Say it ain't SO, Castro!!

I saw a news story from the AP today [link at the end of this post] that Cuba is considering eliminating government jobs (from the 97% of the workforce employed by the government) due to the lack of available work.  Wait, you mean that Socialism/Communism isn't perfect??  Do you think the current administration and the liberal wing of our political spectrum have heard about this??

So the big question is: When there is no incentive to excel, why try?  In my mind this question illuminates the the cornerstone of the fallacy of Socialism/Communism.  When your workforce throws up their hands and says "the State pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work," how far can that culture really go?

This isn't just about economics - it is incredibly larger than that.  We (humans) are just like every, other organism on the planet: we are Survival Machines.  Generally, the survival instinct is the most powerful driver of our behavior.  Democracy and Capitalism have driven human achievement farther and faster in the last 200-odd years because they directly relate to and leverage our survival instincts - the accumulation of personal resources (food, water, money, you name it), striving for achievement = safety (the smarter/stronger/more successful you are - the more secure you, your family and your offspring will be).  Bottom line: Democracy and Capitalism make our species stronger simply because they urge every individual to strive and to do more by, on the whole, directly rewarding that behavior.

The flip side: Socialism/Communism fail (over, and over, and over, and OVER AGAIN!) precisely because they are anti-competitive and they DIS-incentivize the strongest instinct we have (survival).  At the end of the day, if you don't have to expend any effort, how do you keep from becoming weak?  How do you keep from being out competed (and potentially naturally de-selected!) by others who DO have something to strive for?

The funny thing is, with the enormous amount of empirical evidence on the inefficiencies (and at this point downright silliness) of Socialism/Communism, and that they simply cannot deliver the social and cultural results that they promise - how can we explain the people who still promote them??  If these people aren't mentally deficient (and many of them are VERY smart), and they understand that they cannot deliver on the promises they are making - then we MUST assume that the political aspect is secondary to some other aspect for which these people ARE striving.

If you look clearly at the purveyors of Socialism and Communism (both past and present) it becomes obvious fairly quickly that these people simply end up serving their own survival instincts through the accumulation of personal resources (the best cars, the best dachas, etc.).  To sum it all up: the promoters of Socialism and Communism are simply using the grand ideological promises, and the aspirations of the people themselves, as vehicles for the accumulation of personal power, and the expression of their own bloated egos.  It's not about governance and freedom - it never was...

At the end of the day, every political system is perfect on the drawing board.  the real test, is the Real World.  Socialism and Communism fail as dismally and spectacularly as all of the other - with a single exception.  Regardless of your political persuasion, the combination of Democracy and Capitalism is measurably better than all of the other systems that humans have devised.  And the fact that you can look at them, and measure the success is all that matters.

Are Democracy and Capitalism perfect?  Not at all (I don't know about you, but I tend to leave perfection to the Almighty), and there is a lot of room to improve.  In my mind that's what we're here for: "to form a more perfect Union" each generation improving on the previous.  And while we will certainly make mistakes in the process, why on Earth would we go in the direction of things that we know DON'T WORK??  Why would we buy the Snake Oil of the current crop of Socialists and Communists if [I'm right and] it's only about their own personal power, and not at all about We the People?

We have work to do.  The question is what will make us WANT to do the work?  The opportunity to experience achievement and success?  Or simply working because someone else told us to work - someone who has NO Divine Right to fruits of our labor?

Here's the link to the original story: Cuba Mulling Government Job Cuts

The ROOT of the Matter - Matters!

Conserve (Verb)
1) To prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of
2) To use or manage wisely

 

Conservator (Noun)
1) A person who conserves or preserves; preserver; protector
2) A person who repairs, restores, or maintains the condition of something
3)A guardian; a custodian

 

Conservation (Noun)
The act of conserving; prevention of injury, decay, waste, or loss; preservation:

 

Conservative (Adjective)
Predisposed to conserve; supporting the act of conservation; acting as a Conservator

 

It is probably obvious where I am going with this, so let's get started.

 

If you want to know what a true Conservative is in the political sense just look at the root and the relations:

• Prevent loss
• Protector
• Guardian
• Maintainor

Nowhere does it say anything about "turning back the clock" or any kind of related rubbish.  The truth is in the root, and in the history.

If you believe that the the pricipals upon which the Republic was founded form the core of the platform from which we have excelled as a nation for so long, then the act of protecting and conserving that foundation - being a conservator/conservative - MUST be critical to our continued success.

Progress within our Republic - by both reason and definition - lies in the extension and growth of that foundation - NEVER in its elimination!  Those who fight in opposition to the foundation of our Republic, through either blindness of ignorance or malice of intent, must be cast aside.  The resounding ring of truth, and the voices of all citizens who know that truth, must NEVER be silent, and must grow ever louder and more insistent.

Get another job!

So I read today that ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) issued a statement saying that they may refuse to process suspected illegals aliens picked up in Arizona.  Evidently this is some sort of protest against the Arizona Immigration Law.  I am uncertain how they came to their respective conclusions, as from all I have read or heard it appears nearly no one within the Federal Government has actually read the text of the law.  I read it.  It's pretty simple and straightforward - you can read it here.

Whether this is driven by the Administration or simply bureaucrats looking to score political points with the Administration is irrelevant at this point, as the effect is the same: An agency of the Executive Branch that is charged with enforcing Federal law is saying that it may refuse to enforce Federal law that is specific to its domain, and for which it has specific responsibility.

Seriously?!?  That has to be one of the most asinine things I have ever heard from the government - and sadly, that is really saying something...  Doesn't it seem like the Federal Government is moving farther and farther away from the things that it is constitutionally supposed to do?  Shouldn't the government simply and only have a constitutional agenda, founded on its constitutional responsibilities, instead of a solely political one?

So here's the real question: I know that it is really hard to sue the Federal Government.  AND, if the head of a Federal agency refuses to enforce a law for which they have specific responsibility, and they are then given a chance to resign as a form of moral/political protest and they refuse, could they not be held personally liable, in the same way that corporate CEO's and CFO's are held to account for their statements and actions?

So that's the question.  Not saying that the implications of the question would be easily manageable.  I just think it is a valid question.

Kids in Entertainment - Parents Beware!!!

Okay, so one of my favorite blogs for good ole' Hollywood Gossip is "Crazy Days and Nights" (http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/) - great stories, great commentary.

The Blogger (who's name is Enty, which is short for Entertainment Lawyer) posted a story about the son of Dana Plato (you remember - from Diff'rent Strokes, WAY back in the day...).  Here's a link to the original blog post: http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2010/05/dana-platos-son-commits-suicide.html.  You may (or may not) remember that she committed suicide a few years back, and yesterday the poor son committed suicide as the anniversarry of Dana's death approached.

This is multi-generational tragedy of the highest order, and got me thinking about kids in the entertainment industry.  Now, my wife and I have kids (more that one), and we have thought about and talked about, "Our kids are so talented [as every parent says]!  Wouldn't it be neat if they got involved in acting and ended up on the Disney channel?"  Okay, maybe not every parent says that last part, AND I know that lot's do.

So I posted my thoughts, to which one of the blog readers posted a reply, and to which I replied back.  I thought I did a decent job, so I wanted to post up the exchange here.  So here it is:

"3 Degrees of Frustration said...


Now think of all of the kids on Disney, and the kind of egocentric misery they have been setup for all before they knew any better and could defend or choose for themselves.


How many can you think of that turned out totally normal? Not that many... "

"bionic bunny! said...


nancer, that's a good way to put it. everybody gets a little sad or depressed once in a while. it's when it crosses the line into clinical depression (i think the description is lasting over 2 weeks with certain symptoms). i've witnessed it, and i've been there, but both DS and i have learned to monitor ourselves.

to 3 degrees: why do people always blame disney? not all child actors work/worked for disney, and when walt was alive, he really did watch out for the disney kids.

parenting and brain chemistry are at fault, not one corporate entity.

1:33 PM "

"3 Degrees of Frustration said...


Bionic Bunny, not "blaming" Disney at all. They are simply a good example because they have a high concentration of child entertainers in their ranks, and (my opinion) are seen as a place by parents, agents and even kids themselves to make an entrance into the entertainment biz.

It's not a corporation's responsibility (nor a government, nor any other entity outside of a parent) to prepare our children as well as possible for life's challenges, AND to keep them out of and away from situations that they are simply not developmentaly ready to handle at a particular point in time (helloooo Billy Ray Cyrus...).

Disney's (or NBC with Diff'rent Strokes, or any other entertainment channel) isn't at fault over these things. As a parent, if I make a decision to put my child out into the work place at an early age, if I hold out children's entertainment (or sports, or anything else in life) as something to which my kids should aspire, and then don't do my job to directly protect and prepare them along the journey then I'm at fault. The really sad part is that the kids (and in this case their kids) are the ones who eventually pay the piper (helloooo Dina Lohan...).

Final thought: As a parent you can do all of he right things, and things may still not turn out for the best. Accidents, medical problems (Clinical Depression, or any other major issue) can happen. Even so, you always have to fight the fight for your kids, and NOT do things that will stack the odds against them. If that means keeping them out of the workplace, forgoing a bunch of money because it's not the right choice for them, then that's what it means.

5:35 AM "

Go back to go forward

First Post: Taking one-step, or many steps, backwards - to be centered and know that you stand on solid ground -  in order to then run forward is good thing. 

Progress and growth are not straight lines, going ever up and to the right.

'Nuff said.