Article - 06/28/12 11:37 AM
In case anyone might be interested, I have a piece on American Thinker today.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/they.html
Regards,
Bob
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/they.html
Regards,
Bob
Quote:
"They started awarding trophies to every player in school team sports, winners and losers."
Quote:
Kids know who wins and loses, winning trophies are for winners and the competitive spirit is alive and well. I am not sure how recognition for participation in an activity has somehow led to the downfall of our society.
Quote:
before we get a flame war going here, I'd just like to say that intelligent people should be able to express highly volatile ideas peaceably and without resorting to character assassination.
That's an excellent thought!
I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.
All that's necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do and say nothing.
Bob, the gist of the article is good (at least, in terms of intent), but I think it simplifies things a bit much.
You repeatedly say We grumbled, but did nothing. I don't think this is accurate. Quite a bit has been done by people on these issues, and continues to be done. To say otherwise does discredit to those who have worked long and hard for their causes.
You say "In true Alinsky fashion, they batter us with labels.", but your own terms - "Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement" - seem to be exactly what you are complaining about.
But what I find most problematic in pointing to a group of "them" is that they are conveniently not "us".
Quote:
Well I won't comment on that since political discussions are not permitted on this site. I did, however spot a big error in one of your claims.
They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefits triple those of the general populace
The source you cite, whether accurate or not, claims 44% greater pay and benefits. That's not even close to the triple (300%) you claim. The problem with this type of error is other people read it and assume it's correct.
Quote:The bottom line is that even this paper admits it's not an apples to apples comparison.
The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.
Quote:
You imply that there's some sort of concerted Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement ideology behind all the changes. But it's more a given than a proven point. And (to my mind) you don't make a very compelling case.
For example:
They created a federal bureaucracy answerable to no one, with pay and retirement benefits triple those of the general populace.
The basic premise - federal bureaucracy is answerable to no one - is a large claim, and not really true. Bureaucracy by it's definition is answerable up the chain, and ultimately the folk at top are as well. It's slow and insulated, but it is accountable.
As for pay benefits, are you comparing apples and oranges? When you say "general populace", it doesn't sound like you're comparing the same benefits for the same type of jobs. Considering that we're in the middle of a massive recession, I suspect the comparison is even less balanced, given the level of unemployment.
They created an imperial presidency and made the Congress inconsequential.
Wikipedia says Imperial Presidency goes back to the '60s and Nixon, with another big push by Reagan. That's not exactly overnight, and those aren't generally seen as folk on your list.
Congress is many things, but not inconsequential.
They fostered the destruction of our manufacturing and agriculture bases.
The flight of capitalists based on cheap manufacture and labor isn't by folk on your list, either.
They permitted the invasion of our country by illegal aliens, and chastised anyone who objected.
I'd argue that the people who paid the illegal aliens bear the brunt of the blame here. Statistics says that's driven by the demand for cheap labor for agriculture. In any event, the people who support the idea that workers having some level of rights aren't generally Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement.
They legalized and promoted the systematic murder of millions of the innocent unborn.
Clearly a hotbutton issue. The Jane Does in Roe vs. Wade now say they were reluctant and blame their lawyers. But I doubt the majority of abortion supporters were socialists. While Margaret Sanger was a socialist, and a believer in eugenics and racial superiority as well. But it's an unsupported leap to claim that of everyone who believed that abortion was a reproductive rights issue has the same set of values.
You claim a lot, but rely on the reader to agree with you, assuming they also lump everyone other than them as having the same set of Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world ideology driving them.
That's just not the case. The argument is an emotional one, not a logical one.
"We revered Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and all of those who gave us this great nation."
Why were these people "revered"? Most of what people believe about Washington is myth (although stripped of the myth, he's still pretty awesome). Jefferson was a brilliant thinker, but very much a flawed man. Lincoln is often admired because he "freed the slaves", but that's simply not true, and distorts what the American Civil War was about in the first place.
From the historical documents I've seen, I wouldn't agree. We've never been the sort of homogeneous group that school history texts seem to present us as. And history has never been quite as squeaky clean as we're often led to believe.
"But we weren't the morally, sexually, politically ambiguous creatures that now inhabit much of America."
I heard an story a while back on NPR, where people talked about this sort of thing. Invariably, they would cite the time when they were growing up. What was interesting is they they would talk to someone who was an adult at that time, who quickly debunked this idea that "things were so much better". They kept pushing back the the prior decade, and that before, but never did find such a time.
So - in my view - you paint with a wide brush of generalizations and rely on appealing to your reader's sense of nostalgia and shared moral outrage.
An it worries me, because in the process of simplifying the problem to a Marxist conspiracy of some sort, it overlooks assumptions, such as the existence of that mythical better time. It also feel it encourages a "tribe" mentality, which seems to be hardwired into us. It seems very easy to put someone in the "not our tribe" category.
We knew that actions had consequences, and that hard work would be rewarded."
The sad thing is, that's not necessarily true. Good people suffer, evil people live out lives of luxury. People take credit for the work of others, and sometimes people get away with murder.
I appreciate people standing up for what they believe is right. But having someone disagree with you doesn't make them a Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive.
Quote:
I began a rebuttal to your points, but realized that it would be futile, and a waste of time. I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
I appreciate your reading the article and taking the time to comment.
Quote:
to every complex problem, there is always a very simple solution -- and most of the time it is wrong;
Quote:
However, the one thing that really bothers me was this one:Quote:
"They started awarding trophies to every player in school team sports, winners and losers."
I don't why folks keep throwing that up as if it is destroying the competitive fiber of our youth -- 'cause it is crock of crap.
This sound-bite is tossed about by those who don't really pay attention any more to kids in sport. Kids know who wins and loses, winning trophies are for winners and the competitive spirit is alive and well. I am not sure how recognition for participation in an activity has somehow led to the downfall of our society.
Quote:
I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.
All that's necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do and say nothing.
Quote:
You imply that there's some sort of concerted Marxist/communist/socialist/progressive world movement ideology behind all the changes. But it's more a given than a proven point. And (to my mind) you don't make a very compelling case.
Quote:
before we get a flame war going here, I'd just like to say that intelligent people should be able to express highly volatile ideas peaceably and without resorting to character assassination.
The old expression is that "He who runs out of arguments strikes first", so resorting to personal attacks in forum discussion is generally regarded as an admission of ideological defeat.
In my experience you can get away with almost any statement in discussions of this sort, as long as you say it in a way that preserves the dignity of those on the other side of the discussion. Failing to do that pretty much always leads to a fight rather than a discussion.
Quote:
David, I am absolutely dumbfounded that you would object to this statement!
Quote:
That said, I still submit that a 44% difference in pay and benefits is egregious. Actually, it's closer to 50%, or twice that of the private sector.
Quote:Quote:
That said, I still submit that a 44% difference in pay and benefits is egregious. Actually, it's closer to 50%, or twice that of the private sector.
Are you possiblty just jealous that you are not among them and thus just speak angrily out of envy for someone else's success?
How many poor people put down athletes and begrudge them the large salaries? Well, there are 30 teams in the NBA. Each of those 30 teams has ONE starting center. That means that there are only 30 of that job available for competition. 30 men in the entire male work force are qualified for those jobs. Is that not a specialized position? 30 out of how many million in the work force?
So use that analogy. How many doctors are there? How many lawyers? How many Supreme Court Justices? How many factory workers, gas pumpers and convenience store clerks? Does normal logic not say that 1 of those 30 people who qualify to start at center in the NBA make more money than the kid who sells you the slurpy at 7-11?
Don't be jealous because you are a "have not". Work harder and become a "have". Or grow taller.....
Quote:
Mods, it is really time to pull this post. This post was made by a wannabe journalist in an attempt to drive traffic to a site where I suspect he gets paid by the hit and needed hits.
This is a MUSIC forum, whether it is called "Off Topic" or not, the user guidelines specifically say that we are not to discuss politics or religion.
Time to pull it before there is gunfire between the conservatives and the liberals.
Quote:
The "Article" is simply hilarious... the thread is even better. LOL!
Quote:
David, you dismiss the assertions without making ANY case, let alone a compelling one.
Quote:
9. All of the forums except for the Off Topic forum are for discussions of PG Music products only. The Off Topic forum is used for MUSIC-RELATED discussions that aren't about PG Music products. Please keep all your posts as constructive as possible.
Defense rests.
Quote:Quote:
David, I am absolutely dumbfounded that you would object to this statement!
Sorry, I thought I had been clear by highlighting particular words. I'm commenting on the language you use here.
When you write "I hope everyone with good sense supports you publicly.", the implication is that people who don't support the article don't have good sense.
Quote:
So it's not a statement on the article, but rather a comment that you appear to be making a value judgement against anyone who disagrees with the article.
Quote:
It thought it was ironic that you'd start by explaining that people should be polite in discussing the article, yet immediately include those tactics yourself.
Quote:
The "Article" is simply hilarious... the thread is even better. LOL!
Quote:
I assume you are offended because you took it personally.