that we need to expend to even make a dent in the infrastructure need, which is currently rated at a D minus.

    So, if I were running for anything, I would simply say that the jobs we hope to create aren't going to stick unless they're jobs that people want.  And I know the point of this conference is to celebrate things that are near and dear to us like innovation, but I also know that clean and dirty aren't opposites.  They're two sides of the same coin, just like innovation and imitation, like risk and responsibility, like peripeteia and anagnorisis.]

    So often, the guy at the factory floor or the lowest guy on the management totem is filled with information required at the top, but can't push his ideas, complaints, remedies, and solutions through the layers of middle management.  Low and behold, on the rare occasion one might brave the low and middle managers' objections and presents his case to the head of the company, his case is rejected out of hand or worse, the CEO is more worried about offending all the middle managers who had squashed his input in the 'proper channels.'  

    Imitators are those folks who repeat the same motions day after day creating innovators' products and services for customers and keeping the workings of society functioning and yet, find balance and joy more often than the celebrated innovators.  What's more, those are the people who gain familiarity with the product or service and who are the face of the company who regularly touch the market, and sometimes they are those who decide to risk everything they have to take advantage of the corporate ignorance and innovate for themselves.  

    So, here comes a college educated performing arts major who spends years rubbing shoulders with the imitators.  Somewhere in his experiences he realizes there really is a class division and he sees the importance of valuing that dirty jobs class and wants to encourage others to not only honor their contribution to social comforts but also to kill the message to the next generation that they're less than innovators somehow if they opt to spend their lives in service to others as imitators.  And that proposition is so against the grain of 'conventional wisdom' that Mike Rowe can capitalize on the rare information and find himself touted as a work expert for Ted Talks.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

My Bully, Not Yours

5and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." 6But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.…

Conservatives have had policy asinine bullying mashed in their faces for 8 years mostly without opposition from their representatives in congress.  There have been zero prosecutions for Obama administration officials who are caught red handed breaking federal laws.  National pushback in the press cannot be counted as prosecution especially when the Obama administration know they can count on the press to cover for their mishaps, mistakes, indiscretions, so long as they hold to the socialist agenda. 

Liberals had the powers of government mashed in their face for 8 years with congressional support even from their own representatives including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  I can hear the liberals response already; "but Bush... but Bush.  To them I say, Bush wasn't a king and didn't seek kingship unlike Clinton and Obama.  Clinton was reigned in by congress on several occasions.  Bush sought and got congressional approval for his anti-constitutional policies.  That doesn't mean Bush and congress was right, it does mean they were elitist and progressive.  Clinton would have assumed kingly powers and Obama HAS assumed kingly powers.  Congress has steadfastly refused to reign Obama's extra-constitutional exercise of powers.  The Supreme Court has acted more to reign in Obama's abuse of authority and that was never the intended purpose of the Supreme Court according to the founders' instructions in their structuring of our government.  So the Supreme Court is another office the Congress has steadfastly refused to hold to their limited function.

I abhor the idea of Donald Trump assuming the top spot.  He is Obama in drag.  His arrogance is not different than Obama's and his stated intentions are just as extra-constitutional as are Obama's.  So what does that make conservatives who are packing into the Trump camp?  You are no better than your opponents.  Your religious fervor for Trump is no different than Obama supporters.  You do remember how insane they sounded, don't you?  Obama was going to pay their bills.  Obama was going to heal the oceans.  Obama was regularly displayed haloed on news magazines and campaign posters.  They sang worship songs and prayed to him.  No criticism, justified or not mattered to them.  The Donald has much criticism justified and you care not so long as he is YOUR bully, your king, your tyrant.

I am as anti-GOP establishment as any of you, but choose any candidate besides Jeb or the Donald.  They are not different.  They are both anti-constitutional and abusive to the rights of the people.  They are both tyrants in waiting.

TEA party, you are disappointing me again.  Last round it was Newt Gingrich, the self described Wilsonian Republican.  You never bothered to look up Wilson and his policies to know your candidate and his self identifying descriptor.  Wilson was THE worst progressive the U.S. has ever had as leader.  Now you fall into the same trap again.  The Donald is openly abusive to the constitution, to YOUR rights, not just those of your opponents.  The Donald is regularly caught in self conflicting policy statements.  The Donald regularly runs his mouth with gaffes and offenses no other candidate get's away with from the right or the left.  The Donald clearly relates policy intentions in direct opposition to the Constitution.  What are you going to do when the luster wears off and his tyranny shines through on your stolen freedom?  Nothing!  Because you are continuing the same behavior that got us Barack Obama, you are sitting on your hands and demanding a king take YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES out of your hands along with the rights necessary to meet them JUST LIKE LIBERALS.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Race Relations

This week, two young men were fired from their job for a racial dispute. Neither needed to be fired until they were called in to speak with their boss and settle their differences and began threatening and justifying their behavior. I happened to be present when the original offense went down. I have worked side by side with both these young men for a couple weeks, so had a chance to get to know each of them a little on a personal level.

First allow me to describe the environment because race relations vary widely from inner city to outlaying rural areas and the black experience in America varies by their environment. In Western Arkansas, true racial hatred for blacks exists to this day albeit much more rarely and much more hidden than in living memory when a couple of passers through stopped at a gas station to fill up and ask for the fastest way out of a local small town. As a white, you still feel the stiffening of a room full of black people when you enter a business who's patronage is primarily black people. I hate it. It breaks my heart to feel unjustly feared by virtue of my skin tone.

Greg is a charming black man with the customary American black experience chip on his shoulder. What I mean is, when he first arrived on the scene in this work environment, an environment which gives him legal preference, his first social action was to feel out his immediate supervisor's racial preference by accusatory inquisition. She happened to be divorced from a black man and prefers to date black men, thus he was rapidly set at ease in the work place.

I cannot and would not pretend to know any black's personal experience with prejudice, but I can identify to a degree with prejudiced treatment. Forty years ago my parents divorced when it was still shameful, and was jerked from a very small rural Eastern Oklahoma town to land in Aneheim, California. We were poor, carried a very strong Southern twang in our speech and I hit a growth spurt so none of my clothes fit. I stood out like a sore thumb at school at a time when the full effects of Socialism had gripped the school administrators so that corporal punishment was unheard of and the students ruled the schools while teachers went in fear of losing their jobs. On any given day I could expect to be insulted, punched, kicked, shamed, tricked, etc., This went on for two years but the first one was the worst. So when I say these young black men don't know real prejudice, please understand my perspective is at the very least experiential though I am not black. Prejudice light as in hurtful words are enough to justify anger. However, anger must be measured against the offense.

Brent is a veteran and a charming white man. He'd been at this job about three months. He and Greg both were favored by the night shift supervisors. They seemed to get along well with one another, laughing and engaging in mental jousting, even seemingly becoming fast friends. That night, the pressure was on to get an order out and each of us were doing our best to get it done fast and get it 100% right. But something went wrong. Something was out of order and Greg was struggling to get it back in order and commented to Brent and myself that it was wrong. The supervisor sees we're talking rather than producing and orders me and Brent back to work. Brent defends himself by explaining he would be working except he's being criticized by 'the black guy.' It was an attempt at humor and it was inappropriate on purpose as one of the tools of humor but poorly thought out, and poorly employed. For one thing it was all but shouted across the shop and for another, it was couched in a greater criticism. The same kind of humor had previously been used in their mental jousting and Greg had not been offended then, so for Brent in an off the cuff comment, it didn't register as potentially offensive. Brent did not exhibit true racism, but a poor exercise in humor under stress. A few minutes later the supervisor came over and quietly explained to Brent that though he probably didn't mean it to be, the comment was offensive and to refrain from references to Greg's race.

I was a little late clocking out that night, so I happened to overhear Greg pressing the issue further as I was passing by to get out of there. The particular comment I'd overheard was one threatening potential violence. The next day neither Greg nor Brent are present and it didn't take long to hear they'd both been fired. Later the manager comes in and calls the whole place to a halt to explain why neither would be retained on staff. Threats were made, and justification for their behavior... I suspect Brent could have saved both their jobs maybe if he'd simply acknowledged it was a stupid attempt at humor and not meant as a slur, that he liked Greg personally and truly did not mean to be offensive. "I'm very sorry to have offended you for any reason much less to degrade your entire race." Apparently, this is not what he did.

Last night, two days after this event, we learned Brent committed suicide. Losing the job was not the only contributing factor to Brent's choice. It was the final contributing factor. A side note on suicide. I hold very little remorse for the supremely selfish actors of suicide. The thought processes which lead to suicide go along the lines of; it would serve them right to have to deal with their guilt over my death. The survivors of suicide perpetrators do have to deal with their feelings of guilt over his choice to self destruct in self involved drama. This is me dealing with mine. I knew he'd broken up with his girlfriend. I knew how much he wanted to get on permenantly with this company. I was there when all this happened and I did not follow up with him to mentor, to check on how he was dealing with these losses. I did not know he was this unstable. Such a waste of potential. Such a loss of amiable knowledge and ability. Such a tragedy. Such an unnecessary loss. This weekend, I have repeatedly broken down in tears over this. Last night the manager came in and assessed the emotional situation. I'll have to post another article on this piece of work later, but with half the staff breaking down emotionally, he didn't release us for the night. Instead he gave us the weekend off as we've been working long shifts 7 days a week. So, for five hours we continued to attempt to work while emotions kept overcoming one and then another.  (update Monday night/Tuesday morning; my supervisor confessed she'd made the call to keep us on for the completion of our shift and she apologized to me and thanked us for hanging in there with her.)

Young black man or woman, I don't know your experience in prejudices, neither do you know mine from the black community. I've heard black people tell me because I'm white, I cannot know prejudice. They are wrong. That statement is evidence in itself of racial prejudice. The definition of racial prejudice is prejudgement based on race. In that statement, they have judged my experience and first hand knowledge based on my race. The violent prejudice I experienced was not based on race, but it was violent prejudice none the less. The racial prejudice I experienced was and is from the black community, from the hispanic community, from the Middle East communities, from every ethnicity other than Slavic European and even that is not entirely excluded, and I suspect as frequent as your experience from the white community and others. So please don't assume you know anything about my handle on prejudice. In fact, try not judging me at all based on my race. After you've tried this for a month or two and found how impossible this call for an end to prejudice is on you when you consider an ill timed joke to be prejudice, perhaps you'll learn to measure your anger in context to the offense. Hateful slurs and violence against you and yours are another matter.

Given that you must prejudge me based on my age and race, expect the same from me. You represent your race to me as much as I represent mine to you. So, when your first act in the workplace is to feel out the supervisor's racial preferences, when you walk around expecting me to hold ill will toward you and search out any possible inference which might be construed as a slur against your race, when you believe all whites are prejudiced to one degree or another, you must also know that you are adding to the racial divide rather than helping to heal it. I honestly don't want to walk into another establishment where men stiffen because I am visually different. Not as one to be abused and certainly not as one to be feared. Not anywhere in this great land. That does not mean we are excused from using our judgment or the tools of judgment like generalities of race, age, gender. Statistical evidence indicates whites are more at risk in a black community than blacks are in a white community. In Western Arkansas, blacks are in a predominantly white community and in Western Arkansas whites are still more at risk from blacks than blacks are from whites. Both races are at greater risk from their own than from any other race. The reasons behind these statistics are the young blacks' assumption of victimization on a personal and group think level however justified, and the popularization of intentional ignorance. According to Jayzee, you're trying to be white if you seek an education and that is meant as a criticism! How racist is that? To be white is wrong AND to be educated is wrong!?!

This tragedy does not sit squarely on the shoulders of reverse racism, it was only a contributing factor to the poor choices of a supremely selfish couple of young and charming men. I miss both of them and I'm angry with both of them. I'll never get the chance to express either sentiment with one of them.

Thursday, February 16, 2012



: the act or process or an instance of narrating


1 a : of, relating to, or constituting the grammatical mood that expresses the will to influence the behavior of another
b: expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation
c : having power to restrain, control, and direct

2: not to be avoided or evaded : necessary <an imperativeduty>

Let us acknowledge our own stink...
Here, let me turn my podium around for one sermon and preach this one to the choir.  Right as we are, ain't none of us being real right or completely real with ourselves, never mind being real with the Left.  I aim to join the fight to write a new national narrative.  One based on facts in evidence rather than scares and emotional responses to them.  Because we on the right claim the nanny government is killing individual self determination and self preservation, we should be aware and vigilant to prevent this reliance on nannying within ourselves.  I find we are neither aware nor vigilant.  In fact we squeal just as loudly and just as foolishly as our opponents when one of our entitlements is targeted for elimination or reform.  This is an appeal to get the right behind the cure to Liberal imperatives for the faith community to pay for abortion on demand.  This is an appeal to re-establish the moral authority to demand value of life for the unborn and elderly and disabled.

You who know me, know I have intimate experience with the cost of recreational drug use on a family.  I have lost relationships with immediate family members and nearly lost two more.  Most telling, I could have been lost to drug addiction and culture myself.  I mention this to preface my take on one issue in the discussion here, that I do not speak without compassion for the drug addicts and their spouses, children, siblings, parents, and friends.

While researching the success of Marxist ideology infiltrating our culture, I had a discussion with someone near and dear to me and I thought to demonstrate a right ideology to her.  She agrees with my conservative principles completely, and she agrees with the detrimental effects of nanny governing on the black community in the inner cities.  She agrees with me on the comparison of Democrat controlled cities and states with Republican controlled cities and states and their respective levels of peace and prosperity.  She agrees with me on the detrimental effects on our ability to self preserve via nanny government's war on poverty.  She agrees with me on the right and need to have access to weapons for self preservation.  However, she cannot see the detrimental effects of the nanny state on our ability to self preserve via the war on drugs.

I have compared it to the legalization of alcohol with all that reasoning.  I have described with evidence and reason the results of legalizing drugs in the Dutch culture.  I show the statistics that drug use has fallen and the quality of drug through standardization has risen making them safer to use.  The effects of drug use on the greater culture has greatly improved with fewer drug related deaths by infectious disease, overdose and automobile accidents plus the crime rate has fallen due to the reduced prices of recreational drugs and the elimination of profit to the street dealer.  The facts that kids have greater access to illegal drugs than legal alcohol, that criminals are rewarded with extreme profit for criminality, that law enforcement along with everyone else lose respect for the rule of law due to unreasonable dictates; do not matter.  No amount of information is going to affect her opinion.  Even though I know her to be a reasonable person willing to consider the evidence and evaluate the value of each policy, she 'knows' drug use will increase and crime will increase because 'everybody' will start doing it.  She is an ideologue.  If I press at all, I can expect an emotional explosion.  I'd rather keep our relationship than continue the discussion with her.  You on the other hand, I want to win over at all costs.

Ann Coulter is sitting in the same pew and just as vehemently argues for the drug war without investigating the actual statistics and consequences.  She was a guest on John Stossel's show when John presented these same statistics and this is one of the few times, perhaps the only time I've seen, Ann could not back her arguments by quoting off the top of her head the supporting studies, reports and stats for her position on any issue.  Ann, I think we can all agree (in the choir room) is reflective, thoughtful, and knowledgable on the most controversial issues of our day, yet here she stubbornly and blindly clings to the 'facts she knows' which just aren't true.  Enough conservatives are as much ideologues on this topic that it was established and remains law for 40 years when it is neither supported by the constitution nor the studies' data, nor the consequences.  We are as much ideologues on legislating our morality as the Liberals are on legislating fairness which is their morality.
[By the way, Ann is going to be in San Luis Obispo at Cal Poly Feb 28, 2012 and I intend to be there.  I love to watch her argue a red streak through the blue territory that is California's college campus.]

God help the politician who dares eyeball the Social Security boondoggle for reformative action. It may have been born on Liberal agenda, but it's now populated by both Democrats and Republicans and neither party has the political capital nor will to address it.  President Bush attempted to by designing a progressive move to real investments, but the outcry from all sides shut him down rather decidedly.  Which recipient of benefits who is ready to tear his head off, would not have done a better job with this responsibility were he left to his own devices?  Nanny government underpays him the return on his investment because they decided to spend that investment (rewarding further poverty culture via welfare) and count on future generations entering the system to pay the return on the older accounts.  Exactly the same scheme Bernie Madoff was convicted on.

Everyone knows this government sponsored 'Ponzi Scheme' is going to collapse, but nobody is willing to address it because it is a politician's instant career suicide.  It is the living illustration of centralized management sold to the people by the New Deal and Great Society presidents.  "You little people, don't worry your pretty little heads about your retirement, we'll take care of it for you."  And the vast majority of the liberty culture swallowed that promise hook, line and sinker.  Most never gave their retirement another thought until it came time to collect.  Practically, the entire nation went to sleep on this issue until someone said, "It's failing."  No matter how bad it is, nobody wants their benefits pulled or cut and nobody wants to protect new victims from being forced to pay for the old ones' present day benefits.  At some point, we have to acknowledge the victims of government are screwed and whatever happens to political Bernie Madoff types, nothing is going to bring back the squandered wealth.

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."  John Adams
My point is, you don't know the level of your own indoctrination into the Marxist infiltration.  The Overton Window draws the Right to the left with the Left's extreme, inexorable movement into Marxism.  Everything we know as normal is far from reasonable or natural truth.  How many times have I mentioned, "Everything I thought I knew was a lie?  Everything I've been taught through education and main stream media and political speech is a manufactured narrative about the evil consequence of Christian morality and American imperialism."  The conservative may talk liberty, but in reality we are as addicted to the Nanny government as the entitlement culture screaming "Eat the rich" at Wall St.  The only difference is which nannying and based on what ideal.  We eat the wealth of our young.  OWS has some credibility based on 'what's good for the old is good for the young.'  That my friends is not the American value and spirit of liberty.

Whatever your position on the recreational drug use issue, you have to acknowledge we have used up to and including deadly force to eliminate this behavior.  In full knowledge of the failures of SSI and Welfare and thousands of other socially irresponsible programs implemented by force of law, we continue enrolling new victims into legislated moral imperatives.  You can't expect to be taken seriously if you spout "Leave us alone" in one breath and espouse, defend or ignore conscripting legislation in the next.  If you want to be credible on value of life and sexual deviance issues, you need the credibility which comes with consistency to carry the authority of real and honest morality.  You can't demand your share of 'the promise' while the program burns the next generation.

This is where the Liberal and the Libertarian choose representatives who oppose your ability and willingness to dictate their behaviors and announce their intention to legislate their own moral imperative over you.  You are only getting a tiny taste of left wing moral imperative with Obama's government arrangement to have national insurance pay for abortions and morning after pills with an unfunded mandate of your insurance premiums in direct opposition to your faith.  Our moral imperative to legislate our personal level of morality onto the broader culture is exactly what the founders sought to avoid.  They knew and spoke often on the greater restriction of immorality being the inner imperative rather than the fiercest, even deadliest outer imperative for a moral society.

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778 
"Men, in a word,must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House 
"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..."  George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789 
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. NorthWest Ordinance 1787

Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity. . . and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.
Samuel Adams Letter to John Adams, 1790, who wrote back: "You and I agree."

History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.
Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin 1749, p.22

We have been a rich nation relatively speaking, for a very long time and most people do not relate to real poverty.  This point is especially true due to the fact the authorities keep informing us the poverty level is somewhere between 'can't afford a new car every year' and can't afford my over valued house payment.'  Real poverty is known as 'can't buy my baby treatment for colic or whooping cough,  can't buy my near naked 10 year old girl clothes, can't buy myself a meal today or this week or this month.'  Never mind the folks marching on Wall St. expecting corporations to abide by their standards.  Standards which include severely limiting the amount of money successful people keep from their earnings in a year and diverting anything over that amount to people who will not work.  Now imagine if their morality is forced on the greater American culture.  All liberty is lost.  The foundations of our great society will have been shattered.  All merit and reward will have been eliminated reducing the founders' dream to a failure at last.

All of these programs which are designed to take our self concern and assure our personal security for food safety, car safety, drug safety, alcohol safety, play safety, work safety, education, health care, self defense, retirement, endless etc's., work at putting to sleep the awareness of life's many dangers.  They teach the culture government is responsible to guarantee you safety and health and success, even happiness.  These ideas are the exact opposite of our founding fathers' vision.  Is this our vision for America?  If not, what is and how can we reach it?  If so, how can we get back to it?  I'm assuming the founders happened on something unique in history and we should be taking every drastic measure to preserve it.

There is only one moral authority to demonstrate right over wrong, good over bad, wisdom over folly.  The founding fathers did it and they paid the price for it.  We have to choose for ourselves the same kind of sacrifice they demonstrated for our own moral authority to fix the ills of our culture as they chose to fix the ills of theirs.  I have little faith in the culture I observe to join me in this quest because it requires deep sacrifice.  Few in history are willing to pledge their lives, their wealth, and their sacred honor together for a cause few can envision much less live out.  The Black Robe Brigade are missing in action. The ability to articulate the vision, the need, and the reward is a rare commodity in a culture spiritually napping being fattened on licentiousness and ease.

The cure to immorality is awareness of the consequence of immorality.  Step between a fool and his folly and the fool hates you and when he drives you away goes right back to his folly.  Allow the full weight of his consequences to rain down on him, maybe he will self correct and maybe not.  However, you see to the education and council of your child in observance of the fool and your child is saved by witness.  As a culture people learn quickly the value of self preservation with minimal council and learn a fresh value for the best sources of wisdom.  What we have such a hard time accepting is the inability of government legislating morality.

Yes, laws against murder and theft are legislating morality.  Don't miss the forest for the trees.  You couldn't legislate away alcohol use or abuse and you can't legislate away drug use or abuse.  We tried it and got the mafia and international gangs and street wars for our efforts.  You can legislate value for life if you have moral authority that comes with consistency.  You can legislate the moral imperative to value gender identity if you have moral authority.  What you can't legislate is whether people will choose to participate in unhealthy, self destructive, risky, shaming behavior on an individual basis.  Allow the culture to deal with 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' behaviors.  If the individual, self aware and responsible for his own welfare, is not deterred there, they will not be deterred by law.  So what is the point in making them wards of the state?  Save your state funds, you won't need as many police, as many jails, as many hospitals, on and on it goes.  Instead, use the unspent wealth on free councilors, clinics, recovery programs when the self destructive fool grabs a momentis lucidity and decides he needs reprogramming.

Are you receiving a government check?  You are the problem.  Are you advocating government do anything?  You are the problem.  Are you unprepared or unwilling to volunteer your skills, time and wealth to wean any willing soul off the government tit?  You are the problem.  That does not equal the sacrifice of our founding fathers.  Yours is an easy sacrifice by comparison.  If you have one demand to make of government, it should be consistent.  It should be 'stop.'  Stop spending what isn't yours, stop mandating responsibilities, stop criminalizing personal choices.  If you tax it, repeal the tax.  If you regulate it, repeal the regulation as far back as is functionally possible.  Leave the people to their own devices, their own wits, their own compassion for one another, and their own self determination.  If authority to act isn't mandated in the Constitution the founders gave us, DON'T ACT!!  If authority to act is mandated, act ONLY WITHIN THE STATED BOUNDS!!!

As painful as it might be, we must begin to pull the wooly rug out from under the welfare, grant, subsidy, SSI, aid, unemployment, disabled, government check recipient.  More to the point, we must begin to pull the wooly blanket from off the eyes of America's entitlement class.  We must unite the TEA Party and the OWS mob under one agenda to cram government back in it's limiting box under the authority of the Constitution via the Enumerated Powers Act.  If we stop eating the youth, perhaps they'll stop threatening to eat the successful.  If they'll stop marauding thuggery, perhaps we'll stop dismissing their voice.  They are angry because they are without hope.  You should be angry too, but your anger should be used to guide their anger, rather than making them the target of your anger.  They didn't enter Marxism by choice.  You sent them into the lion's den.  You agree with Marx more than you know.  They're your national progeny.

If you want a city, county or state to disallow drugs, alcohol, or tobacco - fine, do it at the local level and allow people to go where it is legal if they want it and illegal if they don't want to be near it.  Between the lesser powers, they can experiment and find out the level of freedom the people are willing to live with or without.  However, at the federal level, we have to stuff government back under the constraints of the Constitution.  If OWS and the TEA party can agree on anything, it should be this much.  If you wish to continue the moral wars via legislature, be prepared for a U.S.S.R. style black market and criminal underclass.  Be prepared for their police state and be prepared for an Arab Spring style collapse because our spoiled butts are not willing to live under a morality mandate from the Right or the Left.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012


Narrative Part II
What is the narrative?


  [nar-uh-tiv]  Show IPA
a story or account of events, experiences, orthe like, whether true or fictitious.
a book, literary work, etc., containing such astory.
the arttechnique, or process of narrating:Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

Politically Correct

Before investigating the roots of communism in our culture and especially in our colleges, I presumed the dissidents were working very slowly to remain undiscovered, but that assumption proved why assumptions can get you killed.  In fact, from 1967, this counter culture morphed within two years and grew like a metastasized cancer of revolutionary violence from the education industry onto the broader culture.  Those entering the institutions of higher learning are predominantly impressionable young adults still pliable from parenting. (which is the instillation of discipline and virtue)  Twenty years after the close of WWII, parents were astonished to discover their kids were filled with horrific ideals upon returning home from college.  They went to college Christians and came home not just unbelieving, but atheist antagonists toward all religions but especially Christianity.  Went patriotic, came back anti-American.  Went dependent on church and local community for compassionate outreach and came home making demands on government for compassion programs, making passionate arguments for Socialism.  Went ready to join the productive community and returned prepared to collapse the economy and grind down American values.

In many circumstances the graduates are not made aware of these ideas' origins.  They are simply sold and believe in the communist principles without knowing or having questioned their consequences.  So they take these values with them into their workplaces and social circles and apply them as their default choice to correct perceived problems or even contrive problems to correct capitalism's weaknesses.  Later on, they may hear a charismatic define Communism then become an overt advocate of this failed system, otherwise they remain a silent advocate.

Many intelligent voices on the right are former Democrats who say their party moved away from their values.  The extreme Left moved the Democrat Party from promoting self preservation and self determination to government protection and dependence.  That is only the 'change' recognizable to the average citizen eventually (30 years in the making) enraging them enough to get into the fray and oppose their agenda push through the TEA party demonstrations.  That visible change is what drove me to investigate the 'movement' further.  Now that I'm looking deeper, the 'change' is terrifying.

We recognize it by the business management of personell including diversity training and affirmative action hiring policy, by the transmogrified Democrat Party and among the supposedly conservative Republican party, many representatives who act and advocate for government intervention through sweeping policy, programs and regulation sometimes crossing party lines, sometimes writing their own version of centralizing powers and always in complete disregard of the limited powers prescribed by the founders in the founding document.

What began as compassion motivation, (leg up programs) morphed into the dependence motivation, (handout programs) which attract huge campaign donations and special interest PAC (Political Action Committee) activist support.  You will never hear a Democrat politician today, call for the people to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." of earlier Democrats.  The right have their share of massive program defenders as well, though they mouth the smaller government sentiments of the conservative core.  When conservative president, George W. Bush asked Congress to move Social Security Insurance from government management to private sector investment under strict guidelines, the conservative base matched the left in cries against the move as too risky despite the glaring facts proving the present system is due to bankrupt and collapse within our present retirement community's lifetime.

See if you can find a tax payer subsidized college with a U.S. history program emulating this kind of pride in our heritage from 1924.  Find one which is even willing to mention our form of government is the longest lasting in all of history.

Our Ten Contributions to Civilization

A native of Ohio and a graduate of Ohio State, ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER was appointed to his professorship at Harvard in 1924. As a teacher and author he is internationally respected for his knowledge of American history, and in the paper that follows he reminds us that over the years this nation has made its weight felt more by ideas than by wealth.


The United States is often considered a young nation, but in fact it is next to the oldest continuous government in the world. The reason is that the spirit of its people has always been empirical and pragmatic, dedicated to equalitarian ends but willing to realize them by flexible means. In the European sense of the term, America's major political parties are not parties at all, because they do not divide over basic ideologies. Neither wishes to overturn or replace the existing political and economic order; they merely desire to alter it at slower or faster rates of speed.
One of our proudest achievements has been the creation of a system of controlled capitalism that yields the highest living standards on earth and has made possible a society as nearly classless as man has ever known. The profit system as it has developed in America is a multiprofit system, sharing its benefits with all segments of society: capital, labor, and the consuming masses. Yet even this was not due to a preconceived blueprint; it too was the result of trial and error. Unprincipled businessmen had first to be brought to heel by government restraints and the growing power of organized labor before they came to learn that they must serve the general good in pursuing their selfish interests. Now labor is feeling the restraint.

The Power of Critical Theory

The after affects of a culture losing it's foundation of morals (through the communist ideal in the institutions of higher learning mocking and shaming students who profess any faith) is accepting the idea that the ends justify the means.  Any unjust action can be justified as long as their 'intention' is to improve the general welfare of that society.  (The very same ideal which produced the killing fields of Polpot, the Gulags, the Holocaust, and every Socialist violent revolution in the last century all over the world.)  Providers of the news and information services have, on a personal level opted to use their positions to advocate agendas against their own stated industrial set of ideals.  In effect, they create and repeat a national narrative, a cloaked criticism (by highlighting the worst of virtue encouraging individuals, organizations, and events while highlighting the best of their opposites) of Christianity, U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, and of the spread of Western values in Eastern cultures.  In this way they are shifting the Overton Window so the general populace accepts the new 'normal' perspective.
What we would have considered taboo and a fatal nominee flaw a few years ago, is suddenly okay evidently. Sex in the White House? Not a problem… Cheated on your wife and divorced? Not a problem… Buddy around with known radicals and Marxists? Definitely not a problem… And the Overton Window slides inexorably to the left.
This dramatic movement from a culture of independence and self preservation to foolish, self destructive dependence does not happen in a free and open society without a massive, all encompassing propaganda program.  Once planted in the fertile soil of inexperienced youth, the communist agenda took root and in short order no longer needed the instigators and funding of the collapsed foreign influence.  The indoctrinated began authoring their own propaganda and strategizing their local interests.  This group continues the original intent to 'grind America's values down' and function as a fifth column using our values of individual liberty and virtue to turn us into the self hating fools you now observe on the evening news agitating for selfish concerns.  Those guys are only the visible agitation to manufacture and get their issues noticed.  The next level is the news agencies who pick up the narrative and project it into the national discussion.  Another group use our laws and courts to force the issue into the decision process.  Finally, still another group uses Political Action Committees to elect and lobby individual and party politicians.

That, my friends, is why the (political center) Libertarian advocacy against promoting morality in education and culture is untenable.  Our founders knew the nation could not survive without morals and they stated the best and almost only source of cultural morality is the Christian church in our culture.  Those same founders ensured rights and freedoms to all religions based on their experiences with the Crown of England, but you have to face some realities.  Not all religions are peace and order loving or even life loving.  Without morality liberty cannot exist.  In a national and generational sense, one cannot exist without the other.  The closer the values, not necessarily the religion, the more cohesive and stronger the national identity.  Very few cultures value true liberty.  Most value and respect authoritarianism manifested in various degrees of socialist nations.  When the people tire of the abuses that go along with such systems, they revolt and prop up a new authoritarian.  This style of governance has no demonstration of lasting more than five generations under one form of government regulated by one Constitution and identified by one name.  Either they die with their charismatic or strong leader or they replace him through violence.