![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by Brian Nygaard | May 19, 2011
How is it possible to resist the charms of any elected official offering the dual benefits of fairness and protection? After all, is not being treated equitably, while simultaneously being spared the pain of those who would seek to harm us, not of ultimate worth? Fairness must certainly be the quintessential American value, right? And our entire system of justice; is it not specifically designed to bring both fairness and protection?
Over the next year and a half we will hear the word fairness as if the word encapsulates the complete and final animation of the American ideal. We will also be offered a basket overflowing with governmental “protections†from rapacious bogeymen, both known and unknown. This little “benefits package†will come neatly wrapped in the form of a vague threat that would have us believe any alternative to this package would immediately result in enslavement. It is only demons that would offer us, the American people, anything less.
The real wonder in all of this is how Thomas Jefferson seemed to have completely missed the significance of the beatific vision of the liberal left. To have settled for such suboptimal and simple notions as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must clearly validate the marked progression in our political thinking. Alas, we are talking about a couple of centuries of human achievement. If we can build an iPad, we must certainly be able to build a perfectly integrated, transparent, and high-functioning system of governance. We call this “political science,†as if it was somehow scientific.
Hope and change was the first chapter. Fairness and protection are now emerging as the second chapter. The only remaining question we now have is in determining which of these sets of notions is the most utterly naïve. There is, however, no remaining question as to which is more dangerous. Chapter Two is an unmitigated societal, moral and economic horror show.
Like hope and change, fairness and protection are proffered without definition or object. One man’s version of fairness is another man’s version of purgatory. To suggest that protections are being afforded is to beg the obvious question, “Protection from what or from whom?†The suggestion, of course, is that the government will become both the ultimate dispenser of fairness, and the protector from anything that is “not-government.†This is a binary universe in which the government is the center of virtue, and everything and everyone else is either mundane or oppressive.
In a hypothetical world where half the citizenry are drunken bums and the other half are productive and hard-working citizens, what represents a fair tax rate? Apparently, there is a fair answer to this question, albeit that the obvious answer seems to elude most of us common people. Not to fear, in the liberal mind, they have the answer. And if regulation doubles the price of that which we seek to consume, we must presume that the level of “protection†is worth paying for. Just ask them. They not only have all the answers, they are willing to impose them on everyone else.
They spin a web of myths. It is only unfortunate that these myths are so seemingly beguiling.
When Mr. Jefferson offered his modest notions of a sustainable basis for societal success, he understood that the government can only create a set of conditions where people can optimize their unique futures. He had seen the fairness and protection “themes†played out in history and seen the implications of the associated governmental arrogance. Mr. Jefferson was willing to look at humanity in a more positive light than many of his contemporaries. Even he could not begin to fathom the negative implications of what is now being offered as the standard offering of the Liberal Left.
When the markets create a willing buyer, and a willing seller, at a given price, most of us would agree that the “trade†was fair. On the other side of the equation, when the government intervenes in anything, it is not fairness and protection that we receive. It is rather just someone’s version of coercion. The liberal definition of fairness is just another form of arbitrary and completely baseless enslavement. It cannot be heard in any other way.
Fairness is only found in established conditions. It is never found in a quest for derived outcomes. When liberals transmute the definition of fairness into an effect, as opposed to its native state as a cause, they turn the world inside out. Viewing fairness as an effect is, by definition, fundamentally unfair. And the result is always predictable, and never pretty.
![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by | May 17, 2011
The story of Presidential candidate Herman Cain begins and ends with personality. That is not to say that the middle doesn’t contain a large amount of substance, because it does, but his emotive presence in a sea of dry politicians refuses to be overlooked. He, and his presence, were on hand to address a group of about eighty people Monday at The Smokey Row Coffee Shop in Des Moines.
As he gave a brief opening statement and took questions from the crowd one could quickly come to the conclusion that his personality, and not his impressive business experience, may be his biggest weapon moving forward. The current world of Presidential politics is one in which the media can conjure up a negative narrative on a candidate faster than a State Fair artist can draw you a self-portrait. When it comes to Herman Cain, this will not be so easy.
His personality is a rare mixture. I would call it one part warmth, one part energy, and two parts forcefulness. Though we won’t find out unless he raises his profile, if the media is able to demonize this man…then nobody is safe.
However inescapable it was, this campaign stop was about much more than his personal traits. He took about twenty questions from the group, running the gamut from Pakistan to pre-school.
Ripping into the Obama administration was consistent throughout. He addressed spending most adamantly, calling for an across the board cut of 10% from each Federal department, a capital gains tax of 0%, a payroll tax holiday, and implementation of the Fair Tax. He broached the subject of Social Security reform by re-stating his position of following the Chilean model by creating an optional system that is “not privatized, but personalized.â€
He all but announced he is running, joking he couldn’t say it officially until his announcement on May 21st. This being the case, we here at The Conservative Reader will have an in-depth look at his background and positions in the coming days. His personal story in many ways is an inspirational one, while his platform is a unique blend of policy positions. He will no doubt win over some of you, intrigue some of you, and frustrate the rest.
For the time being though it is safe to say his position in the race is more solid than one might think. Recently he got glowing reviews of his first debate performance, and this week the good news kept on coming. The last 72 hours has seen the exit of two candidates whose supporters could easily gravitate towards Cain, but for far different reasons.
Though Donald Trump’s candidacy was hardly serious, his high poll numbers were not all name recognition. A percentage of them represented a group searching for either a fighter or a business approach to government. Enter Herman Cain.
Most beneficial to Cain though is the disappearance from the scene of Mike Huckabee. Of any of the figures on the National landscape it is Huckabee that Mr. Cain most resembles (yes they are both former preachers too). The scores of voters, especially in Iowa, who found themselves drawn to Huckabee’s warm affability will find it hard not to be drawn in by Herman Cain and his most powerful weapon…his personality.
Capturing a significant number of these “released delegates†would afford him the ability to stay viable for the next few months. If he indeed is able to stick around he will be required to provide more specific details than currently offered by his 17 page document “The People’s Platform.†Meeting this challenge, and seeming Presidential while doing it, could punch his ticket to the Finals.
Though a lot has to go right, a path for him to enter the upper echelon of contenders is starting to become visible. At this stage in the game, a realistic chance is all an upstart candidate can ask for. If he is able to connect with the masses as well as he did with the folks at this event on Monday, you may not want to bet against him.
![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by | May 1, 2011
On national television this evening, President Obama informed the public that bin Laden had been killed in a firefight with a small team of America forces who had attacked a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan in an effort to capture the Al Queda leader. There were no American casualties.
The President’s speech covered just about every aspect of the situation, and reflected on the history of bin Laden and his murderous mayhem on the world. He also keyed in on an important fact: Al Queda has not been shut down. There will likely be continued attacks along with targeted reprisals for today’s successful operation.
Although the details are still sketchy, it appears that the terror leader was killed earlier in the day, and presumably verification and notification of certain world leaders was necessary before notifying the public at large.
Although there will doubtless be days and weeks of analysis of bin Laden’s killing, the events leading up to it, the aftermath, the statement it makes to terrorists, the statement it makes to leaders like Gaddafi (who just lost his own son in a NATO attack that appears to have targeted him). As the President said, it is important to remember that a large number of people in the military, intelligence, domestic security, foreign partners and our elected leaders have worked hard for the last 10 years to search out those responsible for 9/11 and to protect our interests, and they have done a magnificent job despite occasional problems.
The President deserves congratulations and appreciation for his role in continuing to lead our resources in apprehending bin Laden (dead or not). Both he and President Bush have done well in working to bring Osama to justice.
So, let’s keep the partisan bickering to a minimum for just a day, can we? This is a time to celebrate, even if there is more work to be done. This is a landmark achievement for America at a time when some were ready to give up and throw in the towel. It is immensely gratifying to see that our efforts have not been in vain.
Celebrate, and remember those who lost their lives in 2001, and who have given their lives since then in the effort to protect us all from the scourge of terror.
![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by Brian Nygaard | Apr 21, 2011
With the long overdue federal budget negotiations continuing to, well — continue — the vitriol spewing out of every crevasse of Washington is stunning in both its scope and in the absolute levels of personal animus that is on display. Even more stunning than the differences of opinion are the even more spectacular distortions of both the facts and the pertinent arguments attached to elements of the debate. It is one thing to have a contrary set of opinions. It is yet another to deploy a confrontation strategy of “justifiable-deception†(what used to be called “liesâ€) into that debate. The proposed defunding of Planned Parenthood that was announced last week (for their use in providing abortions) brought out vast quantities of this type of pernicious and despicable political deception.
The emotionally driven hate-speech coming from the self-described and sole protectors of women (the liberal legion in Washington), came so fast and furious that one might have been concerned that someone might have gotten hurt in their stampede to the cameras and microphones. It was a scene reminiscent of the chaos of a rock concert or a soccer game where all of the adolescent fans have designs on the front row.
Of the entire list of distortions associated with the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the one most hideous is the characterization that conservatives are both anti-women, and anti-women’s rights.  These liberal “megaphones†should be ashamed of themselves for stooping to this level of civility and discourse. Actually, it is not discourse (and it is obviously not civil); it is just the spewage of unfiltered sewage. Here are some examples:
- Reid (D-NV) said Republicans had placed a “bull’s eye on women in America,” preventing them from getting “health services they need.”
- Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) said: “The real reason that the right-wing extremists in Congress orchestrated this outrageous government shutdown is to try and defund Planned Parenthood as part of their ideological assault on women’s health care.â€
- Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) explained that “This is a war on women. They’re trying to inject their politics and their religion into local family planning.” California liberals are a special lot, are they not? The level of hypocrisy captured in these two brief sentences is revolting to all people of intelligent thought. But we move on.
As the “viability of the fetus†argument has now been effectively discredited, both morally and technologically, the abortionist’s last redoubt is the rights-of-women argument. The absurdity of this version of the pro-abortion argument is that the issue has never been simply and singularly about the rights of women. Everyone, on all sides of this issue, is committed to the rights of women. The fact that the extremist (to use their word) liberals seem to deny that the issue is much broader than women’s rights is the reason their comments are so entirely and patently offensive. This is a much more expansive human rights issue.
The battle lines around the abortion issue are not found on the political map in an area marked “the rights of women.†The debate is rather a long-standing and well-defined issue that pits the interests and rights of women against the interests and rights of unborn children. We all wish this did not have to be so. But to say that one party in the debate favors the rights of women, and the other does not, is at least disingenuous and likely much worse. It is reflective of a lack of character that manifests itself in a willingness to sacrifice base levels of honesty and core human decency in pursuit of their already dubious goals.
The difference between those of us who support the lives of the unborn and the Reid’s, DeGette’s and Lee’s of the world has nothing whatsoever with differences of opinion opposite the rights of women. It has everything to do with the rights of children. For liberals to state the contrary, or to state only one element of the argument, is morally and intellectually reprehensible. For those who choose to support abortion as a simple function of the rights of women there exists a deep moral responsibility to pursue the issue on its merits…whatever those merits might be. Spewing unrepentant lies as a means of support for their argument is, very unfortunately, on the same moral plane as the abortionist’s morally asymmetrical argument itself.
We need look no further than this to see why Americans are so completely disgusted with the whole political process. Without honesty there can be no trust. Without trust, there is no opportunity for the democratic form of governance to continue.
Process check: If you read this and see it as polemic in favor of the rights of children, please read it again. It is an argument in support of honest political discourse. This article could have been written with the federal budget, health care, educational funding, judicial activism or food safety labeling as the backdrop.
![The New Obama Concoction: Fairness and Protection]()
by Dr Bob Stouffer | Apr 19, 2011
Unions.
There is a word which is currently stirring much thought and commentary.
With all due solemnity and respect for the people of Japan, I would say that Madison, Wisconsin is the epicenter of an earthquake which is sending tremors into every state capital of our country.
What’s all the hubbub, bub?
In case you have been living in a cave, allow me to enlighten you. Desperate economic times have apparently called for desperate measures. State legislatures are looking for ways to cut spending, and they have uncovered a very interesting phenomenon. Government unions have been very adroit in negotiating excellent financial compensation for their members, including fringe benefits which are outpacing the benefits of many employees in the private sector.
Governors, emboldened by the example of their counterpart in Wisconsin, are attempting to change collective bargaining laws, so, in the very least, unions do not have as much, if any, control over wages and benefits. Asking government union employees to pay more of their “fair share†of benefits has resulted in millions of dollars of proposed government savings.
Well, you would think that mass murderers have been cornered in the town square, because lynch mobs have formed against “both sides†of this dispute. Protests have gone on unabated for days. Teachers obtained false doctor’s notes excusing their absences from school, since some of these states are no-strike states. Re-call elections have been proposed in multiple states, and no mercy is being shown to bold governors or legislators who chose to leave their jobs and cross state lines for several weeks of – shall we say – “vacation.â€Â (What’s up with that?! Both Wisconsinites and Indianans sought “refuge†in Illinois!)
Please allow me to share my experiences with and views about unions. At their inception, unions served very useful purposes. Especially during the Industrial Revolution, managers were responsible for horrific abuses of working hours, conditions, pay, and benefits. Employees formed unions to present united fronts to their bosses, so they could negotiate reasonable conditions.
While I am not naïve – and I know that management abuses do still exist today – those behaviors are very rare, and I believe unions – in the form that they were conceived – have outlived their usefulness. In an age of shared decision-making, and participative leadership, no manager of a reputable organization could get away with abusive behavior in even the most subtle of forms. Cries of “foul†regularly ring out, and news outlets are only too happy to capitalize on the crisis d’jour.
I have often wondered about the efficacy of unions during my thirty-plus years as a professional educator. During my 7 years of teaching, I was miffed by what I believed to have been exorbitant fees and disproportionate percentage of my income to join the local, state, and national unions. (In case you didn’t know, the National Education Association is the biggest and most powerful union in Washington, D.C.) I was always threatened with the “need’ for insurance in case I found myself a defendant in litigation, and the administrators were always portrayed as the “bad guys†in these scenarios.
As a teacher, I was also frustrated by the issues taken up by the NEA and Iowa State Education Association. Why were the delegates to these conventions spending so much time and money discussing the non-education-related dynamics of homosexuality and abortion?! Even before I was a believer in Jesus Christ, I somehow inherently knew that these topics were superfluous to the school building. (Don’t get me wrong. I don’t dismiss these issues. They are VERY important issues, but the more important issues for EDUCATIONAL unions are those related directly to the EDUCATION of students in classrooms.)
As a part of my Master’s degree program in school administration, I was trained by a Western Illinois University professor in the “art†and “science†of collective bargaining. Looking back on the content of that course, I can now accurately point out that this was a class on gamesmanship more than determining what was in the best interests of students, educators, and parents.
The relationship between the Pleasant Valley Education Association and administration was the most adversarial in my experience. Outrageous financial proposals were put on the bargaining table every year. The teachers asked for too much. The administration offered too little. All of this blustering and caucusing did nothing to bring “unity†from either the “union†or the administration. (I am at least pleased to add that THE BEST union in my working experience has been the Urbandale Education Association, which cooperated well with administration in a non-adversarial model of bargaining in which every penny was put on the table for discussion, and no outrageous proposals drew battle lines. Also, the UEA did not automatically defend poor teachers who were asked to resign or to complete intensive assistance plans for the improvement of their teaching.)
During my last year of teaching, no one would run for the presidency of the Pleasant Valley union, so I unabashedly ran unopposed as a “let’s get something done together†platform. I was elected. If someone had a different platform, they should have run a write-in campaign! Everyone knew where I stood. After all, I was the son of a school administrator. I remember the calls my Dad took at home. I remember he had the best interests of his staff members in mind. I remember when he was no longer a member of the union, because the collective bargaining laws of Iowa had precipitated rancor between teachers and principals and the end of union membership for school administrators.
As the PVEA President, I wasn’t exactly the “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along†leader. I wanted to fairly represent the teachers, and I was willing to make tough decisions on their behalf. But I also didn’t want to fall lock-step into a union mentality which always immediately distrusted the intent of administration. How ironic that one year I was the union president – 1986-1987 – and the very next year – 1987-1988 – I was Associate Principal of Pleasant Valley High School. Needless to say, I was no longer a member of the PVEA as a school administrator! And I can imagine that several of my teaching colleagues believed I had “sold out†to the “dark side of administration.â€
I am pleased to report that I am now the Superintendent of a non-public school which does not have a union. To be frank, there are times when I have unintentionally not acted in the best interests of the staff in this school, but there has generally not been a “need†for a union, because I want to intentionally do everything in my power to fairly compensate them for their work and to create working conditions which are favorable to student learning. As a private school, our school will go out of business if we are not giving a good return on our “customers’†investment, and teachers need to be unencumbered to do their jobs.
But the school must also be unencumbered to end contractual relationships with teachers who are not helping students to learn. I can honestly say that I have loved 99% of the teachers who have left our school for any number of issues. While I can love people, I can also, even and especially as a Christian, expect employees to do their very best to honor and glorify God through their work. We can love each other and still agree that parting ways would be the best course of action for students, parents, administrators, and especially the underperforming or misplaced teachers themselves. I understand the emotion attached to losing employment, but can’t we also agree that the teachers themselves will be miserable in positions for which they are not suited?
This is all to say that I am not AGAINST unions. But I am against unreasonable union leaders and managers. And I am FOR government employees needing to pay a reasonable share of fringe benefits, especially with rising costs of health care. Union leaders in some of these feuding states have indicated that they have “passed†on negotiating for higher wages to secure these excellent fringe benefits. That may be true, but I would venture a guess that such an argument is sometimes/often a “white lieâ€Â (aka intellectual dishonesty).
Right now, I am most incensed by the behavior of many (but not all) National Football League players and owners. One of our school’s parents is a federal negotiator, and he rightly pointed out that greed is at the heart of “millionaires arguing with billionaires.â€Â And, all along, a family cannot afford to attend an NFL game featuring players who have (obscenely) compared the current situation as “slavery,†thus implying they are “slavesâ€! Ah, to be that kind of “slave†who has that kind of talent and earns that kind of money and has the right at any time to walk away from that kind of work!
Unions have garnered a lot of attention lately, haven’t they? You can no longer be ambivalent. You’ve got to get into this discussion and game. Unions are affecting all of us, whether you care to admit it or want to live in a state of denial.
