A Dangerously Unconstrained View

At a National Press Club luncheon, billionaire Democrat activist, George Soros, said the following with regard to John Kerry: “offense is not necessarily the best defense if it offends those whose allegiance we need. John Kerry is aware of this other dimension. ... He is nuanced because reality is complicated...." As near as I can tell, this seems to be the distilled foundation of Kerry supporters' take on the war on terror. It's flawed to the core.

Can we not suppose that situations may arise whereby those whose allegiance we need will never give it? Apparently not. In Soros' world, our so-called allies will always have the judgement and commitment to come to our aid when we really need it. Therefore, when we do not have their allegiance, it is because we have incorrectly assessed the need for action. In short, if our allies do not help us, we're doing something wrong. This kind of thinking comes directly from a misunderstanding of human nature. It comes from an unconstrained vision of the world.

To have an unconstrained vision of the world is to believe that man is perfectible, and that his flaws are the result of the systems (such as economic and political systems) under which he lives. If those systems are set up correctly, man's perfection will reveal itself. It just so happens, in this view, that the American system is the system that brings out the worst in humanity. It is for this reason that adherents of the unconstrained vision typically hold a deep-down disdain for this country. They hold most any other advanced country in much higher esteem than their own. One who holds the unconstrained vision will, therefore, without reservation, defer to the judgement of the leaders of these countries. This is where Soros is coming from.

The unconstrained vision, while romantic, does not square with reality. It is downright ludicrous to assume that our allies will know what's best for our country and will come to our assistance every time we need them. History has proven that the constrained vision is the accurate one. This vision accepts, right away, that man is driven by self-interest. It recognizes that individuals are always present who sincerely feel each other's pain and act accordingly, but it does not presume that all people are like this. In fact, the constrained vision rests upon the assumption that it is extremely uncommon for this to be true. Therefore, systems must, first and foremost, work within this constraint. One with the constrained vision will never let so much ride on the hope that our allies will do the right thing.

It is now painfully clear that much of the UN Security Council was on the take leading up the Iraq war. Russia and France, at the very least, were financially incented against supporting US efforts to hold Saddam accountable to the deluge of resolutions that have been passed against it. So, if we took Soros' approach, we would never have been able to act in our defense. No evidence would have gained the assent of these two supposed allies. Once again, the constrained vision is on parade for all to see. Alas, there are far too many who feel that it just can't be this simple.

This is the sentiment behind Soros' second and third sentences. "John Kerry is aware of this other dimension...He is nuanced because reality is complicated..." This other dimension? I am convinced that the intelligencia has a tendency to overthink matters that pertain to human behavior. Could it be that man really is corruptable by nature? Could it be that there really are people who can't be reasoned with? Could it be that there really are people who won't do the right thing, even when lives hang in the balance? If so, the intellectual's complex models of the world don't work. If the answer to these questions is yes, these brainiacs have to abandon their penchant for social engineering and accept that utopia is unattainable. But then what would they do? They'd have one less vehicle for proving their mental superiority to the masses. Joe Lunchbucket would actually have it right, while they've had it wrong all along. This, the elite, simply cannot handle. They, therefore, cling to their unconstrained vision and all of the nuance it affords them.

Kerry has tried to talk his way out of the global test comment by saying again and again that he will never give any foreign party a veto over American action. But if he shares Soros' viewpoint, and I think he does, this is nothing more than political double-speak. Kerry has consistently given the impression that he takes the judgement of the international community more seriously than he takes the judgement of America when she acts alone. One sentence to the contrary is not even remotely convincing. So, yet again, we see a dramatic difference between the two candidates. And yet again, this is the only difference that matters on Tuesday.

When Is It GO TIME?

We all have a different sense for when it's go time. By go time, I mean the point at which we are committed to doing something that exposes us to the risk of personal harm. It's the point of no return. This concept applies to individuals and countries. We'll start with individuals.

Some people arrive at go time very quickly. I can remember being careful not to stare too long at rednecks in camaros when I was a teenager. I was quite familiar with the stories of peers whose prolonged glances elicited the go time response from mullet-headed drivers of souped-up idiotmobiles. They came to school with stories of terrified car chases and the ever-looming fear that their assailants would one day catch up with them. This kind of person, the premature go-timer, takes the slightest perturbation and interprets it as a moment of truth, a moment when his status is in question. The response to this moment of truth is the willingness to risk personal injury to keep face - fistfights usually ensue. In my view, this phenomena characterizes some of the most primal of human behavior. In short, the premature go-timer is the antithesis of a reasonable person.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the person who never gets to go time. For whatever reason, usually it's fear, this second-guesser never acknowledges the moment of truth until it has passed. Second guessing is precarious because, afterwards, it can turn out that the moment of truth was not a moment of truth at all. In this case, it's a good thing. It vindicates restraint. In other cases, however, second guessing can cost everything, such as in an emergency when action is required and the consequences for inaction are grave. At times like these, the second-guesser, the one who reasons too much, is introduced to the regret that will haunt him for the rest of his days.

Of course, the reality is that most people perceive go time as somewhere in the grey area between rashness and over-analysis. In fact, most of us fall somewhere on the continuum between the two. This is certainly the case with the leaders of countries when go time is placed in the context of international affairs.

When we're talking about countries, the premature go timer and the second-guesser become the hawk and the dove. The hawk is quick to arrive at go time, while the dove continuously insists that all options are not exhausted. In today's increasingly dangerous world, niether approach makes sense. The mark of wisdom in foreign policy is not knowing whether it will ever be go time; it is knowing when it is go time.

The premise that underlies the necessity of go time is the notion that there will always be humans who do not respond to diplomacy. They may pay lip service to concessions but they have designs on the world that do not include their capitulation. From Mao to Hitler to Milosovich to Hussein, it has always been so. When dealing with these kinds of people, doves are out of their element. Indeed, they're downright dangerous.

This is because bad people make their decisions based upon the likelihood of success. If they know that those who stand in their way are doves, they press on. On the other hand, if they believe that a hawk stands between them and their objectives, they pause and reconsider, they second-guess their plans. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

The election that stands before us is really a competition between a hawk and a dove. Though Kerry would have us believe that he can be a hawk if necessary, his record says otherwise. He opposed the escalation of the Cold War. He opposed the United Nations coalition to liberate Kuwait, a coalition which, incidentally, met the very global test he proclaims to be the only prerequisite to him donning his feathers and talons. Now, he claims that the invasion of Iraq was premature, that all options were not exhausted. Given his obvious penchant for second-guessing, it is fair to ask when exactly would have been go time. (It may be argued that Kerry's willingness to go to Vietnam is evidence of a hawk tendency in his personality. However, his request to return home after only four months gives more credence to the possibility that his trip to Vietnam was a career-builder, not a commitment to participating in the prolonged go time in SE Asia.)

Bush, like him or not, operates on the principle that go time against militant Islam is inevitable. We may argue all day long as to whether his place is too far toward the premature go-timer on the go time continuum, but it's important to recognize that his appreciation of the necessity of go time is essential to overcoming the current scourge of this planet. It simply is not clear that Kerry shares this perspective.

In my view, if an error is to be made, I'd rather it be made by being too aggressive rather than being too passive. So, even if I concede that Iraq was a mistake (which I absolutely do not), I'd still take Bush over Kerry. At least with Bush, the terrorists are forced into second-guessing. This, I am convinced, is a good thing.

Taxation In America

I recently had a discussion with some friends about taxation in this country. I was making the point that the left's obsession with taxing the high income earners is extremely dangerous to our economy. I pointed out that, when left unimpeded, liberals have imposed tax rates upwards of 90% on the highest tax brackets. The response from my friends was unanimous disbelief. They couldn't imagine that anyone could have ever been taxed at such a high rate. So, for those who share their sentiments, take a look at some historical data from the IRS. Here's a table of tax rates since 1913 when the income tax was instituted.

In 1944 and 1945, the tax rate for the top bracket (which was $200,000) was 94%! Of course, that was in a time of war so, if there ever was an excuse, that was it. However, from 1951 to 1963, the rate was 91% (with a top bracket of $400,000). Now, I'll admit that in those days, earning $400,000 a year was a heck of a lot harder than earning that much now. But the point is that we can't just think of today's top rate of 38% as somewhere near the ceiling that the government might impose. It can get A LOT higher. Furthermore, this kind of taxation doesn't hurt the really rich people, it hurts those who make high salaries and it hurts small business owners.

It is critical to recognize that people like Teresa Hienz Kerry don't pay these high tax rates. They have CPAs who know the tax laws and advise them on how best to shelter their wealth from taxation. The people who pay these rates are people who are at the top of their income earning years. (Today's top tax bracket is $330,000, which isn't anything compared to $200,000 in 1944). These are executives of major companies and they are owners of subchapter S corporations (small businesses). The problem with taxing these people at such high rates is that it creates an incentive for them to do other things to obtain income. Why work hard to get to earn that great salary or generate that much revenue for your company when Uncle Sam will come along and take most of it away? In short, high taxation impedes personal excellence. This, more than anything else, hurts the overall economy.

It is the excellent, the high achievers, who create jobs. They're the ones who take the risks to start businesses (which require employees). When the payoff isn't there, they stay home, and when they stay home, everyone suffers. So what are we to do?

I'm on board with abolishing the IRS all together and instituting a consumption tax. Check out www.fairtax.org for details. All purchases would be taxed at a 23% rate. Every American would then get a monthly check from the government that would cover the taxes associated with the basic necessities of life. The end result is that the government would generate far more revenues than it does today and all this talk about taxing the rich more than the poor would go away. Furthermore, when the costs of taxation, which are built into the costs of all consumer products, were eliminated, the cost of those products would go down. In the end, we might pay a bit more for what we buy, but we'd have a great deal more money to spend. Most important, we'd get to decide when and how much we're taxed. Aside from removing the complexity of tax season and the pain of seeing the withholding lines of our pay stubs, the benefits would be immense.

First of all, when our products become cheaper because the imbedded taxes have been removed, we'll be much more competitive in international markets. No other country on the planet would be able to compete with us. This would drive up demand and create millions of new jobs. Secondly, we can't forget that criminals would be taxed, as well. Imagine how much revenue Uncle Sam misses because criminals don't report the income they receive from their criminal activities. But they buy stuff, nice stuff, and lots of it. We'd all get to cash in on that.

In the end, taxation is a very real problem in America. Politicians need progressive income taxation because it is their lifeline to power. If we take this away from them, we take away the class-warfare rhetoric and move toward holding them responsible for looking out for us and not for themselves. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't do this.

Jon Stewart Caught In The Crossfire

I don't know if you happened to catch Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's, The Daily Show, on Crossfire a week ago last Friday. If you didn't, here's a link to a clip. He and Tucker Carlson of Team GOP went at it pretty good. Carlson was slamming him for supporting Kerry and for lobbing so-called "softball" questions at him, questions like, "How are you holding up?" In his notoriously witty way, Stewart held his own, and he made a really good point, one that I make (or try to) all the time.

In response to the attacks, Stewart pointed out that his show is on Comedy Central and that it is not meant to be a hardball political show. True enough. But he was there for another reason. He routinely bashes Crossfire, so he wanted to appear on it to explain himself. He stated that the arguments from the left and the right aren't doing us any good, us being America. Though Carlson interrupted him again and again, his point was very valid.

As I have said many times, politics is (and probably has always been) a team sport, especially in a country with only two viable political parties. This is the fundamental problem with political discourse these days. These political talk shows have a very established formula. They get one intensely partisan person from the left and one from the right, and they debate the issues of the day. In theory, viewers get to hear arguments from both sides and are thus informed enough to decide where they stand. The theory, however, does not translate effectively into practice.

The guy from the right always parrots the Republican party line, and the guy from the left does the same with the Democratic positions. That means both of the "experts" are immediately hamstrung to deal in truth. Each lets his allegiances skew his approach to the issues. It would be different if the two hosts were philosophically opposed to one another, but were not aligned with any party. Indeed, this would be glorious for our country.

Imagine if the guy from the right was fiscally and socially conservative, while the guy from the left was fiscally and socially liberal. No party allegiances, just philosophically opposed. Given that the supposed philosophical underpinnings of both parties mean just about nothing these days, these hosts would find that they often agreed with Republicans and Democrats. This would illuminate for all to see the sham of today's politicians.

Take, for example, the Medicare prescription drug issue. The lefty would find himself aligned with the Republican party, and the conservative would find himself unable to support either party. The guy from the right would argue that the government has no right to take the property of the masses (in the form of taxes) to pay for benefits for people who should take responsibility for their own healthcare. The guy from the left would argue that it is the role of government to provide healthcare for all citizens. The guy from the right would have no choice but to call attention to the fact that it is entirely contrary to the tenets of conservatism to support such a benefit. He would have to point out that Bush's plan is politically motivated to get him re-elected. At the same time, the guy from the left would have to point out that it seems odd for him to be in support of an issue being put forth by Republicans. He would note that the Republicans seem to be waffling on their principles. The point is that the merits of the issue would still be debated. However, the bigger issue, the fact that the politicians were acting in their own personal interest and not in the interest of their party constituents, would be front and center.

This is what matters. This is what we need to be arguing about. The act of voting for a politician is much like signing a power of attorney over to someone. Since we do not have the time or resources to spend our time researching and deliberating over public policy issues, we select individuals to do our bidding for us. In theory, we pick people who are most philosophically aligned with our way of thinking, and then we hope that they will be effective in representing us. If they either do not have the necessary influence while in office or they reveal themselves to be duplicitous, we then take action by voting them out of office. This is how things are supposed to work. Once again, however, the theory does not translate into good practice.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I believe the theory is sound. But in order for it to be realized, the first thing that has to happen is for the media to stop taking sides and to start policing our public servants (which, to me, is the ultimate misnomer). That means that these debate shows have to first focus on the philosophical competence and resolve of our politicians. Before they get into the Medicare prescription drug benefit, they should first delve into the mindset of its proponents. They should ask how a Republican can put forth a bill such as this. They should ask upon what principles George Bush bases his assertion that the government should take on such a role in society. They would quickly find that there is no basis in principle. They would find that this is nothing more than a policy aimed at garnering the vote of senior citizens, who happen to constitute a huge percentage of regular voters. THIS IS THE STORY!

So, I say that Jon Stewart is right on the money. These partisan "experts" are the problem. When the guy from the right has to say that Bush won all three debates when it is clearly not true, his opinion ceases to matter. He's a dupe, a fraud, and we shouldn't give him the benefit of our attention. Similarly, when the guy from the left insists that Kerry is an honorable man, despite several proven instances of his lying opportunistically, his opinion no longer matters. If we are going to get our country back from the weasels in Washington, we have to stop with the team nonsense and start noticing that each quarterback is making off with more than his share of Gatorade at the end of each game. If we don't, we'll wake up one day and wonder what happened to the great Republic that our forefathers fought for. Who am I kidding? That day has long since passed.

Insecurity Is A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

I'm sure we all know people who are afflicted with what is often called "The Napolean Syndrome." This is a condition where a poor soul's consciousness is regularly occupied with the suspicion that his height is at the front of the minds of his contemporaries. They are not seeing him for his personality or his talents. They only see his height. He, therefore, compensates by being a jack-ass. The cruel irony in this situation is what I would call an axiom in human discourse - insecurity is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Being short is just one example of not measuring up (forgive the pun) to what is generally held to be the standard in human appearance. If we let our shortcomings (there I go again) get to us, we can become desperately insecure. But it doesn't have to be that way. Here are three facts that can be particularly useful in these situations.

1. We live in a world in which populations routinely express preferences for attractive people. Corporations spend billions of dollars every year hiring individuals to represent their products. They pay more for attractive people than do for unattractive people. This is not because they have some bias against ordinary-looking people. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the consumers of their ads will pay more attention to a beautiful girl than they will to homely one.

2. The definition of attractive, at least in a general sense, is something that is inherently agreed upon by the majority. If asked to choose the more attractive of the following, a majority (if chosen randomly from society) will choose the former - tall versus short, lean versus fat, full hair versus a bald head, white teeth versus yellow teeth, and symmetrical features versus asymmetrical features.

3. You can't judge a book by its cover. Appearance does not have anything to do with value as a person. Yes, differing appearances elicit differing reactions from people (see 1 and 2), however this is a reflection on the reactor not the reactee.

So, what to do? The fix is simple. We must all do our best to come to grips with where we stand on the appearance continuum. If I'm a flabby, snaggle-toothed, bald man, I must accept that I'm not likely to get hired to be a spokesmodel. But so what? We must accept that being attractive ostensibly affords individuals a leg up in the game of life. (I say ostensibly because the perks of being a looker don't always pan out the way one may think they will.) The advantages are no different than the advantages that come from being born smart or rich or musically talented. The fact is that all men (and women) are not created equal. Some emerge from the womb well ahead of others, but far from being something that should be lamented, this is something that must be faced head-on, and the sooner the better.

Appearance-based insecurity is very sad. I suspect that most of us have been there at some time or another. The best of us, however, recognize that our insecurity is irrational and is entirely unproductive. It must be replaced with a new value system, one that is based upon ethics. Being a good person trumps looks every time. On a more practical note, it's easy to find examples of people who are not particularly attractive but who manage to cast their appearance aside to succeed in life. They focus on their strengths and their talents, knowing that they can easily exceed whatever leg up a pretty face may have provided. Furthermore, they categorically reject people who insist upon placing inappropriate emphasis on appearance. In doing so, these people overcome one of the most deleterious of genetic influences that pervade our society.

This is genetic, you know. The universally agreed upon standards for beauty are easily traced to biological notions of fitness. It isn't a stretch to suppose that our minds are imbued with genetically-driven tendencies to gravitate toward attractive people. Once again, however, the time has come for humans to recognize when their genes are steering them in the wrong direction. This is a prime example.

So, to the Napoleans of the world, I'd say this - your height is only an issue for you, unless you insist on making it an issue for me. If you continue to doubt your value in my presence, eventually I'll join you. Your insecurity will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, do us all a favor and figure out what makes you valuable as a person. Then trade on that and leave your height out of it. It's that simple.

George Carlin and the "Ownership Class"

Don't know if you've noticed but George Carlin is making the rounds on the talk shows promoting his new book, When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops? I must say that I have long admired his ability to cut through the BS of things. This is the main reason he's so funny - he can tell the truth in a way that bludgeons listeners with the absurdity of it all. But the Carlin I've seen recently on Real Time with Bill Maher and Hardball with Chris Matthews is almost unrecognizable.

Yes, he's still wielding his sardonic wit. But now, in the midst of an election cycle, he is revealing himself to be a socialist. When asked how he feels about the presidential race, Carlin's first task is always to disclaim any real interest. Fair enough. He sees the whole thing as "high theater." On that, I agree with him. But then, he throws in the statement that the Republicans represent the ownership class and that they do whatever they want. I'm not interested in whether he's right so much as I'm interested in what the heck that kind of statement is supposed to mean, and, more importantly, what should be done about it.

It's obviously not a good thing. Assuming Carlin would support fixing it (and that may be a stretch), we need to know what an ownership class is. Is home ownership the litmust test for inclusion in the ownership class? Does the guy making $35,000 a year who just bought a condo for $89,000 fit into the ownership class? If so, according to the Census Bureau, more people now own homes than have ever before. So, Carlin should be scared - the ownership class is growing. Yikes! But wait. Maybe the ownership class only consists of the people who are really wealthy, the people who make money off interest from investments. That's got to be it.

So Carlin's term "ownership class" is really just a euphamism for rich. By the transitive property, that means that Republicans are for the rich. (No shit, George.) With the double-speak aside, we can see Carlin's socialist tendencies. This fine comedian has bought into the idea that rich people are bad because they don't earn their money and because they exploit poor people. I suppose the solution is to rid the world of rich people - by either taking their money away or making the private ownership of property illegal. Even when he's trying to be serious, this guy cracks me up.

This is funny for two reasons. Right away, I like to envision what Carlin would do if he got his wish. Suddenly, his little fantasy world would come crumbling down around him. You think this guy lives a regular-guy kind of life? Think he worries about making ends meet every month? (Maybe he does - celebs often write terrible books hoping to just cash in on their name, so maybe he's having cash flow issues.) Bottom line, whatever this dispicable class is that Carlin rails against, it is highly likely that he is a member in perpetuity. Somehow, I don't think George has considered what it'd be like to stand in the bread line next to the great unwashed. If ownership is what stands between him and that grim reality, should he rethink his position?

The second reason this is funny is because it illustrates how terribly ignorant most celebs are about economics. Their anti-rich sentiments are almost always driven by personal guilt, elitism, and by their exclusive association with people who share their liberal views of the world. These people have a disdain for business and capitalism because they see the two as exploitative. A simple stroll down history lane would be sufficient to cure their ignorance, assuming of course that they were open-minded enough to consider the facts.

1. Property can either be owned by individuals or by groups. That's it. In the history of this planet, no arrangement has ever brought more prosperity to more people than the individual ownership of private property... ever. Socialist and communist economic ideas are based upon the collective ownership of property. The benefit of this arrangement hinges upon the collective (which ultimately has to end up being humans) being able to make the right decisions as to how property should be used, by whom, and when. Never, EVER, in the history of humanity has any collective ever been able to outdo individuals controlling their own property. In Communist Russia, it was not uncommon to have warehouses brimming with unsalable material while shortages existed for easily obtained items. This is not because the Soviets had any inherent disadvantage in terms of resources. They just lived under an economic system that was entirely ineffective at meeting consumer demands efficiently. When the shortage is in floor mats, that's one thing. But when there's a shortage in farming equipment, people starve. Welcome to the no-ownership class.

2. The rich make prosperity possible for the poor. People who decry the "ownership class" operate on the assumption that rich people extract money from the economy and then only use it on themselves. The fact is that rich people create wealth. This is a basic idea that new economic liberals, progressives, as they are now called, do not seem to grasp. $2 can become $3, which can become $5, and so on. There isn't simply a pie with all the money, and the rich are doing whatever they can to pull more than their fair share away from the masses. I will concede that the rich demand more wealth from the economy than poor people do, but they return far more than they take. The pie gets bigger when rich people are left to their own devices. People with money, being human and all, typically want to make more money. To do so, they risk losing their money by investing it. When they do, they create jobs that pay poorer people. The more money they make, the more they invest, and the more jobs are created.

These statements are not my personal ideology. They are facts that are backed up again and again by history. So I'd like to thank George Carlin for providing an object lesson in economics and a reminder that you can't take the political opinions of celebrities seriously.

The Publishing Biz - Episode 5

I finally managed to have a conversation with that editor who passed on my book saying it wasn't prescriptive enough. Seems he meant that my topic is too general, that he is used to self-help books that are very focused. He publishes books on topics like being better at work or achieving financial independence. Happiness, says he, is far too general for him.

At first, I thought I was talking to another publishing robot. But then he explained himself more fully and I learned something. He said that he has to make his decisions about what to publish based upon the market he understands. He's familiar with career self-help books and with financial self-help books. Those are his specialties, so he is informed enough to decide if a prospective book in one of those areas warrants publishing and marketing. As he was speaking, I could feel the light coming on.

Then, he said it. "You really need an agent." It's funny, most times someone says this to me, my response is to ignore them. I've stated before my reservations with getting an agent - they're hard as hell to reach and they can't possibly marshal the passion I have for my book. However, this time, I got it. The value of the agent is in knowing the editors enough to know how to spin the proposal to pique their interest. I always thought it was just the connections to the editors that made agents worthwhile. That's why I have been going directly to publishers. But I've had enough rejection on baseless grounds. It is finally dawning on me that had an agent put my proposal in front of these same publishers, there's a good chance I'd already have a deal.

So, as you might expect, I am now on the hunt for an agent. A guy I met at BEA in the spring gave me some advice on going about this. He first recommended that I write my proposal based upon the book, How To Write A Book Proposal, by Michael Larsen. Check. That book has been recommended again and again, so I have long since completed a Larsen-esque proposal. The next thing is to compile a list of agents that work with writers like myself. The guy helping me happens to have published a psychology/self-help kind of book, so I may get to just use his database. In any case, the idea is to blast my proposal, shotgun style, to an exhaustive list of agents. This is what he did, and it worked. It won't be cheap, though. Postage alone will run well over a grand. But, what choice do I have? I've tried everything else I can think of. We'll see what happens.

In the meantime, I'm working on getting a regular gig writing opinion columns for a major newspaper. That should help with the credibility issue. More to come...

Is It Too Late for America?

After watching tonight's debate, I found myself really dismayed at the rhetoric coming from both of the candidates. Although I think Bush may have actually outscored Kerry, I came away feeling like maybe it doesn't really matter.

Bush's response to the question about what he'd say to someone whose job has been outsourced tells the story. He immediately started talking the "government is going to help you" talk. I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, were he alive today, might say in response to the same question. I can't help but believe it'd go something like this:

Ours is a free market economy. That necessarily implies that the economy is dynamic. Consumers are in charge - they decide what they'll buy, and at what price, by choosing from the alternatives available. In a time when technology is advancing at a rapid pace, we must expect that the options for consumers will evolve at the same pace. This requires workers to be forward thinking. It requires them to recognize the direction of the economy and to develop the skills that will be in demand as things change. The worker who gets a job and then assumes that the job will always be there is gambling with his or her livelihood. Indeed, the US economy has progressed from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, and now to an information economy. This means that workers have a responsibility to develop skills that are valuable in this new economy. So, to the person who has lost a job due to outsourcing, I'd say you're lucky to be living in a country where the opportunities to reinvent yourself are everywhere. You may have to take a lower-paying job at night while you train during the day for a new career. It may be very hard work. But this is America. Immigrants come here with nothing and manage to succeed. You can, too. Opportunities are everywhere. You just have to be willing to do what it takes to seize them. Get to work!

That is an appeal to personal responsibility. That's what America was founded upon. It wasn't about the state providing for the people. It was about people providing for themselves. Alas, things are drastically different today. They are so different that is a political death sentence to make the previous statement. The people simply will not stand for being told that their careers are their responsibility. The entitlement mentality is now the majority mentality.

I am reminded of the following quote, which is attributed to a Scottish professor named Alexander Hamilton (although snopes.com claims they can't verify it):

A warning ... circa 1787 re the fall of the Athenian Republic:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence.
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependency;
from dependence back into bondage.

I think we're somewhere in between complacency and apathy these days. Our education system is such that children are not taught personal responsibility. They are not taught the basics of free market economics. They are taught that America is, more often than not, responsible for the ills of the world. Essentially, they are hamstrung to make good decisions about public policy when they reach voting age. The bottom line is that our republic is in big trouble.

But I'm not about to become a pessimist. I will maintain the hope that our country can reverse its current course. Maybe it'll take another 9/11 to cement in the minds of the electorate the course that lies before us. Maybe it'll take nationalizing healthcare to make voters realize that the free market is the best mechanism to ensure the efficient provision of medical care. Maybe it'll take raising the tax rates on the wealthy to the 90% level, as it was prior to Reagan, to get people to realize that it is the rich who drive prosperity for everyone. Maybe it'll take the expansion of the Patriot Act to the point of shattering personal liberty to get folks to recognize that checks and balances are essential in government. Maybe it'll take the destruction of intellectual property laws to get the masses to understand that medical research costs astounding amounts of money that can't be assembled without the prospect of profits that offset the risks of investing. Who knows?

So, to voters, I say, vote for whomever you want. They're both losers, so we can count on the status quo more than anything else. As for me, I'll continue to work toward insulating myself and my family from the effects of opportunistic politicians and their supposedly entitled supporters. That's the best I can do.

Achievement - Three Kinds of People

When it comes to getting what we want out of life, there are three kinds of people. There are those who know what they need to do, and they do it. There are also those who know what they need to do, but for whatever reason, they can't muster the discipline to do it. And then there are those who are too ignorant to know what to do. I would argue that the second group constitutes the lion's share of people.

It is easy to imagine ourselves enjoying the achievement of our brightest aspirations. This is the stuff of daydreams. What we do with our daydreams is what makes all the difference. Some folks inherently feel that their dreams are achieveable. If they are the type to take responsibility for their future, they expand the scope of their musings to include a consideration of the actions required to get where they want to go. They decide if their dreams are worth it and act accordingly. It is no surprise that these are the achievers.

Those who do not achieve their daydreams either cannot conceive of the actions required of them, or they cannot overcome the inertia associated with keeping things as they are. Indeed, non-achievement is most often an inertia problem, and it is also habit forming. The more time that transpires between the realization of goals through disciplined effort, the harder it is to accomplish anything. Some people, many people, go years without setting a goal and working on it until they achieve it. I suspect these patterns are installed early in life.

As a new father, I spend a lot of time observing parents in public with their children. I see lots of very nurturing parents, some too much so. But I also see parents who treat their children as if they are nuisances. It is hard to imagine these people propping their young children up and encouraging them to try to new things. It's hard to imagine them teaching their kids how to project themselves into the future and figure out how to get what they want. Pushing their children would only add more trouble to the already annoying situation, would it not? So maybe these are the kids who take life as it comes. Maybe in doing so, they eliminate the need for proactivity entirely. They can simply react to the pressures of life as they come. As students, they can do just enough to get by, with their focus exclusively on overcoming immediate hurdles, without any consideration for the merits of getting over them. When they graduate, they get jobs because they need money today. Sadly, without the fresh experience of accomplishment, their daydreams stay just that, dreams. But this is not necessarily a bad news story.

Just as with any skill that must be learned, it is best to start small and work upwards. Those who find themselves in a pattern of non-achievement truly can turn things around. People do it all the time. They need only choose some small, easily achieveable goals, and commit to achieving them. For example, one who has, for too long, led a sedentary existence can decide to do 30 push-ups a day for 30 days. This will require that person to work up to doing 30 push-ups and then have the discipline to do them every day for the following month. We're talking about less than 60 seconds of time every day. It's simple and the rewards are immense.

The obvious benefit is the good feeling that comes from feeling strong. But the more powerful benefit is the sense of accomplishment that comes from setting a goal and achieveing it. It takes work on a daily basis. It takes the willingness to overcome the inertia of daily life, and it feels really good. This too is habit forming. Immediately apparent is the idea that all that stands between today and the realization of one's daydreams is the execution of specific, knowable actions. However, given these folks' history of non-achievement, it must be expected that the path will consist mostly of baby steps. But, hey, it's worth it.

I call attention to these vast generalities not to denegrate anyone, but to lay out a fix for what I see as a very fixable but pervasive problem. To identify the problem is an act of assessment, not judgement. There's a big difference. To assess is to lay the issue on the table objectively. To judge is to attach negative or positive value upon particular character traits. The latter is a mistake, if for no other reason than the unreliability of incomplete information.

If we had access to a person's entire history and a view into all of his or her experiences, we might be in a position to offer credible value-based criticisms of that person and how he or she lives life. But we do not. Every person is different, and what we see is never more than half the story. Basically, we don't have enough information to draw meaningful conclusions about individuals. Therefore, the only one who can judge a person is that person, and if that individual is smart, he or she will use as many objective assessments as possible to get it done right. Maybe this one will help.

Who Loses When Freedom Comes To Town?

I think it's interesting to ponder why the US has such a bad rep on the international stage these days. Many like to say that Bush's poor diplomacy are singularly responsible. I'd concede that the arrogance of the Bush administration has contributed. However, I think there's a bigger picture. America is the world's chief advocate of freedom and human rights, and these are concepts that have ready-made enemies all over the world.

The history of human populations is a consistent story in which the masses have been subjugated to the whims of a small group of powerful individuals. Regardless of how they laid claim to their power, one thing has always been true - the powerful have controlled the powerless. The powerful have controlled the living conditions of the powerless, and they have limited their options in life. The powerful have confiscated the belongings of the powerless, and they have limited the flow of ideas to the masses. They have been able to do this by fear through the threat of force and through economic coercion. With the exception of the 200 or so years of democracy in ancient Rome and Greece, it had always been so until the late 1700s.

Then, everything changed. Suddenly, philosophers such as John Locke, put forth the notion that all humans were born with the same entitlement to rights to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labor. The paths of France and the British colonies in the New World were drastically affected by this idea. The US founding fathers managed to incorporate the notion of human rights into a republic that still stands today. The French, on the other hand, could only muster the outrage to revolt. They could not translate their collective outrage into a government by the people and for the people. But it is the American interpretation of freedom that has us in such a pickle these days.

If we think of human rights and freedom as memes (ideas that either succeed or fail based upon their ability to be installed into the minds of humans), we can see that they are astoundingly successful. It seems that humans are naturally inclined to appreciate the idea that they should have the right to live life as they see fit, to appreciate the idea that they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, and to appreciate the idea that they should be able to dispose of their property in any way they choose (so long as they do not violate the rights of others). This, however, poses a problem for the powerful.

Throughout most of history, the powerless have more or less accepted their lot in life. They have been practical enough to realize that they could not overcome either the force or economic hurdles associated with changing their existence for the better. Freedom changed all that. All of a sudden, the powerless had a weapon - the idea that their situation was unjust. Beforehand, though they may not have liked the arrangement of things, they saw them as "how things were." The spread of the freedom meme brought with the evidence (from the success of the US) that things that did not have to be that way. The powerless could become powerful. Once the freedom meme was sufficiently installed in the population, the powerful ceased to preside over the docile powerless. In short, the easy life instantly got harder for them.

When freedom comes to town, it is those who have oppressed the powerless who lose. This is important because they have not yet lost their power. They can step up the force or economic coercion to keep the masses in line. They can also limit the flow of information to the masses in an effort to eradicate the freedom meme from within. This is exactly what we've seen many times in the last two centuries. The Cold War was a case study in this practice, and now we're seeing the same thing in the Middle East.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there's a big difference between getting a population to buy into freedom and getting a population to do what it takes to achieve it. The information age necessarily implies that the freedom meme will spread faster than ever. But it does not bring with it a corresponding commitment to fight the status quo. This, in my view, is why America has such a bad image in the world. We continue to operate as if freedom is easily installed, denying the barriage of evidence to the contrary. When the machinations of our efforts bring unintended negative consequences, the whole enterprise gets a bad rap. Moreover, the powerful have a lot to lose when freedom comes to town, so it makes sense that they do whatever they can to stamp it out.

They paint American foreign policy as cloaked imperialism, and many in this country are all too willing to agree with them. Many Americans take past foreign policy missteps as conclusive evidence that anything we do that meets with the disapproval of our supposed allies is wrong. But let's not forget that the powerful often have influence with our allies, as we have seen from the UN Oil-For-Food scandal, which means that the opinions of our allies cannot play a leading role in how we evaluate our efforts abroad.

So what's the point? I come to two conclusions.
1. The US must stop trying to install freedom in non-free countries. Our efforts should be aimed at educating the non-free world about the value and achievability of freedom. If we succeed, the non-free will demonstrate their willingness to take matters into their own hands. Then, and only then, should we consider forceful assistance.
2. The US must do a better job of exposing the influence of the oppressive powerful on the leaders of free countries. If they already hate us, how does it hurt to publically call out the French for negotiating behind the scenes with Saddam prior to the Iraq war? The pundits weigh in on this stuff all the time, but it is a taboo topic among our elected officials.

I am convinced that the philosophical underpinnings of our country are the greatest testament to what humans can do when they put rationality above tradition. I, therefore, believe that it is upon this that we must base all of our international efforts. We need to talk about who loses when freedom comes to town. At least then we are clear about where we stand in the world.

The Publishing Biz - Episode 4

The irony is thick these days. I was in the New York/New Jersey area on business this week so I attempted to arrange meetings with two editors in NYC. One was a guy I had previously spoken with on the phone who had asked me to send him a proposal. The other was a girl I met over Memorial Day weekend. She's actually a children's editor for a major publishing house. After a lengthy discussion about the book, she asked to read it. She did and liked it so much that she forwarded it to two other editors, ones who would be in a position to give the book a green light. So, as you can imagine, I was very keen to talk to her again. I wanted to thank her for her help to and find out if she's gotten any feedback from her colleagues. But it was not to be.

I called her and emailed her the day before to see if she was available. As I was arriving in the city, she had still not gotten back to me. So, I called the other editor. He answered and told me that he was busy and would call me back. Skeptical that I would hear from him, I went out. It was my birthday, so there was fun to be had.

After countless drinks at a dozen bars in Greenwich Village, I returned to my hotel to find an email from the guy. He passed. Surprise, surprise. He said that he must've written my number down wrong because he tried to call and couldn't get through. Hmm. My phone number was on both my proposal and the email that delivered it. Anyhow, while he acknowledged that my proposal was good, he said that he couldn't get passionate about the intersection of evolution and self-help. That was a new one. He was the first to reject me on the grounds that he didn't find my concept compelling. Oh well. At least I knew where he stood. Somewhat dejected but still sufficiently inebriated to shake it off quickly, I crashed.

I arrived home today, two days later. My female fan has still not returned my call, but I think I know why. On the table, I found a package with my manuscript and a rejection letter from the editors at her company. This one was classic. The writer explained how he found my concept very interesting, but that the self-help books his company publishes tend to be very practical, how-to guides with prescriptive steps rather than more conceptual, scholarly books such as mine. Now that's rich. Starting with the fourth chapter, every chapter in my book finishes with set of actions that must be taken to put the concepts into practice. One thing is certain, these folks did not read my book. But this is not a bad news story...yet.

Apparently, my proposal did not adequately address the practical side of my book. Fortunately, I can always call this guy and clarify matters. If he is stating his true reason for passing on my book, I can overcome it. It may be true that my book needs to be more overt about its practicality from the start. The editor's first job, as I see it, is to find books that he or she can mould into best-sellers. Given the slump in the book industry right now, it seems a bit lazy to expect a submission to be perfect upon arrival. So, if this guy has some vision, I should be able to get him to reconsider. We'll see.

It's funny how you sort of get used to rejection. I can't say it isn't a let down every time one of my good prospects closes the door on me. However, I'm finding that the time it takes me to shake it off and recommit to my cause is decreasing steadily. When I feel upset, I try to look forward a day or two into the future. I wonder if I'll still feel down. I instantly know that I will not, so I conclude that some time between now and then, I'll get over the negative emotions associated with being disappointed again. I then simply decide that it is a waste of time to prolong that event, and presto, I start to feel better.

I'm beginning to think that this quest to get published is teaching me every bit as much as writing my book did. Who'd have guessed?

Super Size Me - Movie Review

I've wanted to see this movie/documentary since it came out but missed it when it was in theaters (or the one theater, as it happened here). Director Morgan Spurlock's film explores the epidemic of obesity in America by mixing discussions with experts with his personal experiences going on a 30-day all McDonald's diet. Having been burned sufficiently by Michael Moore, I went into this documentary very skeptical. I forced myself to suspect that Spurlock was a food ideologue who was going to build a very specious case for his cause. At the same time, I regularly recognize the growing problem of obesity, especially in kids, so I knew deep down that I was probably going to end up convinced at his thesis. I was both right and wrong.

I thought my suspicions about Spurlock were confirmed as things got started. He introduced the topic of the film by discussing the lawsuits in 2002 against McDonald's, the ones that tried to blame Mickey Ds for the obesity of two teenage girls, the ones that were eventually (and rightfully, in my view) dismissed. He visited a Georgetown Law Professor, the first to win a settlement against big tobacco, who was advising the attorneys in the lawsuits. It was clear that both of them felt McDonald's was at least partially culpable for the obesity problem in America. They cited the fact that McDonald's markets directly to children - the playgrounds, the Happy Meal, Ronald McDonald, and so on. Later on, the professor even compared McDonald's focus on kids to some big tobacco studies that were interested in how to get kids hooked early by having them play with cigarette toys that resembled their real cigarette containers. Things seemed very one-sided for a while, very much like a 60 Minutes piece.

But as Spurlock got going on his diet, the film became less of a Moorumentary (have I coined a word?) and more of a traditional documentary. In fact, Super Size Me was most compelling when it stuck to the facts associated with Spurlock's new eating habits. For 30 days in a row, he had to eat three meals a day at McD's and he couldn't consume anything that wasn't sold by them - no aspirin, no vitamins, nothing. He had to eat everything on the menu at least once, and he could only supersize if he was asked. To gather the right kind of data, Spurlock regularly visited a general physician, a gastroenterologist, a cardiologist, a nutritionist, and an exercise physiologist. He started in perfect health at 11% body weight. His diet had him consuming more than twice his recommended caloric intake, and the levels of sugar and fat were through the roof compared to what they would be with a healthy diet. I won't say what he ended up with, but I will say his doctors were urging him to stop the experiment half-way through.

Sadly, Spurlock's film was not content to highlight the perils of eating fast food every day, or even more than a couple of times a week. Instead, he kept trying to pin the blame for America's obesity on McDonald's, and the corporate food and drink industry. He was shown calling McD's execs, trying to get interviews, to no avail. Surprise, surprise - they wouldn't talk to him. He went to see a lobbying group that represents the food and drink industries. A la Moore, he painted the lobbyists' and the corporations' greed as the reason for the big problems. He and the Georgetown Law professor visited several McD's to see if they could find the nutrition information. When they had a hard time, the conclusion was that people can't be held personally responsible for making good choices when the data is not available to them. To that, I can only offer an inarticulate, WHATEVER! The judge agreed with me, saying that McD's cannot be held responsible when there is no evidence that they are solely responsible for the kids' weight. Moreover, the defense attorneys correctly argued that everyone knows fast food is bad for you, and that McD's never tries to say it isn't.

So, with regard to my expectations, I hate to say it but I think I was right - Spurlock is an ideologue with an agenda. If he'd just leaned more toward implicating McD's and the other corporations as the source of the obesity problem than he did on individual failures to make responsible decisions about food intake, I would probably have let him off the hook. Though I can't bring myself to let the people who eat like crap off the hook, I can see his point. Alas, I caught him in a definite lie, which will taint him in my mind forever Moore (oops, it slipped).

Spurlock visited some schools to show how badly the lunch programs these days have become. Kids were shown eating french fries, chocolate bars, and Gatorade for lunch, and nothing more. The scenes were effective - I was shocked at how much things have changed since I was a kid (assuming they weren't staged - this is what you have to worry about when you watch Moorumentaries). But then our attention was turned to another school that had taken an all-natural approach to lunch programming. All foods were prepared fresh. There were salads and loads of fresh fruits and vegetables, and there was no beef. Then came the lie - Spurlock claimed that this school lunch was not the specialty of some ritzy private school, but that it was actually found in a public school for kids with learning disabilities and behavior problems. He said that it costs the same as the other, less nutritious lunches. This is impossible.

To make food fresh every day requires cooks who know what they're doing. They cost more than people who can cut open boxes of frozen foods and scoop fries out of a deep fryer and into a cardboard serving container. Furthermore, frozen, processed food costs much less than fresh food. So, there's simply no way the fresh lunch costs the same as the processed, junk lunch. I'd bet the good lunch is no less than twice as expensive. In fact, though maybe this reinforces Spurlock's corporate conspiracy theory, I'll bet that the schools get a percentage of the sales of the pre-packaged stuff like candy bars and Gatorade, which means switching to the fresh lunch would cost A LOT more. Nevertheless, Spurlock accuses the junk lunch schools of being in the back pockets of corporations, of not caring about the kids.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that public schools are run by morons. I've been across the desk from more than my share of them. They spend money very foolishly and very corruptly. Their vendors are usually the lowest bidders, who bring the corresponding low quality that comes with low-balling. So, this aspect of Spurlock's thesis is valid. However, to suggest that offering healthy, fresh, junk-free lunches costs no more than offering processed, frozen lunches is obviously inaccurate and is designed to imply that schools know they're hurting kids and they just don't care. It is also designed to elicit alarm among viewers at the sheer hideousness of the corporate influence on public schools. I'm not ready to buy that.

To me, it's pretty simple. Public schools are run by government bureaucrats who are specialists in not rocking the boat. When they actually do something, it is because there is something in it for them. When parents insist that the junk be removed and threaten the jobs of the administrators who don't figure out how to make it happen, the something in it for the bureaucrats becomes keeping their jobs. They'll move then, you can count on it. I'll concede that Spurlock's lie is relatively minor, but it's the principle of the thing. If he'll lie about this, what else has he lied about? I don't have the time or inclination to investigate all of his claims, so I have to take his whole film with a grain of salt,, even worse, and I can't ever trust another film he makes. Such is the price of sacrificing truth for ideology.

As to my assent to Spurlock's thesis, I was dead wrong. Super Size Me showed what I've argued for many years but, instead of emphasizing it, he shoved it aside in favor of his corporate responsibility message. I don't agree with his overall conclousions at all. The culprits in the obesity problem, at the end of the day, are fairly obvious - individual decisions to consume insane portions with massive sugar and fat content, while battling the three-toed sloth for the "inactive animal of the year" award. Sure, McDonald's makes it easier, but the responsibility still rests with the individual. In my view, you can't have a free society and a free market without the responsibility residing with consumers. Buyer beware...period. Unless there is fraud being committed, we all have to live with our decisions. To suppose that individuals shouldn't have the super size option because they're not mentally equipped to make the right choice is insulting. This country was not designed to be a nanny state, though you'd never know it nowadays. In fact, I try not to think about it because I can feel myself sliding on the slippery slope, knowing all too well what's below.

In the end, I'd definitely recommend this movie. From where I stand, we have a major problem on our hands with obesity, and we're all going to be paying for it. Not just those of us who occasionally end up next to a "fast-food victim" in the coach section of an airplane, but all of us. The costs associated with type-2 diabetes are skyrocketing, which means that all of our insurance premiums are going up, and that we'll soon be competing for access to physicians who'll spend most of their time managing blood-sugar. (Once socialized medicine is here, get used to the question, "Would you like to be put on the waiting list?") Obesity is the number two preventable killer behind smoking, and it is expected to be number one within just a few years. And there's the cost of the mental problems that come with obesity - the incidence of depression is much higher among the obese than it is among people of healthy weight. We're all better off if more people are happy and somewhat content with life. So, despite Spurlock's determination to paint corporations as the guilty parties, you can't walk away from this movie without dwelling on your own eating habits and, for parents, the eating habits of your kids. Regardless of who's at fault, Mickey D's isn't going away, which means that the pragmatic among us have to formulate strategies for teaching ourselves and our children to eat healthy in a country where the average person does anything but. Super Size Me is a good shove in the right direction.

In closing, let me just reiterate my simple diet maxim - expend, on average, as much as you consume in order to maintain your weight. Expend more or eat less to lose; do the opposite to gain. Whamo, you're in control. Oh yes, and take a vitamin every day.