A Hero? Believe It or Not

So it's been awhile since my last blog session.  No doubt I have missed some interesting topics with which to opine.   

     It seems today that you can't read a paper or watch a news broadcast without hearing the word hero over and over again.  If I didn't know better, I would expect that every time I walked outside, a sea of red capes would immerse me while I watched others leap tall buildings in a single bound.  Where did all these heroes come from?  Why are they heroes?  The truth is, the media and politicians alike,  have grossly over used the word hero.  

    I am not talking about your every day heroes.  The every day hero is that person who, within a very limited segment of a community, is looked up to and admired for his/her achievements.  They don't ask for anything in return for their deeds and don't leverage their status as a bargaining chip for salary increases or special privileges.  

    No, I am talking about the type of "hero" that arose out of the ashes of the 9/11 tragedy.  After that day, our media labeled every fireman, police officer and military personnel as a hero.  Politicians quickly caught on and used this cliche to appeal to the segment of voters who ignore facts and succumb to emotional appeals.  Don't believe me? Read the transcript of every state of the union address given since January of 2002 or any political debate since then.  Sure there are a few true heroes in the lot of them but certainly not all of them, and probably not most of them. 

     I guess I don't like being told who my heroes are.  My childhood heroes were professional athletes.  As I got older, I realized most of them were disingenuous or greedy and soon they faded from my hero spotlight.  Today, my heroes include Thomas Edison, a handful of Navy seals who risk their lives neutralizing the worlds most dangerous threats and a few others.  Not only are these men to be admired for their achievements, they did not use their success to publicly bargain for more than they earned.  You could say "they earned their fair share."

   Despite what our politicians told you, none of my heroes are policeman or fireman.  Certainly not the fireman who is receiving a fireman's retirement pension and a regular paycheck for the same city at the same time... as a fireman.  No joke!  This guy is certainly not a hero.  The policeman who used derogatory terms while talking to me after incorrectly pulling me over on the interstate is definitely not a hero.  The group of troopers who I overheard talking about how they can't wait to "double-dip" the retirement fund when they turn 55 are not my heroes.  The officers who receive double-time plus time-and-a-half for sitting in the squad car all day while the road construction crew does their thing, are not my heroes. 

     Make no mistake, I am glad we have fireman and policeman and an all volunteer military.  I am grateful for the protection the men and women uniform provide to our society.   It is part of what makes this country great.  And a few of them truly are heroes. And the few bad guys I mentioned above, no more make all policemen crooks than the few good guys make all policemen heroes.  The rest are just like you and I. They go to work so they can get paid.  They do a good job so they can get paid more.  

The heroes I look up to, don't exploit their good deeds for personal gain. For the media and politicians to categorize a whole organization of people as heroes due to the heroic acts of a mere few, is nothing more than a disingenuous stereotype.

     Real heroes don't point fingers when something goes wrong.  They fix the problem and move on.  They know that finding blame elsewhere does nothing to advance the situation and only slows the healing process.  Heroism is synonymous with altruism; unselfish, driven by the interest in the welfare of others. A hero earns their status of hero. 

     Of course the more simpler argument, is to call everyone a hero.  Then we can all strive to be normal again.  But to grossly stereotype all men and women who wear a uniform as heroes and completely ignore every other occupation is preposterous. This country needs a moratorium on the word hero.  And the next time you hear the word hero on the news, believe it or not, they are talking hot air!

  

The Opposite of Progress

With another Presidential election coming our way this November, we must brace ourselves from the constant political mudslinging both within and across party lines.  It is wont for the incumbent, in this case President Obama, to convince the nation we are better off today than we were under the previous administration of George Bush.  Likewise, the eventual Republican nominee will attempt to persuade us that the last four years were a disaster (my personal opinion as well) and that we can no longer afford to suffer under President Obama.  In doing this, both parties will no doubt point out the pro's of their nominee and the cons of their adversary. All this while we the masses are manipulated and sold a bad bill of goods. 

 
The truth is, our forefathers, through the US constitution, extended very little power to the President over domestic affairs.  In particular, Article II of the US Constitution outlines the authority given to the President. 

• The President shall be commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces and has the power to grant reprieves and pardons to offenses against the US.
• The President shall have the authority to make treaties however the treaties must be ratified by a 2/3's vote in the Senate.
• The President shall have the authority to appoint ambassadors, judges and other public officers not explicitly called out in the constitution. All which must have the consent of the Senate.
• The President shall from time to time provide congress with information on the state of the union and recommend to them matters that the President deems expedient.
• The President shall approve or disapprove (veto) all legislation passed by Congress however congress can with a 2/3rds vote can override a Presidential veto.  

That is the extent of the of the powers granted by the US constitution to the President. As this list implies,  the woes of our nation during any administration cannot fully stem from the President.  That is not to suggest that the President cannot have an influence on domestic affairs, he most certainly does but ultimately, the fortunes or misfortunes of an administration sprout forth from another source.
 

What powers do the Constitution provide to Congress?  Article 1 of the US Constitution defines the powers granted to the Congress. Congress shall have the power to:

• Collect taxes (BTW, for those of you who still think that federal tax collection is not a law,  look no further than Section 8.1 of the Constitution), pay debt and provide for the common defenses and general welfare of the United States. 

… I could probably stop here but lets look at a few more...

• To borrow money on the credit of the United States
• To establish immigration rules (naturalization)
• To coin money and regulate US currency
• To establish the post office
• To promote the progress of science and useful arts.  (Yes the word "useful" is in the Constitution)
• To declare war
• To raise and support an Army, provide a Navy and to train and arm the armed forces.
• To make all necessary laws. 

It appears our Congress is responsible for all the things that we as a nation are struggling with right now.  High taxes,  crippling foreign debt, cuts to our military, rampant illegal immigration, all of these issues are distinctly the responsibility of the Congress, not the President. So why then, do we continue to elect the same candidates over and over again that are directly responsible for the lack of progress our nation has succumbed to?  Has our Congress created a more perfect union?!. Insured domestic tranquility?!  Not lately.

We, the people, vote congress into office.  That means we, the people, truly have the government that we earned.  (It would have been so easy to use the word deserve here).  When heading towards the ballot box this election day keep in mind that:

1. President Clinton was in office while Newt Gingrich led the Republican controlled Congress
2. President Bush was in office while Nancy Pelosi led the Democrat controlled House of Representatives
3. And for the first two years of President Obama's incumbency when Pelosi led congress, the recession only got worse. 

So as we watch the Presidential debates unfold and listen to the candidates grapple with why our nation cannot move forward, remember that the opposite of progress is Congress!

Back to the Drawing Board

I wasn't feeling too ardent towards any particular topic for tonight's blog.  I even typed in "trending now" on Google and still nothing elicited my inner blog.  Then I tried YouTube.  I decided to watch the Chipotle commercial that made headlines at the Grammy Awards the other night.  If you haven't seen it yet, it is worth a view.

First, the Grammy Awards are still on TV?  I thought they stopped airing that silly award ceremony back when Whitney was getting beat downs by Bobby.  (Ok... that was in poor taste). No surprise then to hear that a commercial stole the show. 

Second,  I love Chipotle.  When it comes to fast food burritos, they are tops. 

As far as the commercial goes, it appeals to the sentimentalist in all of us while subtly taking a shot at "Big Farma" or "Big Pharma" depending on how you look at it.  It is no secret that eating food products that have not been sprayed with pesticides, injected with chemicals or drugs is healthier for everyone.  But is it any better for us if the pigs roam free before they fill the burrito?

In an official statement from the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), Chipotle is accused of taking liberties with their advertisement. 

"The video contrasts a dismal “factory farm” with cheerful, Chipotle-approved grasslands where pigs run free. In an effort to sell their products, Chipotle misrepresents the real conditions and science behind large scale food production."

This isn't the first time a TV commercial represented a fantasy land.  Remember "Bud Bowl"? It used claymation to make us think beer bottles could play football.  Don't forget the eTrade baby and the Coca-Cola Polar bears.  So I don't thing Chipotle did anything wrong. In fact, for those in the audience who don't care to question the farmer of the cute pink cartoon pigs, Chipotle is a modern day champion for under-privileged slaughter house animals everywhere.

Chipotle's website claims it uses ingredients that are "naturaly raised".  I am not sure how this applies to their black beans but here is how it relates to the animals that we eat in their burritos.

"'naturally raised' is “the way animals were raised 50 years ago before huge factory farms changed the industry.”

The ASAS argues:

"the systems that fed the world 50 years ago are not sufficient to feed the world today."

What Chipotle doesn't tell you is in order for them to stay profitable while"naturally raising" their swine, they soon will charge you $9 for the same burrito you can purchase at other Mexican fast food establishments for $3.  You say, "Finbags, isn't the extra $6 dollars worth your health?"  I say, if it is, I will make my burrito at home.  And when that happens,  Chipotle says,  "it is time to take our commercial back to the drawing board." 

Lack of Education Leads to Rising Education Costs

College costs way too much money.  This is especially true if tuition is buying you a degree in 'general studies' or the like.  Since the current job market lacks a new economic engine, it might be time to ask if a college degree is worth it anymore.  For  some, the answer should be a resounding 'NO'!  College, however, in certain circles is something we as American's 'deserve'.  (There is that word again.) Our President, in his state of the union address called out Colleges and Universities, he put them on 'notice' and proclaimed 

"Higher education can’t be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford."

So why are the heads of higher education laughing?  Because, the United States government through its student loan policies, created an astronomical artificially high demand for college enrollment. Through the issuance of student loans to almost anyone who can fill out the application, college becomes affordable, albeit temporarily affordable for many.   When institutions of higher education raise tuition, Sallie Mae and company hand you a loan to pay it.  After all, you 'deserve' it don't you?!?

 In a brilliantly written article by Richard Vedder, entitled "Fogive Sutdent Loans?", he points out that over 40% of students  fail to receive a bachelor's degree after 6 years. When these students don't have a job with which to pay off the loan, who is left holding the bag?  Not the Universities. They got paid by Sallie Mae.  Where did Sallie Mae get her money.  Through financing of US Debt, of course.  By selling Treasury Bonds and T-bills to China and other foreign governments, our education is  subsidized in the $Trillions.  It is a quick study to see how this smorgasbord of easy loans can lead to a slippery slope of inescapable debt.   Our President clearly understands this when he said

"We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition. We’ll run out of money. "

  He is right.   If students can't pay off their debt to our Government, how can our government pay off its debt to China?  Many of the enlightened members of the OWS movement believe that forgiving student loans is the answer.  When that happens, China wins. 

How do we stop this spiral?  

1. Significantly reduce the number of student loans given out by the Federal Government. (Reduces artificial demand created by federal loans)
2. Adjust the ratio of Federal loans to reflect the current job market.  If our country needs engineers, a larger portion of available loans  are eligible for engineering degrees only.  (Lowers the rate of default for those with federal loans)
3. Universities, in an effort to increase enrollment would lower tuition and offer more loans backed by themselves. (Put the university's "skin" in the game to take a greater interest in student graduation rate and job placement)

When the laws of supply and demand are allowed to work without meddlesome interference from our government, everyone wins.  Let us go out and educate the nation to what really drives the high cost of tuition and no longer shall we stand by and watch as our lack of education leads to rising education costs.

Respectfully,

Finbags

Biting the Hand that Feeds

I wasn't planning on writing about this but it seems to have taken the news world by storm these past few days.  Maybe I just need a better spam filter on my email.  Word is just getting around that on January 20th, the Health and Human Services Agency, with the encouragement of our President and the ACLU,  issued a new mandate that all health plans, including those run by non-profits such as the Catholic Church must cover contraception and sterilization.  Thus throwing a rotten tomato in the eye of the Catholic Church and liberty lovers everywhere.  The Catholic Church, being most definitely "pro-life", has taken issue.  They are not alone.  Democrats, Republicans, Jews and Christians of all denominations are boiling over at this egregious mandate. 

Has the government finally gone too far? Does anyone in the current administration still believe in the principals set forth in the constitution?  What is at stake here goes beyond contraception, it is the violation of our "first liberty",  of our religious freedom.  Our  elected officials for sure are acting as hypocrites.  For years, religious symbols such as the "Ten commandments" have been ordered removed from courthouses at the same time we watched as our beloved Christmas trees turned into holiday trees.  All under the guise of separation of church and state.  Having tossed religion out of its confines, the government is now strong arming itself into the house of religion.  The Church and other "pro-life" organizations are being forced by our government to compromise their religious principals by providing abortion services.

Those supporting this tragedy will argue that there is a "religious exemption" in the mandate.  And on face value there is.  A narrow exemption exists for a "religious employer," defined as "one that:

1. Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;
2. Primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;
3. Primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets;…"

The list goes on but I need not. The Catholic church fails the litmus test for items 2 and 3 as it hires and helps individuals from all faiths and walks of life.  Every year the Church gives $Billions to the poor and needy.  In 2010, according to the 2010 Catholic  Charities AnnualReport,  in New York City alone this group provided services for over 350,000 men, women and children in need through over $700 million in charitable giving.  This mandate from the Obama administration clearly bites the hand that  feeds.

There also seems to be some confusion on whether or not the mandate specifically includes abortive drugs.  The HRSA says it does not: "These recommendations do not include abortifacient drugs".   This is misleading since the government does not officially recognize the destruction of a human embryo before implantation as an "abortion," although it is recognized as such in Catholic teaching and the understanding of many pro-life Americans.  Therefore drugs providing this "service" don't fall under the category of abortive drugs.

Church-affiliated organizations affected include Catholic colleges and universities, hospitals and charitable institutions that serve the general public. What's next?  Arch Bishop Timothy Dolan was quick on the take, describing the administration’s actions as “simply un-American,” and questioned "What other constitutionally protected freedoms might an increasingly powerful federal government revoke? What other [government]-mandated violations of conscience lie ahead for other groups of American citizens, in pursuit of what their government declares is in the common interest?"

 Slowly, a movement is brewing to petition this outrage and bite back.  Kentucky Senator Rand Paul intends to sponsor legislation with other Senate colleagues to overturn the administration’s edict.  I can only hope that  this country awakes from its slumber of apathy. 

If they can take away our religious freedom, they can take away our free speech.  The Catholic Church has until August 2013 to comply with the mandate. Blog while you can.

Respectfully,

Finbags

***UPDATE 2/13/2012***

Thanks to the support of people like you, the readers of DGNTDWI, our President has reconsidered his mandate on contraceptive services. In a memo issued by the White House on Feb. 10th, the mandate is revised to include provisions that:

• Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

• Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

• Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception. 

• Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

  Now it is the insurance companies turn to be put out the current administration.  
  

Deserve's Got Nothing to Do With It

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is from the pen of Thomas Jefferson with which I choose to open my blog.  Through the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson asserts our unalienable rights.  Rights that are incapable of being surrendered.  Rights that as Americans and as humans, we are truly deserving.

In the 236 years since America dissolved the political bands that connected us to England, we have seen that in addition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, many Americans also believe they deserve free education, free homes, free iPhones, free health care, and if they can't find a job, free money.  As Mark Knopfler sang, they want their "money for nothing and their chicks for free" and they want the government to flip the bill.

 The shame with all this "deserving" is it actually quells our ability to pursue our own destiny.  The more our government gives us, the more we depend on it and the less likely we are to cut ourselves off from the gravy train in the future.  When our government is giving us no incentive to improve , laziness and complacency sets in.  It is in the not to distant future that Americas path shall suffer the same fate as Greece

It is time this country reverse its "deserving" mentality and break free of the golden handcuffs.  Instead of putting our hands out as if we are entitled to everything at the expense of another, let's put our hands to work and receive what we earn… and then keep it!  Webster defines earn as "to receive in return for service".  If you are giving nothing, you've earned nothing in return. 

That brings us back to life, liberty and happiness.  These three virtues are truly deserved of all humans and as such, something we are entitled.  Everything else must be earned.  And when a long train of abuses and usurpation instituted by our elected officials over the past century elicits a society of entitlement, we must rise up and take a stand.  I vote to strike the word "deserve" from our vocabulary and usher in a new era of "Earn".  And next time you hear some one use the word "deserve", make sure to tell them, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it".

Respectfully,

Finbags