Tag: public policy

If you are immune to the importance of feelings, then you must be a Republican Campaign Consultant.

Republican consultants should emphasize this Democratic inconsistency and promote charity and volunteerism as a viable compromise!

Lately, I have found myself wondering why Republican campaign consultants simply recite tired rhetoric and fail to address the questions raised and the feelings behind them. The consultants work for the candidates, who pay them, yet they seem unable or unwilling to address questions raised or answer in other than boilerplate and cliche.

One persistent question is about discontinuing social security. No one advocates simply discontinuing social security for those already on the plan, yet every deceptive Democratic operative will begin with; Republicans want to take you or your parent’s Social Security and medicare.  Most savvy voters realize this would never come to fruition, yet they credit Democrats as fighters for Social Security. Republican consultants, who claim to understand family connections never adequately address this charge. Perhaps it is because there is no perfect answer. This is not an excuse! Even lifelong defenders of the current system, don’t see social security as “ the perfect solution “. If, however their only answer is to require reappropriation or review of the program, then they fail because this language promotes fear among those, who are past working age and use  the program as all or a significant part of their golden year’s earnings.

Leadership requires these consultants to realize that fear motivates an electorate. Statements( even lies ) work because repetition of anything frequently enough especially from news sources without answer will result in a portion of the population believing even a groundless statement. Donald Trump was successful with his rhetoric because he spoke in generalizations and exuded confidence in his statements. It is also the reason, he was labeled a liar by the academic elites. Confident expressions omit the fringe, the non normal set of outcomes. Why? Seeking to cover all alternatives compels one to speak as Obama did in a word salad.

Word salad is speech, which invokes a seemingly endless chain of possibilities and attempts to address each possible outcome. The result; the reader becomes “issue exhausted” and tunes the speaker out. It is in part why it is easier to campaign than to rule. Legislation is laden with if this, then that statements. Legislation seeks a certain outcome and attempts to exhaust all contingencies in search of that outcome. Still, people are limited by their experiences and place in space. They are not perfect.  The result is; there are always unintended consequences of any legislation. Most these unintended consequences work contrary to  the desired outcome.
O
Republican consultants must promote opportunity and information, not programming and regulation. Pursuasion is more powerful than forced compliance. While it is said a law without enforcement is just good advice. Republicans consultants should be champions of information and recommendation and persuasion, not regulation and legislation with forced compliance.

Ronald Reagan was right! There is a place in society for charity. Note, most religions emphasize charity. Why? Charity allows the altruistic, a method to assist others, while not imposing their will on the unwilling. It fills a perceived hole in capitalism. It permits a portion of economic product to be allocated based upon the individual’s need to accomplish an end or simply a feeling not hard economic data.

Charity is in this regard a real compromise between pure individualism and collectivism. It allows a person to act in their perception of “ the public good “, but only to the extent that other individuals are willing to voluntarily donate their earned resources. It is truly a compromise. Government is the imposition of will over other, whether it is the ill of the one or the many.  With charity the collective outcome is accomplished by the willing without the negative, the exercise of the collective will on the unwilling.

Many would assert that Republican consultants should emphasize this as the option as opposed to legislation and regulation. It is the conservative yang, to “the government solves all”, ying!  It is the answer to 20th century expansive government.  A pity Democrats aren’t willing to trust their constituents to implement their “common good government solutions” without the force that is legislation! Democrats, however speak of the patriotism of tax payment, yet never propose voluntary tax giving to their favorite government program as a potential solution.  No legislation is required. Donation legislation is in place.  Republican consultants should emphasize this Democratic inconsistency and promote charity and volunteerism as a viable compromise!

Who, What, When and Where are surpassed in Journalism by the feelings behind Why!

Think critically. Insist news is only who, what, where and when.

When I  was an undergrad ( as my daughter says back in ancient times ) I took an entry level journalism class and wrote previously for a high school newspaper. The class and newspaper faculty advisor, drilled into my head, always put in news pieces only who, what, when and where. Why is for your audience. Facts are who did what. Where and when did they do it.

There is a problem in journalism, when why is interjected. Why someone acts maybe undiscoverable. Think about that. What sources really know why? If the actions of many are questioned, (ie stock movement) I contend it is impossible to ascertain. You may identify contributing factors. you may interview some buyers and sellers and cite the most oft listed reason as the reason why for the stock movement.

What you have listed as the reason is still subjective. If you accept that a thorough job was done of interviewing most of the sellers and buyers of a stock, you are still left with a question. Can the interviewees be believed? Some interviewed may not have given the sale or purchase much thought. Some maybe swayed by how the interviewer asked the question. Some may just not tell the interviewer the truth for any of an unknown number of reasons. Who did it. What  was done. Where it happened and when is much less subjective and more verifiable. Sure, a seasoned reporter may have to sift through accounts to determine, who actually witnessed an event. After sifting, some will think they saw something they did not really see. However multiple witnesses where available or dissection of individual accounts can frequently sort the wheat from the chaff. This is why in Court cross examination is so important. Reading requires one to critically think.
Today we are given conclusions, why. In some instances one can glean the who, what, where and when from a thorough reading or listening to a journalistic piece, but not always. This is because the proper pleasing narrative is more important than the actual facts.

What does this mean? Eyes reading an article or clicks in the digital realm are more important than facts.

Hasn’t it always been so? Yes, but what is different? I postulate and this is my why ;that the reading public believes journalists only report facts, so they squelch their natural urges to question, to think critically.

what should a reader take from this article? Don’t depend on headlines, read any article critically. Ask who, what, where and when? Is it in the article? How many sources were consulted or witnesses interviewed? Are the conclusions supported at all? Is there more than one explanation? If you just assess the who, what where and when, is there even a need for the why?  Can the why be supported? If yes, do you understand the subjective nature of why is separate from news.

Today, the why is a reason to call out any disagreeable conclusion as misinformation. Is it? Can people with a different perspective, see the why differently?  Is the author intellectually honest? Are sources cited? If sources uncited, how many sources or witnesses are there?  Read critically! If there are too many unanswered questions, why do You believe it? AmI biased or not open to new facts or other views

Do self examination. Think critically. Insist news is only, who, what, where and when. Why is subjective.  Don’t just know have evidence. Knowing without facts is faith. Some values are only supported by faith, but understand that!

“There ought to be a Law”. Think before you suggest.

The Constitution is a living document, which must be interpreted in accordance with the times to remain relevant. This is the continual drone of Washington’s political elite. This phrase is championed by Democratic Party nominated activist judges as well as those activist judges are nominated by RHINOS.  Lest anyone doubt, the constitution has a method for updating its language, built in.  It is the amendment process. It is difficult to accomplish since it requires super majorities. This was done precisely so that the latest fad can’t change the balance of power  and remove natural right.

It is a shame the judiciary has been permitted to distort the federal system.  Stare Decisis has been used to make permanent this judicial activism.  Courts bypass the enumerated powers limitation by citing the public welfare clause or misusing the interstate commerce clause sometimes for a good cause., but bad law even when well intended leads to future unintended consequences.  One need only read some of the cases applying the Civil Rights Act to private clubs to see the intellectual jujitsus employed by the Court  to reach a desired result. Ketchup moving through interstate commerce as a basis for utilizing the Interstate Commerce Clause, Really?  What’s next penumbra’s of amendments? Oh, that’s been done too. See Roe vs Wade.

The next time you hear “there ought to be a law, you should ask; is the proposed law a legitimate exercise of the power of the federal government or of any government?

Does any proposed law, fall under an enumerated federal power?  Does it violate any guaranteed personal freedoms. If it is a safety or educational issue, is it better addressed by a government closer to the people?

Yes, government is a use of force and as such must be used sparingly. If you use it continually, then you risk mob rule or tyranny of the majority. Tyranny isn’t limited to single dictators!

States joined together to form our union.  Our Founders believed the states that formed the federal government were closer to the people and should wield governmental authority unless it is given to the national government by a listed power.

Federal power is limited. Witness the 10th amendment. If federal power is interpreted too broadly, the tenth amendment is meaningless and the Constitutional intent is defeated.  If you want a more powerful federal government, secure enough support to amend the document.  It has been done.

So the moral of the story is; think before you say, “ there ought to be a law”.

If you are a liberal, a conservative; how will you feel, when your adversary controls government and wields that same power in a manner you believe damages you or limits your individual freedoms? Before you bellow “ there ought to be a law “, ask critical questions.

If you feel there is no power enumerated for your law and is there enough consensus, then do the right thing, amend the constitution?  If there is not enough popular clamor to amend, enjoy your God given, natural rights or use your liberty to be the change in your area, you want. Persuasion and private action may better serve your cause rather than the use of government force.

How the death of personal responsibility means an end to your freedom and ultimately your choices

Choice is difficult. It requires critical thinking and doesn’t provide for a guaranteed outcome. It allows failure. It also allows for growth. So remember the next time you are in a quandary and believe government is the answer. Somewhere out there countless others are prepared to solve your problems for you and make your life safer and insure your mediocrity too! It won’t cost you too much, just a choice. Choice and freedom are a small price to pay for guaranteed minimal growth and mediocre achievement! Perhaps even a universal income, so all can starve uniformly!

The government is the only entity big enough to solve this problem! There ought to be a law! This whole thing is caused because “they” won’t listen, so  “we” have make them listen. What do these three rallying cries have in common? They all are a cry for help requesting the aid of the “ mob “ through government force to assist them in their never ending tolerance.

What is being said is simply this; we can’t fathom a way out of this time, so let’s allow the majority through government to impose a solution. While in the economic marketplace the individual decisions ( proposed by the exercise of individual choices, the market )allow for frequently unforeseen, unpredictable, sometimes even confusing and multiple different outcomes because the country has a vast and differing political and social landscape. Surrender to the government is easier and produces a single hydra ( multi headed )solution, which seldom satisfies anyone, is seldom if ever reevaluated for efficacy and results in  one winning group imposing it’s will over all others. Many times these half measures endure for years without any review.

An example business the  is the FSLA. A 1930’s government solution born in a long gone era, which still works it’s 1930’s magic in our times.  Ask your accountant about it’s role in today’s more fluid economy. Ask about the weekly pay standard and hourly rate preferences housed ina law, which works to promote uniform countrywide standards enabling government withholdings among other similar beast feeding solutions . Of course they limit use of  different standards more useful to today’s marketplace, but they provide for a certain method to feed the beast ( the federal government) and  promote an outdated overtime standard, which favored dying  “ union shops “ champion. There is one complication, the union shop has been drastically reduced, yet the law remains! For Congress is akin to the ‘fickle finger of fate”, it writes and moves on. It never looks back. It reduces options and is built upon until it not only reduces options, but eliminates opportunities for the birth of entire industries. It serves it’s purpose. It protects those, who seek protection and eliminates unwanted competition along with choice as well as your personal liberty. Don’t like employer based healthcare? Say thank you government, then lookup it’s origins.

How does this “ let the government do it affect me?” It limits your choice. Limiting your choices, ultimately limits your opportunities! Government rules are the gold standard for those, who don’t want to overly tax their gray matter. What else does it do? It limits your opportunity to give and get advice. Your payoff is: you get no new service industries, which might recommend alternative and better courses of action because the mob “elite”has decided the  best path for you. Some will still lose. Sometimes even the lamest trap catches game. The government approach takes not only options but option presenters off the table. Everyone gets the few acceptable common choices, so the few, who will still find other ways to be swindled, are protected to an extent because education is not a meaningful option and of course the many have reduced opportunities.

Don’t get me wrong, a landscape that permits many choices can be a challenge and requires time and critical thought and may even seem overwhelming at times. It may require more than a thirty second perusal to decide a path to follow. Inconvenient! There will be  some, possibly many,  who will lose under an approach that allows more innovation. We do have courts and information sharing systems to help sort out solutions as well as those,who peddle the modern day equivalent of snake oil. We should also be able allow or “tolerate” to use the left’s now meaningless vernacular, more choices.

Most uses of government result in fewer choices and less freedom. Eventually after government decides what treatments are “ safe enough “ which doctors know enough, what businesses are essential enough, it will decide for you what thoughts you should be allowed to express and in what you must believe. Hail the advent of 21st century back door of the re-educational gulag under the guise of “ real “ democracy. Remember, tyranny can be by many just easily as by one. It is why Marx theorized of a stage, where there was a “dictatorship of the proletariat” Government solutions are advanced now by both political parties, but championed by the Democrats, whose elites understand “your”limitations.

You must wear a mask because to do otherwise jeopardizes your neighbor’s health.  Others are just too uninformed to act to protect themselves and the traditional family is an outmoded and useless remnant or the oppressive and patriarchal past, which will not care for you like only your government can! Therefore the experts have have recommended and your betters have decided for you! You need no longer pay attention to those pesky mortality tables, so you know, who the vulnerable are. They can only be deciphered by epidemiologists. The  vulnerable and those closest to them are too feeble or lack the expertise to isolate the vulnerable. It is better for the elite minds from both parties to shut down 40% of commerce and send out $1200.00 government checks with a nice note to remind you, who voted for it. So make certain re-elect the most recent incumbent.

Besides I don’t live in the Caribbean or any country or even a state that survives on tourism or hospitality, so I don’t have to face the poverty and death caused by a ludicrous policy that allows a virus to run rampant at a lower level in my community indefinitely until there is sufficient immunity to finally oust it.

Choice is difficult. It requires critical thinking and doesn’t provide for a guaranteed outcome. It allows failure. It also allows for growth. So remember the next time you are in a quandary and believe government is the answer. Somewhere out there countless others are prepared to solve your problems for you and make your life safer and insure your mediocrity too! It won’t cost you too much, just a choice. Choice and freedom are a small price to pay for guaranteed minimal growth and mediocre achievement! Perhaps even a universal income, so all can starve uniformly!