His zeal for public health and safety is unabated, despite a resounding “No,” from the courts in response to his ridiculous legislation banning large cups and bottles of soda. Now, the “capeless crusader” has turned once again to the item which health crusaders attack most often and most viciously: cigarettes and other forms of smoking tobacco.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t endorse smoking, nor do I smoke. But neither do I endorse the government-funded war on smoking. My reason for this is simple: smoking is not healthy, it’s true. But neither is eating too much. And the zealots are already turning toward overeating as their next crusade, starting with a seemingly innocuous requirement that restaurants post calorie content of each menu item. Today, require caloric content to be posted. Tomorrow, completely ban the food items that are the unhealthiest.
All that aside, I think the Mayor’s actions speak for themselves. And they say . . .
Government intervention, the President and current administration tell us–daily–is the way that we will achieve our goals for the future.
There are many reasons to take exception to this statement. Some of the more obvious (at least to me): First of all, what happened in the years before the modern government existed? How did people even survive, let alone thrive, in the absence of the vast resources available from the current government programs? Second, why so many people telling us, to the point of shouting down any dissenters, that this is THE ONLY WAY to do business in today’s world? Third, toward whose goals are we pressing, again? Fourth, what makes you (the progressives) so sure that “everybody” wants what you do?
One of the email newsletters to which I subscribe is titled “The Morning Jolt” and features bold headlines and news that will “set your blood to simmer[ing],” as the author wrote in February 13, 2013’s edition. This daily imprint features Jim Geraghty’s thoughts on a number of subjects, and he is usually dead-on in his analysis of current events. He is committed to combating the pervasive influence of the lovers of the “progressive agenda” (read “retrogressive suppression of independence”) for America.
One of the subjects he addresses head-on in the 2/13 edition of Morning Jolt is the rising cost of employing full-time workers here in the US. Written by Charles Hugh Smith, this article is worth reading because it addresses several factors (one of which is the return on investment consideration for employers [woefully under-discussed in the current climate]) influencing the economic stagnation which is so prevalent, and because it does so in such a well-written format that there is no need for this author to reinvent the wheel. 😉
Geraghty quotes extensively from the article cited above, and then offers a few words of his own on this subject:
“In short, the unemployed, the departed-the-workforce, the just-entered-the-workforce and soon-to-enter-the-workforce cannot be sufficiently productive to justify the expense of hiring them. And we know this pretty much has to be true, because corporations are sitting on roughly $1.7 trillion in cash right now [according to a recent article from one of the blogs of the New York Times, apparently. I (Dave here) was not able to follow this link to research it.]. It’s not that they don’t have the money to hire people. They just don’t think that hiring people would generate more money than having it just sit there in their accounts, which is a phenomenally depressing conclusion.”
That’s pretty simple, and it’s pretty clear, too. Excessive and punitive regulation has driven the cost of adding new workers so high that it has exacerbated the underemployment of the younger and (usually) less-experienced members of the workforce. Why do I say that it has made this problem worse, rather than “excessive regulations have caused underemployment of the young?” Because this underemployment is caused by the understandable predisposition of employers to hire more experienced workers, rather than younger workers who require more investment (time to train, money to pay minimum wages, benefits, etc.) and less return for said outlay.
In other words, the employer is made slightly worse off by being forced to be more choosy in who he hires; or, alternatively, by being forced to buy machinery to automate what a minimum-wage worker would otherwise do. The potential minimum-wage worker, however, is made much worse off: not only is he robbed of the opportunity to work for minimum wage, he is also (often) denied the opportunity to work and gain experience that would qualify him for more appealing, better-paying jobs.
As one of the young and underemployed, I know whereof I speak. A six-month job hunt–during which I have aggressively sought employment by repeated phone calls, in-person submissions of my resume, and face-to-face introductions–has resulted in only one interview.
Am I complaining? No, I’m simply pointing out that I understand (from personal experience) how tough it is to find a job in today’s depressed economy.
While punitive (from an employers’ perspective) regulation is certainly a key factor, to say that it is the sole variable in this complicated problem would be to commit an unforgivable oversimplification.
I cannot in the scope of this article address every economic factor that contributes to the high unemployment rate among young workers; however, I believe there are two surpluses, surpluses that go largely unaddressed in the current discussion on the unemployment rate, that play a critical role in this phenomenon.
The first surplus is the result of education. More and more, we see students entering liberal arts colleges pursuing majors such as Twelfth-Century Poetry, Ancient Literature Interpretation, and Underwater Basket-Weaving. (Ok, I made the last one up, but you get the idea.) Even students in fields that, a few years ago, featured robust demand are seeing a dramatic drop in employment opportunities. This decrease has affected not only “soft” majors such as the ones above, but “not-so-soft” majors like liberal arts, communication arts, art, and others. Geraghty wrote a very insightful paragraph in his February 13 “Morning Jolt” column:
“Folks, the art world and publishing world are fiercely competitive even in the very best of times, so you’re going to need a backup career just in case things don’t work out. This also applies to those who aspire to fame and fortune in journalism, professional athletics, the music industry, most of the entertainment industry, and most of the jobs that the world covets. You’ve got to be really talented, and really hard-working. And yes, lucky. I realize I’m very, very, very, very lucky to have a job that I (usually) enjoy and that allows me to make a living. Of course, I suspect those outside those fields overestimate the role of luck. My buddy Cam — now on the Sportsman Channel! — will periodically hear from someone, ‘Boy, you’re really lucky to find a job where you get to host a radio show!’ and he has to bite his tongue and refrain from mentioning all the years he worked as reporter and assistant news director, driving all over the state of Oklahoma on any assignment he could get, long hours, lousy pay, and so on.”
He also makes a very pithy, observant statement: “Nobody just hands you a plum job in journalism.” Truth! It may shock some college students to realize that nobody “just hands you” any plum job. Most of the plum jobs in the world go to those who have busted their behinds for it.
Is that fair?
Before you answer that, stop and think about how you would feel if you spent ten years of your life working at any job you could find in your chosen profession, striving for that “dream job,” only to see it handed to some fresh-faced newbie fresh off the education assembly line because they “deserved it.” How would that make you feel?
Yeah, you’re right…there are two sides to every coin.
The second surplus is the result of a lack of practical education. Increasingly, college graduates are sorely lacking in portable skills that can only be obtained by personal contact and interaction with people. Why is there such a deficit of ordinary, everyday interpersonal skills? Again, the answer is too long and complex for a post of this length, but some contributing factors are the increasing obsession with screen media, the widespread revolt against traditional values, and the epidemic, not of illiteracy, but of a-literacy.
According to Susan Jacoby’s book The Age of American Unreason, published in 2008, only 57 percent of the American public has ever read a non-fiction book. Making a logical assumption that some people’s only non-fictional exposure is from required reading for school, the number of people who read non-fiction books from personal desire is quite possibly substantially smaller. This is relevant to the discussion at hand, precisely because readers are better equipped than non-readers to follow, evaluate, and process a complex train of thought in a logical fashion.
In education, as in many other areas of life, many Americans have forsaken personal responsibility for the convenience of “pre-packaged” curriculum. Some seem to think that if it’s not taught in school, or required reading for one of their classes, it’s just not worth the time it would take read about it.
It’s heartbreaking to see education of all types going to ruin here in the States. It’s particularly sad when one considers the historical successes of the “self-made man,” the man who educated himself–outside the scope of the marbled halls and manicured lawns of the university–at great expense of time and effort, and built a business, a trade, a living, and (for more than a few) a fortune. The current scoffing at those who have made their living in this way reflects the near-idolatrous regard many hold for the “almighty college degree.” Current disdain notwithstanding, self-education–as with many other forms of self-reliance–is a phenomenon that is disproportionately represented in the United States. Freedom to keep the proceeds of one’s efforts truly is the greatest encouragement to innovation and initiative.
In short, government intervention of all sorts into employment contracts is fraught with examples of stagnation following efforts taken for the (expressed) purpose of producing greater economic growth. In every case, more government intervention and regulation resulted in LESS growth, not MORE as the politicians predicted. The brighter tomorrow our elected officials pay lip-service to will only come about by a return to the truly American principles of independence, self-education, individual choice and liberty, personal responsibility, and self-governance.
Piers Morgan has done more harm than good to the anti-gun cause with his logically bankrupt tantrums. Now, he strikes again, trying to take on two women who had the nerve to disagree with him on the issue of gun control.
Notice how Morgan repeatedly tries to personify the weapons (and notice how Dana Loesch doesn’t let him slide). This is the classic argument of the left: Guns kill people. Well, no, Mr. Morgan, they don’t.
Also notice how Morgan takes a page from the Biden playbook and constantly interrupts and disrupts his opponents’ speech. And the headline dares to call this a debate? This is a shouting match, and if volume is the indicator of a poor performance, Piers is losing handily.
“It makes me sick.” What? Who cares how it makes you feel? Why are we supposed to accept that as a substitute for fact in believing your argument?
I know I’ve said a lot about the issue of gun control over the last few months. I’m also aware the news is full of stories about gun violence and the need to “do something” about it. Usually, the ones feeding us these reports are the ones lecturing us that the government really needs to do something about this important issue.
There are two things to remember. The first is that the Second Amendment was not drafted to give Americans the right to own guns for hunting or other sporting purposes. The Second wasn’t even drafted to give Americans the right to own weapons for self-defense. Freshly released from the bondage of tyranny, the men who founded this country wrote the Second Amendment to give the people the right to own weapons to defend themselves from any tyrants. This, of course, extended to the government, should those in charge forget their office as public servants of the people, and begin to attempt to run rough-shod over the personal property and rights of the people under them.
The second thing to remember is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Bill of Rights encapsulates several of those “…certain, inalienable rights…” that each of us has been “…endowed [with] by [our] Creator…” The Constitution clearly spells out the process for amending its provisions. Until such a process has been followed on this matter, any “law” that is passed to ensure we take the “morally defensible” “high road” is neither law nor morally defensible nor the high road to anywhere. Except perhaps The Pit. Or possibly Europe.
Of course, there are many things that these statements skim right over, including the redefinition both of the Constitution’s meaning (think “original intent”) and the rights of the American people (think “universal health care,” “too big to fail,” and “welfare.”) . I don’t want to get bogged down with a technical discussion of these matters now…look for more in later posts.
What I do want to do is share an important bit of history with you, my readers. Some of you may not be aware of the event to which I refer. I know I wasn’t before I read about it on a friend’s Facebook wall. While I know that not everything on Facebook is true, I verified this and it is an actual historical event. A Google search renders several good entries, including this excellent article at History.com:
The following originally shared on Facebook by Jerry Howe
A LITTLE HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT:
December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.
We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
I don’t normally break up a block-quote, as you know, but let that sink in. Nearly THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE. Murdered. For obeying thelaw.
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.
As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.
This is the crux of the matter. Once we elevate safety as king, above freedom, we will always, always, ALWAYS surrender our freedom and our rights so that we can be “safe.” In reality, however, this is like the appeaser in Churchill’s famous illustration. He “…feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Safety, as it turns out, isn’t really all that safe. Back to the text:
Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We cannot legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.
Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families. [emphases mine]
Don’t tell me. I’m not crazy; I’m not demented; I’m not a bitter, clinging gun owner; I’m not a sociopath. I’m one of 280,000,000 gun owners who didn’t kill anybody yesterday.
So don’t tell me any of that.
I’m a peaceable, law-abiding citizen who believes that I’m commanded by God to follow the rules that the government lays down. However, I also believe that when the government lays down laws that contradict the supreme law of the land (the Constitution), and my life (the Bible), I must obey God rather than man.
The facts are in, and they are clear. The gun control presently in effect is neither controlling guns nor reducing crime. It is simply increasing the likelihood that a law-abiding citizen will become the next victim of a homicidal maniac with a gun. This is because criminals (hope you’re sitting down) don’t follow laws.That’s why we call them criminals. Okay?
One more thing: The criminals that commit gun crimes? Most of them use guns stolen or otherwise acquired illegally. This renders null and void the argument that registration will make it easier to locate the criminal in a firearms-related incident. It will simply enable law enforcement to trace the weapon back to the (often-unsuspecting) legal owner. This means more headache for the law official and the law-abiding citizen.
Gun control is pawned off on us as the moral high ground. A baser lie has never been told! I’ll put it to you simply: Advocacy for gun control is the belief that a woman being found in an alleyway, brutally raped, and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to that same woman explaining why her would-be attacker is lying dead on the pavement with seven (or eight) bullets from a large-caliber handgun lodged in his chest. In other words, the murder of this lady is more justifiable (or more appealing?) than that lady shooting the sicko who would seek to debauch her.
Before you accuse me of being vile or using reprehensible imagery to promote my point, let me remind you that we are talking about criminals and violent crimes, two vile and reprehensible subjects if there ever were any.
Two parting thoughts:
One. If the leftists control the moral high ground, as they repeatedly claim, why do they use morally reprehensible language and tactics to defend it? (After all, the conservatives aren’t the ones stealing elections, overturning cars, throwing pies, and taking baseball bats to those who disagree with their views.)
Two. Gun control is not legislation to make it more difficult to own and use guns in self-defense against attackers (be they rapists, home invaders, common burglars, or government agents). Gun control is using two hands, taking time to practice and prepare, knowing your weapon and your capabilities with said weapon, and consistently hitting your target.
A refreshing dose of candor from some of the many men who hold the office of county sheriff in the United States of America. In the midst of all the furor and propaganda surrounding the gun control debate, these men bring words of wisdom to the table of the “national discussion on firearms” that President Obama unwittingly ignited by his executive order/to-do list item.
Who would you trust? A man who’s never held a real job, or been called upon to exercise his own strength to defend his life? Or a man who spends countless hours every year patrolling the streets and protecting the lives of other citizens?
3:23 and 3:30…two clips where two different sheriffs say two very powerful things concerning this debate. The entire video is only 4 minutes long.
Think about it, and then speak up about it. After all, freedom of speech is an American right.