• About

Category: In the News

0 Rights vs Privileges

  • June 17, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

People have been throwing around the word “right” way more than I am comfortable with. “I have a right to education,” “You have a right to health care,” and recently in a gotcha moment a Republican senator was asked if people had a right to food. He didn’t answer it well.

All of the above claims are false. Now you can have the belief socially funded X, Y and Z would result in a stronger more prosperous society, sure. But to say any of them are “rights” is a dangerous proposition to make. This may sound petty, but language is important; the meaning of words is important. Telling people they have a right to things they simply do not is damaging.

So what is a right? What is a privilege? How can you tell the two a part? According to the Declaration of Independence, all men (i.e. mankind) are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Before non-Christians get all hung up on the creator part, let me say it in a secular way. The Declaration is saying every human has rights that no one can take away. Seems like a pretty legit idea whether you’re a believer or not.

Can education be taken away? Yes. Can it be given? Yes. Therefore, not a right. What I mean is, the government could declare all education is now free; kindergarten through college. Let’s say this goes on for five years and then higher education markets collapse. So the government now says, “hey guys, we’re shutting down all the colleges until we figure this out.” They gave education and then they took it away.

I know what you’re thinking, someone could shoot me tomorrow and take my life! It must not be a right then! Yes, someone can stop your heartbeat but can they take your life? When MLK was assassinated did his life’s work suddenly become that of his killer? Of course not. His life was still his life and no one can take that away.

And what about life? You need healthcare and food to stay alive. You have a right to life, so food and healthcare must be rights! That may be true if there was an endless supply of food or healthcare and if food and healthcare didn’t rely on the labor of others. What politicians who push free healthcare and endless welfare programs would be saying if they were honest is they think you have a right to someone else’s money. Because nothing is really free. It might be free to you, but someone paid for that apple you are eating. Someone paid for that MRI machine. Do you think doctors should work for free? Do you think apple pickers should work for free?

Maybe you think we should just tax the rich and they’ll pay for stuff? Again, this is the same as saying you have a right to someone else’s money. Taxes are the government taking money from richer people, on poorer people’s behalf. At gunpoint. Seem extreme? It’s really not. People pay their taxes because if they don’t someone with a gun will make them. If I refuse to pay my taxes I will get a notice. After that doesn’t work I will be charged with tax evasion and a court date will be established. I don’t show up to court, the police show up at my house. I refuse to go with the police. Do you know what happens next? You guessed it. They take out their guns and make me go with them.  

Rights are not transferable. Not directly or via some form of payment. Any time you take one thing from someone and give it to someone else, you know that thing is a privilege. I can’t transfer my life to you. You can’t swap liberties with another person and you can’t pursue someone else’s happiness. That’s why those things are rights.

True rights give you complete control over your life.True rights are your personal declaration of independence. Statist rights such as healthcare, education etc. do not give you independence but make you dependent on others.

So next time someone claims something is a right ask yourself these questions:

  1. Can this thing be taken away?
  2. Does this thing rely on the labor of others?
  3. Is this thing transferable?
  4. Does this thing make me more dependent?

If the answer is yes to any of the above you’ve found yourself a privilege, not a right.

0 The DeVos Defense

  • June 12, 2017
  • by Dylan Morgan
  • · In the News

In 2009 and 2010, 10th graders in the Hoquiam School District scored a dismal 24.8% and 26.8% passing rate on the math portion of Washington’s standardized test. Although given in 10th grade, it tests students on mathematical concepts usually taught in 8th grade. So, roughly three out of four 10th graders in Hoquiam (converting the percentage to a fraction, something that might have been on the test) failed an exam covering 8th grade material. Not a single person (or 0% of parents, guardians, and concerned citizens) thought this problem serious enough to attend a School Board meeting and/or confront the Directors.

About a year later a shakeup occurred in the Physical Education teaching assignments due to enrollment changes and a teacher leaving the district. The Superintendent had several options on how to use the remaining staff to cover all PE and Health classes. One possibility was to shift a high school teacher to the middle school and, based on seniority and teaching qualifications, this was the logical choice. As it turned out, this teacher was also the head football coach at the high school. When it became known this move was under consideration, 16 people, including a couple of former School Board Directors, showed up at the next Board meeting to protest.

If the reassignment had occurred the teacher would have still been the head football coach. His new posting at the middle school would be a block away from the high school. Assistant coaches and others associated with the football program would have still been teaching at the high school and been available to give or receive information to/from the players. The coach could have continued to open the high school weight room before school. And, at the middle school, the head coach would have had the opportunity to build his football program by encouraging 6th, 7th, and 8th graders to turn out. At the same time the head fast pitch, volleyball, swimming, girls’ basketball, boys’ golf, and wrestling coaches did not teach at the high school and still managed to run their programs. So why the fuss?  Is having your head high school football coach in the building more important than having three quarters of your entire student body failing to understand math concepts that are two years below grade level?

 

                                                                                                                               -Anonymous Source

 

When I was applying for scholarships as a high school senior I noticed something interesting. One of my interviewers looked at my GPA relative to my SAT scores and remarked they were a good reflection upon each other; a lot of smaller schools like mine (a total enrollment of around 500 students) have inflated GPAs, he told me. I laughed it off, but in the back of my mind I was thinking, phew, dodged a bullet there. Not until my first college pre-calculus test did I realize how wholly unprepared I was in both knowledge and study habits (I took calculus in high school, but we’ll talk about that later). I didn’t know people received 5s (the highest possible score) on their AP tests, courses I took just to say I did. Was this my fault? I certainly could have pushed myself to learn more, but why would I when I was one “A” away from a 4.0 GPA? Turns out my GPA was a bit inflated after all.

My high school didn’t promote education as you might think. Math my freshman and sophomore year consisted of students sewing quilts and donating them for extra credit, which would lead to my eventual “A” grade. I passed biology and chemistry with flying colors but got a 2 and 1 on their AP tests respectively, with the former being the highest mark in my class. So, where was the learning?

It certainly wasn’t in pre-calculus or calculus. I, being a lazy and foolhardy teenager, was fine with the fact I got an “A” in both classes. This despite the fact we took weekly quizzes in which I routinely scored 60%. How did I get an “A”? I have no idea, maybe it’s because I wasn’t taught enough math to figure it out. By the way, this lack of learning was led by a teacher who held National Board Certification. Raises at least one eyebrow, right?

The question people should be asking is, what is their education worth? I and many others from my high school still went on to university, but with GPAs inflated the way they were, who knows if anyone was truly prepared to do so. Parents, for the most part, seemed unaffected by the inability of teachers to get 30% of 10th graders to pass the math portion of a standardized test. Maybe they didn’t care, or maybe they had no alternative as there were no charter schools in the area and private school may have been too expensive.

This is where the ideas of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos come in. Her goal is simple: allow parents and students to choose where they get an education without forcing them to pay for an education they don’t want. This is the basic premise behind a voucher program. Currently, the government puts about $11,000 into public schools per student each year. This means billions of taxpayer dollars are going to schools that may or may not teach students basic algebra. If you were, say, a parent who wanted their child to learn basic algebra, maybe the money should be afforded to you to cover the cost of a school capable of fulfilling this requirement.

Voucher programs do have pros and cons. They have shown an increased rate of high school graduation by about 12%, but they have also led to reduced standardized test scores. As the Education Research Alliance acknowledges however, there are a variety of reasons you may see an initial decrease in state test scores by students using the voucher program. The most striking reason to me is curricula alignment – private schools do not teach to meet the standards of a state test.

This is a direct contradiction to my learning experience. From 4th grade until 10th grade all we learned was how to pass the WASL (the standardized state test at the time). This explains why I was never taught how to do long division – it wasn’t on the WASL so why waste our time? Still, 70+% of students in my district couldn’t pass, even though everyone was specifically taught for this one objective. The WASL has since been replaced by numerous other tests, now settling on End-of-Course Exams for biology and Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) for English and Math. Still, in the first two years of the SBA, my former district has failed to reach a 20% pass rate in math portion.

I am not defending Secretary DeVos’ credentials to hold her position, nor do I claim voucher programs are guaranteed to benefit all students as there is not yet enough conclusive evidence. I merely mean to defend the idea there are other approaches to quality education. Both charter and private schools are an option to get your child in a program where education comes first. If you instead choose to support a failing public school, you reserve the right to keep your child and dollars there – and may God have mercy on your immortal soul.

This is not to say all public schools are failing or all teachers in public schools are hacks – I’ve had good, bad, and outstanding. But maybe, by giving parents more choices, they will worry more about their child’s education instead of a football coach moving down the street.

0 A Conservative Moment

  • June 2, 2017
  • by Dylan Morgan
  • · In the News

Several years ago I made some decisions that left me financially tied up. I was partnered in a home renovation gone wrong, made more wrong by the fact I was living in the home as it was crumbling around me. At one point, I got to mix camping and normal life when I slept within a three walled room; the missing fourth wall exposed me to the elements and probably some very confused neighbors. Taking summer classes and working at the time made things even more tribulating. It got to the point my initially daring business partner and I felt bankruptcy looming. It was then I decided to save money by living on $20 a week or less except for bills, gas, and school necessities.

I can appreciate that this one summer of “difficulty” is nothing compared to the lives of millions of Americans, but it is the context to one of many, and probably the most memorable, moments in my life that cemented into me a conservative mindset.

Like many college students, I worked after classes during the week, studying and doing homework during my breaks. It was during my time at work when I had this conservative revelation. It was the end of the day and I was checking out the final shopper before we could start closing the store. We were held up because a member of the shopper’s party had run to the back of the store to get one more thing. So, the cashier and I waited as the customer ran up holding a plate of shrimp exclaiming, “here’s dinner!” Not a big deal, we sold shrimp and I’m glad people bought it. This sentiment left however, when I saw EBT pop up on the screen when she ran her card.

I, living on PB&J and spaghetti, was subsidizing that woman’s shrimp dinner.

I am not against food stamps per se and I certainly don’t want to see people go hungry, but a shrimp dinner? You gotta be kidding me. Talk about a “let them eat cake” moment. People need help, this is true, but more importantly they need to learn to help themselves. In my financial plight, I, who had no previous experience living on a budget, recognized the necessity and was able to act to stabilize my finances; living on a limited budget, and selling a car putting me in a hot-red 1993 Plymouth Voyager. And just in case budgeting didn’t work, I had three back-up plans, none of which included living on anyone else’s dime, the government’s or my parent’s.

I’m sure this woman could have, at some point in her life, made at least one plan to handle her money better – the idea Ben Carson was referring to when he claimed, “poverty is a state of mind.” Instead, she relied on the hand of others to provide food; and fine food at that. This is one of the reasons I call myself fiscally conservative; I do not believe someone’s earnings should be forcibly separated from them to pay for another’s extravagances. A sentiment I believe we are all on board with.

This is not to say all people should be denied assistance, but it is just that: assistance. When you say you can’t put food on your family’s table, I have no problem chipping in for some bread and honey, but you better work your way out of the debt you owe society for picking up your shortcomings. Wasting other’s money on shrimp is not the best start.

0 Facebook Fights

  • May 21, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

I’m guessing a lot of people get the impression that I like fighting or “trolling” as some say. I write about sometimes touchy topics and I have become less and less hesitant to jump on a Facebook conversation I disagree with. Even in face-to-face conversations, I’m not known to hold back my thoughts or tiptoe around someone else’s feelings. But the truth is, I hate fighting. I get very nervous any time I post something political, like to the point where my stomach gets the same feeling you get when you drive your car over a small hill. I cringe when I see a Facebook or Twitter alert. I always assume someone is calling me a name or trying to prove me wrong. On the occasion that someone is responding positively to something I said, I start “relief sweating.” Relief sweating is when you relax enough to start sweating after being wound up so tight your body couldn’t even sweat like a normal nervous person.

I often find myself asking if there’s any point to social media debate. Does anyone’s mind ever get changed? Sometimes I get a positive text or a message from someone regarding something I said on social media and that’s nice but I’m guessing I reaffirmed their belief, I didn’t change it. Someone has to post something astoundingly misinformed for me to comment.

Below is an example of a real conversation I had on Facebook with someone whose ideology is essentially communism, (a political theory that is responsible for the death of 94 million people in the 20th century)…Perhaps my next post should explain what communism is and why it’s dangerous..

To protect this person’s identity let’s just call him Garb. Here’s how it started:

Garb: Speaking SOLELY as a citizen who doesn’t have a lot of money and doesn’t make a lot of money, I MIGHT be A teeny tiny microscopic amount okay with our stupid-in-every-sense-of-the-word President (who is supposed to be a PUBLIC SERVANT) cutting SOME social programs IF AND ONLY IF the saved money actually went to the people whose benefits were cut. Otherwise it’s so so clearly obvious that he’s just a rich asshole who is just giving more money to other rich people by taking away expenditures on those who need help. Why, in ANY SENSE, would it ever be okay to GIVE to those who have and TAKE from those who have not?

Me: Why, in ANY SENSE would it ever be okay to TAKE from those who have fairly earned their money and GIVE to those who have not? Also, you’re essentially saying here that it’s OK to cut social programs as long as you start another one…so what would be the point in cutting the original one? That rich asshole isn’t “giving money” to anyone when/if he cuts a program, he’s letting taxpayers keep more of the money THEY earned. Big difference. The government never gives money to those who pay income taxes (roughly 55% of the population) they just decide how much of your OWN money you get to keep if you are in that 55%.

Ok, so maybe it was obnoxious for me to use the all capped words like he did but I couldn’t help it. The conversation went on and on. I won’t copy and paste everything here but instead will try to address the points, accusations and claims this person made that are common amongst the extreme left.

Why do you think every poor person is lazy? I know you think that because otherwise you would have no problem with them getting help out of “your pocket.”
Right away he has lost the argument because instead of debating my ideas he resorts to attacking my character. He says I think poor people lazy. So because I like keeping the money I earn I think poor people are lazy? This is what leftists do. They paint anyone who has different solutions than them as evil.

Without social programs then what? People just “work harder, want it more?” Don’t you think they would be where they want to be if they didn’t need help? Nobody likes spinning their tires. So you think it’s better to let people be homeless and live on the streets and starve and crowd up homeless shelters if they don’t make the cut?
This also makes an emotional argument against those who would like to see social welfare programs cut back. Virtually every American, conservative or otherwise, believes there should be a social safety net. Where conservatives and liberals separate is the magnitude of said, social net. There are currently 15 categories of welfare and that number is always increasing. I don’t want to cut all safety nets, I simply think we could be more efficient and effective with social welfare.

If you already have everything you NEED (wants are not essential and should NOT be included in any discussion over right or wrong, especially when people’s lives and health are at stake) then taking away a little more isn’t gonna put you below being able to live.
This statement is a scary one because it’s where he starts to dabble in communism. Over and over again throughout the debate he claimed luxuries shouldn’t exist. Food and shelter should be the only things that matter. It’s really quite obvious why this is faulty logic. Who decides what each person’s NEEDS are? Technically I don’t need a car, so should I give that up? I don’t really need a dog either so I guess he should be taken away from me too. And my phone, I don’t need that either. Do you see the slippery slope you go down when you start deciding what people’s needs are and taking (taxing) accordingly?

Hope these people have fun buying their extra car with their extra tax money or their extra vacation while homeless Johnny McPoorPerson loses his health insurance and food stamps just so people who ALREADY HAVE MONEY AND DON’T NEED HELP can use their money to make themselves happy while others are using their money to survive.
How do you get people out of poverty? You give them jobs. How are more jobs created? Increased demand for goods and services which leads to increased supply of goods and services. People buying “extra” cars, houses, vacations etc. are those goods and services that employ more people. He says rich people are using their money to make themselves happy while others are using their money to survive…how would the poor have any money at all if people weren’t buying goods and services?

He also says rich people are buying extra things with their “extra tax money.” The only body that can have extra tax money is the government. Individuals cannot have extra tax money. That’s just their money. That’s like calling the money you saved buying discounted tennis shoes your “extra shoe money.” No, that’s just your money you can now save or spend on something else.

So what I actually (obviously) meant was raising taxes doesn’t force anyone to lose anything which is essential for survival.
Raising taxes does cause people to lose things. Now my taxes are higher so I am not going to hire a maid. Or now my taxes are higher so we’ll take fewer vacations. People lose their jobs over higher taxes. In  the debate, I used the yacht industry and the luxury tax as an example because he and I are from the same county and in this county, yachts are made. When it came to the yacht industry in Westport, a luxury tax was introduced, people didn’t buy as many yachts and normal folks lost their jobs.

I also told this individual that if he was struggling to get out of poverty I would help him in any way that I could. I told him he could DM me and we could work on it. Well he did DM me but not to explain how he was struggling to reach his career goals but to further complain about how he is disadvantaged. This unfortunately, is reflective of a lot of people on the left. They don’t want to work hard, they don’t want better opportunity, they just want your money and they want it now.

I already know that having yachts and other bullshit luxuries won’t make me happy. For those lost in that pursuit of happiness, I feel so deeply sorry. But the only things anyone “needs,” are a place to live, a job, and food. Anything else is superfluous and is just a scam in essence.
Here he shows he missed my point about yachts. I don’t believe yachts are the key to happiness but they are a luxury item that lead to more wealth and prosperity for the thousands of people employed in the boating industry. Rich people create jobs which is good. People from all walks of life are employed to build yachts and other luxury items.

What’s funny is that this guy worked in a luxury apparel store so he benefited from rich people buying things they don’t need. He also worked for Dominos and you know what else people don’t need? Pizza. You know what else people don’t need? Any restaurants at all. Almost every dollar this guy has ever earned is a result of people buying things they don’t need.

Why do so many people view rich people as evil simply because they are rich? And by rich I really mean anyone who lives above the poverty line and pays federal income taxes. These people fly planes, they buy candy bars, they take vacations, they attend concerts, all the while employing more and more people. But none of these items are necessities so according to Garb they shouldn’t exist?

After pointing out all the benefits to the yacht industry this was Garb’s response and I quote “I don’t know any of that, because I don’t have any interest in yachts and don’t spend a lot of time scrolling through numbers or statistics.”

Really let that sink in. He doesn’t spend time looking at statistics. Yet here he is, preaching to the world that he knows what’s best whilst two people who do pay attention to such things are pointing out the facts but we’re just evil and greedy.

The only thing that’s important to all humans is survival. Personal liberty and freedom are only important to happiness. Morals come before any happiness, otherwise there’s nothing left; just a bunch of self-centered assholes clawing their way to the top to get that yacht, when several people by whom they pass every day, are clawing for food to survive.
Things that aren’t necessary for survival create jobs, which then help others survive. Having survival as the goal and completely discounting the pursuit of happiness seems like a truly counterproductive philosophy. Who wants to survive if you can never be happy?  I mean, seriously what is the point to surviving if that’s all we’re doing? Everyone can go work at the suicide crisis center I guess.

If that money (he’s referring to money spent on any luxury good from yachts to craft beer) was spent on taxes there would be government jobs to replace those jobs based in providing luxury things.
So let’s create a scenario in which his dreams come true. Tax money goes to fund “necessary” jobs instead of “luxury” jobs.

If 10,000 people donate $50 to build a hospital that’s $500,000.  Not enough to build an emergency room, let alone a whole hospital.  But a “rich asshole” who wants to see his name on a building can donate $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 and you’re good to go.  And often times it goes beyond the name on a building, rich people follow their true passions and use the business acumen that made them rich to begin with to truly further their cause.  Example:  Fred Hutchinson Cancer Centers.  Carnegie Hall.  Ted Turner’s Bison project.  Etc.

Let’s say everyone had a government job (“GOVERNMENT JOBS = JOBS”) and, for the sake of the example you started with a $1 trillion payroll and everyone paid 20% in income taxes, here is how it would go:

Year 1:  $1,000,000,000,000 paid out, $200,000,000,000 tax revenue
Year 2:  $200,000,000,000 paid out, $40,000,000,000 tax revenue,  80% unemployment
Year 3: $40,000,000,000 paid out, $8,000,000,000 tax revenue,  96% unemployment
Year 4:  $8,000,000,000 paid out,  $1,600,000,000 tax revenue  99.2% unemployment

Admittedly this is an oversimplification, there would be other moving parts in the equation. Some facets would actually make the situation collapse sooner (the government spending on anything other than payroll) and others would make it last longer (government’s ability to print money). The point is all government is a closed loop.  It is a perpetual motion machine – and there is no such thing.  Energy, or in the case of government, capital, gets used up and has to come from outside.

Rising insurance costs are because insurance companies are privatized, so they make a profit off of selling the closest thing you can get to an assurance of good health. An assurance of good health sounds pretty necessary to survival to me. So of course they are going to raise premiums at every opportunity because corporations make money. Over time costs rise, so they must raise their prices to keep up with the cost of the yachts and mansions they need to buy.
Again, 100% absolutely false. He has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn’t understand what privatized means, he doesn’t know what capitalism is, he doesn’t understand what influences insurance premiums. This guy is an idiot. I hate to call names but there’s just no other way to describe him.

Insurance is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country, not just at the federal level but at the state level as   well. Insurance companies do not operate in a free and open market like Garb states. Obamacare showed us what happens when government tries to make a market behave in a certain way. As former Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget staffer J.T. Young said, “By applying subsidies to one or both sides of the economic equation, its enforced market cannot exist without continued government subsidies in the short-term, and becomes unsustainable in the long-term as politics compounds subsidies’ distortion.”

This guy seems to think that insurance companies raise premiums whenever they feel like they’re due for a new house.This blind ignorance and elementary understanding of how markets work is unfortunately not rare. Here are articles published by Forbes, the Cato Institute, and the Foundation for Economic Education explaining why socialized medicine is a bad idea. There has also been a movement to push Direct Primary Care which would be mostly cashed based. You can read more about that here.

Furthermore, we’ve tried socialized medicine in the U.S. It’s called the V.A. and it’s a trainwreck.

Motivation these days is all based around the false ideal that having it all will make you happy. Its bullshit and it’s a scam which capitalism is based firmly in.
He doesn’t know what free market capitalism is.

Same thing with education costs; if universities were government-ran, instead of the current shithole where a small % of people make a profit off of getting millions of young adults into huge debt, EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE EDUCATED
He capitalized that last statement, not me.

Many universities are government run. Millions of young adults still manage to get into huge debt by attending them. In fact almost three times as many students attend government run schools compared to private ones. Very few universities are operated on a for profit basis; in 2013 only 12% of students attended for-profit schools. They have been under pressure by both federal and state governments to produce employable graduates and their ability to access federal financial aid for their students has been sharply curtailed, so that number is probably lower now. These are institutions like DeVry or Phoenix University.

And everyone needs to be educated? It would be good if everyone knew how to read/write and do basic arithmetic for sure. However, I would prefer people had a basic grasp of our history and how/why our society is organized. But does the guy who is a backhoe operator need a college degree? Does a plumber? Does a line worker in a factory?  Does a waiter? As a society we spend roughly $145,000 per kid getting them from kindergarten through high school. Shouldn’t they be able to function in society for that amount? Isn’t college a choice, not a necessity?

I share this experience because it touched on a lot of the false narratives leftists spread regarding anyone who disagrees with them. I.e. they hate poor people, they hate change, they’re greedy, they don’t care if there’s suffering in the world…All of it so clearly false. Literally in the middle of this Facebook debate I had to leave because I was volunteering.

I offered to help this person and instead of messaging me so we could figure out how to better his financial situation, he messaged me only to continue fighting me. A quick look at charitable giving in the United States and around the world shows that conservative americans are the most generous people on earth. Is it so crazy that these same people want to make sure the money they give is going to a worthy and efficient cause?

This interaction was also an example of how it’s close to impossible to have an honest discussion with leftist fanatics because they immediately resort to name calling. Again and again this person questioned my feelings or motives instead of discussing objective truths. He also posted on Facebook outside the conversation essentially stating that I am greedy for wanting to save up and build my dream home.

We all know good people who lean conservative. If you know a good person who is conservative, perhaps instead of calling them names you should sit down and ask them why they’re conservative. The goal of any debate should be to find the truth, not “win” the argument. Calling the guy who owns the auto mechanic shop greedy for wanting to keep the money he fairly earned isn’t going to convince him to vote Democrat next time around.

When it comes to Facebook fights, stick to the facts, don’t use emotion backed reasoning and ask questions instead of calling names. And remember, a lot of the time the argument isn’t actually to convince the person you’re debating but for the silent observer scrolling through their feed.

0 The Dating Game

  • May 15, 2017
  • by Dylan Morgan
  • · In the News

In the beginning of my dental school career I was 22, single, and in a state (Utah) where the average age of marriage is 19 (not an actual fact). This was perfect for me, someone who has no “game” whatsoever. If I saw a beautiful person of the opposite sex I could talk the talk without having to back it up, claiming “if she weren’t married I’d be all over that,” or “if she didn’t have a baby on each hip I’d totally get her number.” I always had an excuse. I get anxiety attacks talking to my parents on the phone, you think I’m going to talk to some random girl? Think again.

Still, I tried to impress girls, just at all the wrong times. My worst enemy was the automatic door. It’s a great invention for opening doors, the closing part… needs a little work. Nothing is more embarrassing than trying to be chivalrous and instead, get into a tug-of-war match with an inanimate object. How can you really play that off; door thought it was going to close on you, but not on my watch! And then go home and cry with my cat.

I remember one time I saw a cute gas station attendant and I thought, aaaalright, I’m gonna pump my gas so fast she’ll beg for my number. She did not. Get it together, Dylan, nobody cares how you pump gas. What they do care about is how fast you get through the self-checkout. I fly through those things; items scanned, chip in and out of the reader before it starts beeping. Still, no digits. Turns out nobody cares how good you are at doing the job they’re paid to watch you do for them. They’re just counting the hours until they aren’t getting paid to put up with idiots like me anymore. I should know this, I work at Costco and I’ve never been impressed with anyone’s attempts to help.

That’s what makes me an even worse person, I even tried to impress people while working there. I’d drop lines like, “that’s a sweet birthday cake, what’s the occasion?” or, as a sign of my interest, give someone an avocado box. If you didn’t know, avocado boxes are the best; they have handles, high walls, and can fit in the front of the basket – the possibilities are endless. But wouldn’t you know it, no one is impressed with my ability to put their food in a box. As an employee I couldn’t make the first move anyway, but if they weren’t always with their husbands maybe I would have.

There are, of course, still single girls in Utah. I just figured if they weren’t already married there must be something wrong with them. I was not alone in this sentiment as, when I finally started seeing someone, the first question my sister asked me was literally, “what’s wrong with her?” Though now that I think about it, maybe she was wondering what could possess someone to date me. Regardless, it should come as no surprise I had to turn to online dating despite my enumerated pick-up skills.

Online dating gets a bad rap, and I mean bad as in people give it too much credit as a reliable source to find a partner; and by partner I’m referring to a lifelong companion, not a one night herpes transaction. The idea is simple, you make a profile so someone who is physically attracted to you can learn if you have similar interests. Being naïve, I made an honest profile; what I do, where I’m going, and how much I love my cat. I hoped other people would do likewise – not necessarily the cat part but just the general aspects so I could see if they were a person I would match with in a meaningful way. This hope was squandered. It’s not that girls didn’t put themselves out there – at least 70% show some gratuitous skin – but the majority of profiles say: “ask me anything :)” or more lazily, “ask me :)” All with the self-serving smile of someone who knows they are not responsible for starting the conversation.

This put me in a bind. The goal of online dating was to avoid awkward small talk in the first place, but here these people were demanding it of me. So, I did what any normal person would do, I trolled. I would find the most minute details in a picture and ask them about it; “those are some sweet flip-flops, did you buy them at The Gap?” or, “nice hat.” Too my surprise, I was still single after several months and realized my approach was not working. Back to the drawing board.

About this time, I decided if you’re really looking for a partner you need to be honest – not that I wasn’t honest before, just playfully disingenuous. I started asking honest questions of people and being more honest about myself. This may seem like a common-sense move to you, but to me it was just awful to force myself into serious conversations with strangers. It did however, land me my first date.

As far as dates go it wasn’t awful, it just wasn’t right – a point I made clear when, at the end of the date I essentially told her, good luck with your life. Not the smoothest of moves, I know. It wasn’t that I didn’t get along with her, just that we were moving in two separate directions. Realizing the restrictions of my own aspirations it was a while before I went on another date, but when I did, I went for broke. Literally, dates cost a lot of money.

My next date was with someone who had enough extroverted energy to make up for my introverted ways. Despite what you may think, I don’t always talk politics, however, she brought them up of her own accord over the concern I voted for then President-elect Trump. I was able to assuage her fears, informing her I voted for Governor Gary “Aleppo” Johnson. I remember being excited to be on a date with someone who was interested in politics until she dropped a bombshell on me. She claimed: “my friends say I’m so liberal I’m almost communist.” 

“Breaking up” with someone you know mostly online is weird in its simplicity, just send them a text and it’s finished. Initially, I thought this was rude but hey, a relationship that starts in text might as well end in it. Undeterred by events, I doubled-down in my efforts. I had four dates in a six day period. This was the most social I had been in my life; it was exhausting.

After the first couple dinner dates it had become apparent nothing was more boring than dining with a stranger, at least one pretending to be normal. There’s a lot of pressure to be funny and/or interesting in a conversation neither person is interested in; after a couple dates, you get tired of telling people your life’s story. So again I changed my approach, my dates would involve something. Something for me is a family fun center; bowling, mini-golf, the works. That’s when everything changed…

Communication is a lot easier – if you’re like me and don’t like communicating – when there’s a distraction in front of you. Awkward pauses become opportunities to line up your putt and bad jokes get drowned out by the sound of your bowling ball pounding into the gutter. I mean pins; all the pins every time. In the end, these distractions allowed for teasing out some commonalities to focus on later – dislike of Pitbull for example.

This worked fantastically. It took away the pressure to perform in a one-on-one situation and showed how coordinated my date was. I only needed to use this approach once because I got lucky. After a year or so of bumbling around (pun intended) I found someone who laughed at my jokes, made me laugh, and could bowl; three of the most important pillars of a solid relationship, the fourth being an insatiable love of Skip-Bo – put a check in that box, too. There are however, a couple more factors of importance.

As mentioned earlier, it is imperative for people’s lives to be going in the same direction. My life has gone as planned since I was in eighth grade so ideally, I need a partner who’s not afraid to board this locomotive – and yes I just compared myself to a train. I was excited when I found a bonafide cougar (she’s two years older than me) who had a career and was not deterred by the various obligations I have in my future. It was immediately apparent neither of us were interested in having a one-night stand or recurring fling, and we both felt comfortable talking to each other about our intentions – marriage and eventually a family, or at least a playmate for my cat.

I know we are not the only people who ventured into the arena of online dating whilst looking for a serious relationship. I’m happy with the success I found and I know others who are in the same boat. I just want to inform the masses you can, in fact, find a significant other using online dating; it’s not just a millennial meat factory. So don’t give up hope, I’m sure there are profiles free of shirtless bathroom selfies with people wanting more than Netflix and chill. But ladies, when you see me boxing your groceries like it’s Tetris or pumping gas like a Nascar pit crew, just know you missed your chance with this gangly dental student.

0 No, Capitalism isn’t the Devil

  • May 5, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

There are some people who hate capitalism and it’s very confusing to me. I mean, what’s not to love about free markets? What’s not to love about people competing to provide the best products at the cheapest price? And why do people who supposedly hate capitalism tweet about it from their iPhones?

I think in a lot of cases people just don’t know what free market capitalism means and what a capitalist system does for society. So first I thought I’d explain what capitalism is and then I’ll break down the myths as to why some say it’s “evil.”

Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. This means we the people decide what products we want to produce and purchase rather than the state producing something and then telling us we have to buy it. If you are against capitalism, you are against anyone you know owning their own business and making money off of it. Capitalism on it’s own is not evil in the slightest. What is important is the word(s) you put in front of capitalism.

What I advocate for is “free market” capitalism. This is also referred to as laissez-faire capitalism. Free market capitalism refers to all voluntary exchanges that take place within an economy; and the word voluntary is an important one. A free market also refers to unobstructed competition. For example, in a free market it wouldn’t be illegal for a new garbage collection company to form and compete with the local provider for your business. In a free market, it’s easy for entrepreneurs to enter the market. In a truly free market, there are no regulations whatsoever. (Read more about the history of regulations here.) No fees preventing poorer people from entering the market. There is also no government intervention in a free market. When a business fails, it fails, and no one is there to bail them out.

So anyone who wants to try their hand at selling a product or providing a service can do so and consumers decide who stays in business. We vote for which business we want to stick around every time we spend money. If a business doesn’t get enough votes, they “lose,” or rather, they go under. We the people hold the power and business are subject to what we decide is good, bad, acceptable, etc. Now no system is perfect, but the reasons people oppose free market capitalism are all much more flawed than the system itself.

1) Capitalism Leads to Monopolies

A natural monopoly is defined as occurring when factors such as high fixed costs (costs that don’t depend on how much product you’re making such as rent) make it difficult for new companies to break into an industry but cause long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. So let’s say for example, all tater tot companies have to purchase a machine to make the tots that costs $10,000. Company A has been in business for a while, they make 1,000,000 tots per year so that machine costs them .01 dollars per tot, which allows them to make money off each tot sold. Company B just got started and they don’t have a ton of buyers yet so they only produce 10,000 tots per year. The cost of the machine to them is $1 per tot. So to make any money off the tots, Company B has to sell their tots for over $1 a tot, and that’s just when you account for the cost of the tot machine. I love tots but I ain’t payin’ that much. Essentially someone in the tot business would most likely have to incur net loses in it’s early days making it fairly difficult to get going in the tot business. 

This is the argument some give against capitalism, that costs such as machinery rent, etc. create natural monopolies which would lead to no competition, hence higher costs to you, the consumer.

But the fact is, there has never been a sustainable monopoly in a free market in the history of the world. Some companies like Campbell’s Soup, Sears and Chapstick had their run, but every market was eventually disrupted. Permanent monopolies are never created without the intervention of the government. In fact, even oligopolies are created with the help of government intervention. Airlines, insurance companies, and of course, local utilities all have opoly power because of government law and regulation.

2) Capitalism is Immoral

Some say capitalism is all about a gross hunger for money; capitalism helps the rich and hurts the poor. That’s half true. Capitalism helps the rich, but it also helps the poor. That’s the beautiful thing about free market capitalism, it doesn’t care what gender, ethnicity or social status you are. If you provide a quality good or service the people want, at a low price, you will thrive. Many people can admit the economic superiority of free market capitalism but they get bogged down thinking it is morally inferior.

The first reason this is wrong is because free market capitalism is all voluntary. No one is forced into buying a product or service and no one is forced to work under conditions they didn’t agree to. Free market capitalism is anti-slavery and pro-women’s rights.

Secondly, capitalism motivates us to serve our fellow humans. Every dollar you earn is proof you provided some kind of service. A teenage girl provides the service of watching your children so you pay her $20. She then goes to the local Ross to buy a new pair of jeans. Now she honors the labor that went into making those jeans by paying the store $20. This is a positive sum game. You feel good because a date night was worth more than the $20 you paid the babysitter, the babysitter feels good because spending time with your kids cost her less than the $20 she was paid and Ross feels good because to them, the jeans were worth less than the $20 the girl paid. Capitalism motivates people to constantly seek new ways to serve their fellow man.

3) Capitalism Leads to Income Inequality

Even conservatives believe some wealth should be redistributed to fund basic government functions and provide a social safety net. That being said, how do you define fairness? Do you define it as redistributing wealth so we all have the same amount of money in our bank accounts? Or is it rewarding hard work, merit and skill? The latter is what free markets do.

As long as people are allowed to freely provide goods and services according to their interest and talents there will always be some who earn more and some who earn less. Some people get pleasure out of high earning challenges such as brain surgery while others prefer the challenge of child rearing. Neither is less noble, but one did take over 18 years of schooling while the other takes 18 years of unfathomable patience. Until we are a planet of robots, income equality will never exist, and that’s fair in a society where we all control the choices we make and the careers we pursue. Capitalism doesn’t lead to income inequality, being human does.

4) Capitalism is Bad for the Worker

Back to the voluntary transaction point. In a free market society, no one can be forced to work for a price they don’t agree on. The adoption of free enterprise around the world is what lowered the percentage of the world’s population living on less than a dollar a day by more than 80% between 1970 and now. This wasn’t because richer companies dumped aid money into poorer countries. It was because of free trade and foreign investment.

There is no economic state better at raising the poor out of poverty than capitalism. If you think socialism is better for the poor, read up on what’s happening in Venezuela right now.

5) Capitalism Leads to Corporations Controlling Us

In a free market this would never happen because the consumer is always in control. Consumers decide whether a corporation, no matter the size, stays in business or not. We buy more of their product or service if it’s doing things we like such as producing high quality products and giving back to its community. We buy less of their product or service if it’s doing things we don’t like such as producing a defective product or treating their employees horribly. The power of the consumer is taken away when the government gets involved. This is where you get the crony capitalism so many rightfully complain about, myself included.

To quickly give an example (this would need its own post to fully explain) let’s look at what happened in 2008; The infamous housing market crash and proceeding bailouts. The housing market was on the fritz. Why? For many reasons but to put it simply, banks were giving out loans to people who would not be able to pay them back. Why did banks do this? Because they weren’t accountable for what would happen if things went bad. Banks had become used to the government bailing them out. The shoddy loans and re-bundling of mortgages lead to Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy. The financial industry expected the federal government to bail them out but they didn’t. This set off a chain of events that included the Dow Jones plummeting and the creation of TARP.

Think about the spending decisions of college kids who know their parents will always be there to financially support them vs the kid who has no parents to bail him/her out. Same concept with the housing market and government intervention generally. The promise of Daddy America always being there to bail them out leads to reckless decision making in the financial world.

When you say you are against capitalism you are saying you’re against competition, individual choice and opportunity for the poor. Do I believe in absolutely no government regulation? Of course not. Is crony capitalism a problem? Of course it is. But the solutions are not more government. The solution is always more freedom and less government intervention. Just look at all of the countries around the world, the freer their markets, the freer their people. 

So next time you hear someone give an example of free markets failing, ask yourself if they’re referring to a truly free market. The housing market certainly wasn’t. As a rule of thumb, if something is being run inefficiently, you can almost always trace back to government involvement. 

 

*Feature image taken from contractingbusiness.com

2 Why Fight for $15?

  • April 27, 2017
  • by Dylan Morgan
  • · In the News

One of today’s leading political movements is the “Fight for $15,” a campaign to raise the national minimum wage to $15 an hour. Democrats like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren persist in their efforts to make the idea law. I have just three questions for these equality “pioneers.”

Why $15 an hour? Sure, multiples of 5 are great – you’ll never catch the volume on my stereo set to anything else – but what is the economic, egalitarian, or even logical justification? Why not $12, 17, or $38? A Pew Research Center study showed a national minimum wage increase doesn’t produce equality due to differences in cost of living. To quote the study, “the same purchasing power that $15 has in New York City would cost $13.07 in Chicago; $12 in Fresno, California; $11.10 in Cincinnati; and just $10.43 in Anniston, Alabama.” This shows the “Fight for $15” isn’t about equality as those living in rural or low-cost areas realize a disproportionate advantage; equality would be raising the minimum wage based on purchasing power in each market, the one size fits all method doesn’t achieve this.

Why pass a national minimum wage? At the beginning of this year 19 states increased the minimum wage with two more set to increase later this year; those in favor of an increase are acting upon it. We see the same in cities. Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington D.C. are moving to $15 an hour as well. These individual markets want to control their prices, so let them; especially as we see many major corporations increasing their wages above local and national minimums. As the Pew Research Center study evinced, local markets should establish their own living wage as cost of living varies. Is the push for a national increase just to keep the federal government relevant? Sounds petty so it’s probably true.

Who does this affect most? I’ll spoil the suspense and tell you: the middle-class. Here’s why:   

Let’s say you work full-time at McDonald’s, a low skill job with no education requirements. You work forty hours per week, fifty-two weeks a year. If you were being paid the current national minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, you would earn $15,080 a year. Now, if we increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour you would more than double that amount giving a total of $31,200 a year. Talk about massive change, right? A job at McDonald’s earning minimum wage would lift you above the current poverty guideline for a family of five in the contiguous United States. If you don’t look beyond this 106% increase in salary however, you’ll miss what iswagesalaryincomelarge_p173 truly at stake.

I’m sure at some point during your education you saw a chart showing you that, even though it may take longer and cost more, overall you will earn more as your skill and knowledge increases. This argument is flipped however, if low-skill jobs earn an increased minimum wage.

Let’s take teachers for example. To become a teacher, you need at least a bachelor’s degree which, if you follow the traditional route will take four years. If you are a penny pincher, you will take the cheaper option of an in-state public university. According to StudentLoans.gov, the average student loan debt from such an institution is $26,946. If you take the standard approach you will have a 120-month repayment plan at a 3.9% interest rate amounting to $272 a month or $32,585 over the life of the loan. You will then go to your job as a secondary teacher in, say, Washington state at the starting wage of $35,700 per year with increases based on a sliding scale.

Remember that minimum wage worker? Well the whole time you’ve been at school they’ve been earning $31,200 a year; so, after your schooling is complete they have earned $124,800 more than you. To make matters worse, taking into consideration loan repayment ($3,264 annually) you’re making only $1,236 more than them. But fear not, your wage will increase and your loans will eventually be paid off.

Lifetime Earnings 14 & 24As you approach eight years of teaching you realize your pay will be maxed out without any further education so you decide to get your M. Ed like around 56% of your teaching colleagues. There are plenty of options for location and cost, but we’ll say it costs about $9,000 and takes two years. If you finance this with the same standard option, over one year you’ll spend $12,047. However, the following year you will see a significant pay increase.

After eleven years of teaching, six years of schooling and $47,747 in cumulative debt, your annual income is almost $7,841 more than your minimum wage counterpart; just like you’ve been told all your life, education pays off. Looks can however, be deceiving. In fact, your minimum wage counterpart has amassed $81,061 in lifetime earnings more than you. In total, assuming the minimum wage employee never receives a raise, promotion, or overtime, it will take you about fifteen years of teaching (19 years post high school graduation) to surpass the earnings of a minimum wage employee.

Lifetime EarningsFifteen years! That’s enough time to redo K-12 and decide you don’t want to deal with all the debt and time out of the work force. While some people may have a passion for a low-paying profession which requires a degree, I think you would find many people opt for the simple life of flipping burgers when they can earn a similar amount until they are into their late 30’s.

If you follow through logically there are at least three possible outcomes of the minimum wage increase:

  1. Pay scales will necessarily shift. As the teacher scenario demonstrates, if wages do not adjust across the board those with college degrees or even a Master’s could wait fifteen years to possibly earn the same as a low-skilled employee. Most with college degrees won’t want to make the same as an 18-year-old filling your drink, therefore, the pay scale will shift to reflect the education and skills required. This is essentially inflation. Rather than the government printing money as they did with quantitative easing, they will force businesses to flood the market with dollars. This would then lead to an increase in costs to the consumer which would, in turn, lead to an increase in the cost of living which would require a new minimum wage. Fight for $50 has a nice ring to it.
  2. Layoffs will happen. Or at the least, people will see a reduction in hours and will be forced to do more for a business to avoid profit loss. You see this already with the ACA forcing employers with 50+ employees to provide health insurance; if you add a cost to a business, the business cannot grow or may be forced to downsize.
  3. People earning more volunteering to take a pay cut. Look to the advent of self-serve kiosks and employee free grocery stores to tell you how likely this option is.

So why $15 an hour? If you want to force employers to pay a certain amount, you’d better have a reason for it other than liking the alliteration in “Fight for $15”. The reason for the shortsightedness of the movement is they have no idea what the hell they are talking about. So, before you grab that sign and protest, do some basic math. Lord knows the Democrats won’t.

0 A History of Racism

  • April 17, 2017
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

There once was a time when Americans owned other human beings as property. It’s not something any person should remember proudly, but here’s the thing; slavery wasn’t just an American atrocity, it was practiced all over the globe. Even African people had slaves. In fact, many Africans sold off prisoners of war or outsiders from other tribes to Americans. Historians date slavery back to ancient Mesopotamia. Today this region is mostly Iraq but also parts of Iran, Syria, and Turkey. Mesopotamia is thought to have traded goods in exchange for slaves from Egypt, although in ancient times, slavery was not associated with ethnicity or nationality. Slavery has existed almost, if not just as long as humans have existed and it was created by Africans and Asians (Middle East), not Europeans.

Even between 1861 and 1865 when slavery in the United States was at it’s peak, only 8% of families owned slaves and slaves themselves made up just 13% of the American population. The reality is, even when slavery was the norm in America, most people didn’t own slaves.

Recently there’s been a trend to boycott or disregard anything that has “roots in racism.” Some going so far as to say The Star Spangled Banner should no longer be our anthem because it’s author, Francis Scott Key was pro-slavery. Now there’s a call to remove the faces of anyone who owned slaves off of our money. Others say the Constitution should be questioned because its writers owned slaves.  

All that’s fine and dandy, if you want to uphold the standard that you won’t respect or use or abide by anything with racism in it’s history, cool. The thing is, if you have that standard, you should be protesting a lot more than the national anthem. There’s a lot of American policy rooted in racism.

The Minimum Wage
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, America’s first minimum wage law was created to help protect white people from competing with blacks for jobs. During this time period, black people were “stealing” white people’s jobs because they were willing to do the same work for less. Black people weren’t the only ones the minimum wage was trying to hurt, it also protected white male workers from competing with women.

The same thing happens today. I remember searching for a job shortly after my 16th birthday, desperate to find a way to earn some gas money. Having been turned down a few times, I complained to my dad about the minimum wage before I really even understood it. Frustrated I told my dad, “I wish I could offer to be a cashier for like $6 an hour so they’d hire me. Then I’d work hard so they wouldn’t want me to leave and they’d pay me more!” My dad kind of chuckled to himself and said “I agree with you, Chick.” At 16 I was realizing that the minimum wage was hurting me, I’d rather make $5 an hour than no dollars an hour. Minimum wage laws took away my ability to freely negotiate my pay with my potential employer.

In a free market, any worker who can add value to a company would be paid based on that value added. When you create a minimum wage you force employers to establish a minimum productivity criterion and then hire accordingly. This often cuts out handicapped folks, kids, inexperienced people etc. from being hireable. They may have been worth $4 an hour, but they aren’t worth $7.

Willingness to start working for less is a tool the underprivileged use to gain job experience. When you enforce a minimum wage you actually make the worker’s bargaining power weaker. The minimum wage is not only rooted in racism, but it’s rooted in eugenics. Professor Thomas C Leonard of Princeton has written the most on the topic recently. You can read his article “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era” or check out his book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era.

Labor Unions
This story is similar to minimum wage as the two are directly linked. Labor Unions pushed for the minimum wage to protect white male workers. Labor Unions blocked the advancement of blacks, women, and other minorities. This was done mostly by raising the cost of labor through wage increases and other benefits. Raise the cost of labor and less people are hired. The first heads on the chopping block when companies cut labor costs were minorities. So perhaps those that keep their jobs are better off, but black workers paid the cost.

War on Poverty (welfare state)
It’s my belief that every issue in black communities, or for that matter all communities, can be traced to the epidemic of broken homes. One of the best ways to predict a child’s future success is to take a look at his or her family. Is the dad around? If not, their odds aren’t looking good. The War on Poverty started this epidemic in the black community.

The “War on Poverty” was enacted by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. It involved a huge amount of antipoverty legislation, increasing the welfare state in an unprecedented way. LBJ spoke of blacks specifically hoping to fix the disproportionately high rate of black poverty.

What’s odd is that the economic situation in America at the time of this legislation was looking bright for black people. The poverty rate for all Americans had been on the decline since the beginning of the decade. The black poverty rate was reduced by nearly 50% between 1940 and 1960. Despite these economic improvements welfare was earmarked as a priority. After the War on Poverty was enacted the economic improvements in black communities stalled dramatically.

Upon the expansion of the welfare state, the number of single mother households increased tenfold. The promise of food stamps, public housing and medicaid were designed in a way that allowed mothers to receive more benefits if they were single rather than married. The programs designed to tackle poverty actually incentivised behavior that perpetuated it. 68% of black women who gave birth in 2012 were unmarried, in 1965 this figure was 25%. Black women started to see the government as a more stable financial partner than the father of their own children. Fathers were no longer necessary, something black men realized as well.

Ok so maybe there were good intentions here that had an adverse effect on black communities unintentionally. That might be my conclusion if I knew nothing about LBJ and his surrounding staff. Even MSNBC has reported on LBJ’s raging racism and lack of respect for black people. Despite holding onto this idiotic intellectual ideology, LBJ was a smart politician. If you’re part of the party who runs on the promise that the government will give out more free stuff, in order to win elections you need people to be dependent on said free stuff.

There is report after report of LBJ saying nasty things about black people. Ronald Kessler ruffled many a feather after reporting in his book Inside the White House: The Hidden Lives of the Modern Presidents and the Secrets of the World’s Most Powerful Institution that, when discussing the importance of the civil rights bill with two governors, LBJ explained it was important because it would “…have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote that LBJ made this statement:

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

In the 1960s roughly 66% of blacks voted Democrat, after 1964 that percentage quickly rose to above 90%, LBJ’s plan worked. LBJ didn’t care about black people, he didn’t respect black people, what he did respect was power and influence. Creating an en environment that made black people more dependent on the government was a genius way to make them more dependent on the Democratic Party.

Planned Parenthood
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a known eugenicist. Even today, 79% of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority populated neighborhoods. Black people make up 13% of the population but make up 35% of abortions.

Defenders of Sanger give her every benefit of the doubt imaginable. Can you imagine if Trump was caught saying, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” as Sanger did? I’m horrified by that statement but defenders brush it off as an “inartfully written” sentence.

Sanger famously wrote about sterilizing the weak stating, “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization.” Sanger didn’t have kind thoughts about the mentally or physically handicapped and that really is undeniable.

Sanger even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926. Again, can you imagine if any political figure did this today the outrage that would follow? In 1939, Sanger initiated the Negro Project, one that intended to weed out the “unfit” from black communities.

Marriage Licenses
George Washington himself was married without government issued documentation. Why would the government be involved with marriage? It’s a religious ceremony that’s between you, your partner and whatever church you belong to. It wasn’t until the 1920s that marriage licenses were implemented. All states at one point had laws outlawing interracial marriages and these licenses were designed to stop people from marrying outside their own race. Interracial marriages were not recognized by the state and therefore those couples lost inheritance, medical rights and every other benefit of common law marriage. In 1923 the federal government established a uniform marriage and marriage license act and by 1929 every state had adopted marriage license laws.

Marriage licenses were sold to the people as a way to help protect couples but were actually a way to monitor and control who was allowed to start a family with whom. There’s no reason for the government to know whom you marry. Concerns about inheritance, medical rights etc. could easily be handled by private lawyers and contracts. Marriage licenses are another way the government has a hand in our personal lives and are rooted in racism.

Affirmative Action
Wait, how can affirmative action be harmful to blacks? It was literally designed to help them?! If you aren’t familiar with affirmative action, it’s a policy that “favors” minorities. In other words, policies that require companies to hire a certain number of minorities or schools to accept a certain amount of minorities.

Right off the bat this should insult hard working people of all colors and backgrounds. Do you want to be hired because you were the most qualified and deserving of the job or because they needed a black person to hit their quota? If you have any pride whatsoever I would hope you’d choose the former.

This system also sets up minorities to fail. Unqualified people are hired, students who aren’t actually ready for university are accepted and it’s an uphill battle right from the start. In academia, race based admissions contribute to higher dropout rates. In order to hit the correct quotas for each ethnic group, different standards are applied even amongst minorities. For example, in order to get into Princeton, an Asian person must score 140 points higher on their SAT score than their non-asian counterpart. Tech companies are also being pressured not to hire “too many Asians.” Judging someone’s qualification based on their race is backwards and not what Martin Luther King Jr. advocated.

Occupational Licensing
Occupational licensing and regulation is so commonplace today it’s hard to imagine life without them. Occupational licensing was started in congruence with Jim Crow laws of the south. When you made it harder to start a business with fees and additional costs the extra burden is harder on poor people. Black people were and still are on average poorer than whites, causing this burden to fall disproportionately on blacks. Even braiding hair requires a license. Occupational licensing laws cover roughly 10% of jobs, often going beyond health and safety objectives that would be deemed appropriate by the average human. Black people are still being hindered with regulations today.

Gun control
I’ve always thought it odd when the people telling me the police target black people are often the same ones who want us to turn over all of our guns but this train of thought isn’t new. Gun control laws were first implemented to disarm recently freed slaves and there was even an effort to prevent the Black Panthers from carrying weapons.

Nowadays, gun control laws often feature mandatory minimum sentences making it impossible for judges to take into consideration the circumstances at hand which results in unfair sentences for those attempting to protect themselves against corruption whether race based or not. If racism is alive and well in America, disarming those in the targeted minority makes little to no sense.

If you want to do away with anything that has ever been linked to racism or the decline of black communities go ahead. Just keep in mind that the list should include welfare, gun control laws, licensing, Planned Parenthood, labor unions, minimum wage and affirmative action.

I hope you take away two things from reading this. One, that something can have an imperfect history and still have a net positive effect on society (i.e. the brilliance that is the United States Constitution) and two, the expansion of government has never really helped black people out.

If you’re concerned about the well being of black people join the club! But you might want to read the Constitution and dig into the data on what’s actually hurting black communities before you start making a fuss over the Star Spangled Banner.  

0 Hot Seat

  • April 10, 2017
  • by Dylan Morgan
  • · In the News

After (and before) Republicans used the nuclear option to confirmStolen seat Justice Gorsuch, liberal pundits and politicians claimed his seat was stolen and the Republican move was radical and illegal. These people are wrong or at the least, intellectually dishonest. Here’s why.

Filibuster: A filibuster is a tool used by the minority party to forestall a senate procedure. To end a filibuster the senate must have three-fifths, or 60, votes in favor of cloture.

Nuclear Option: The nuclear option is used by the majority party to reduce the number of votes required for cloture to a simple majority.

Claim 1: The Republicans, in an unprecedented move, held Justice Scalia’s seat hostage by not moving to confirm Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee last spring.

Reality Check: The Democrats set the precedent when it was Republican judicial nominees under consideration. In 1992 during an election year Senator Joe Biden (yes the same Joe Biden) stated if a seat on the Supreme Court should become available during the last year of his term, president George H.W. Bush should follow “the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not, name a nominee until after the November election is completed.” Biden, who was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee backed up his talk by not holding hearings for 32 Bush appointees. Maybe Vice-President Biden’s views have changed, but let’s not say the Republicans stole a seat for following the “Biden Rule”.

Claim 2: By invoking the nuclear option Republicans broke Senate tradition to force through a nominee.

Reality Check: This claim requires a bit of storytelling. Let’s go back to 2003 when Democrats, then the minority, were filibustering President George W. Bush’s nominees. Republicans, as you can imagine,  were not very pleased about this but did not invoke the nuclear option. Nor did they invoke it in 2005 when Sen. Reid #nuclearoptionDemocratic filibusters continued. After the Obama Administration began in 2009 Republicans, now the minority said hey, two can play at that game! And they began filibustering Obama’s appointees.
Democrats, as you can imagine, were not very pleased about this and in 2013 for the first time in American history invoked the nuclear option. This allowed for a simple majority vote on all nominees except for the Supreme Court, effectively ending the ability of the minority party to prevent a nominee going through.

Sen. Blumenthal #nuclearoptionThis seemed good and well at the time to the Democrats in the majority, but now in the minority again, they would very much like to avoid the nuclear option being dropped on them. But it was, and as a result a nominee for the Supreme Court can no longer be filibustered. Do not however, mistake the nuclear option’s ending the filibuster for a Supreme Court nominee as lowering the number of votes necessary for confirmation; a simple majority is all that is required for confirmation and this has not changed. Both Justices Alito and Thomas were confirmed with less than 60 votes.

The point of this article is not to convince anyone their respective party’s right or wrong; I for one think the nuclear option goes against the spirit of the Constitution and its protection of the minority from the majority seen with the electoral college and how we amend the Constitution itself. However, do not be fooled by political ploys demonizing any party. While the “they started it” defense is weak, both parties need to be wary of the precedent they set and the consequences it has. It is highly likely multiple Supreme Court vacancies will occur during President Trump’s term(s) and, should Democrats remain in the minority, they will have no bargaining power. So when that time comes, remember the Biden Rule and the 2013 Democratic nuclear option and maybe you won’t get caught up in the partisan politics.

0 Single-Payer Paradise

  • April 3, 2017
  • by Dylan Morgan
  • · In the News

The healthcare debate is getting real old. With the Affordable Care Act there was one-size fits all plans that increased costs and therefore forced you to purchase. Now comes the American Health Care Act which calls for much the same; no penalty for not having insurance but one for getting insurance after a lapse of a year, and the same reliance of Medicaid to pick up those who would otherwise fall through the cracks. There is a simple system many are already supporting. That’s right, a no holds-barred, universal, single-payer system.

Why not? It’s already being done. And no, I’m not talking about Canada or the European countries implementing such a plan. I’m talking about a private company like Medi-Share. Medi-Share is using a universal coverage model in which all members share each other’s medical bills – see how they got the name now? This is the idea behind the individual mandate and universal healthcare in general; everyone pays in so no one goes uncovered. I think this model is perfect and should be implemented on as large a scale as possible. And I’m only half lying.

Y’see, I don’t qualify for Medi-Share. Aside from being private, it is also a Christian organization demanding its members follow a traditional Christian path and lead a healthy, law-abiding lifestyle. This means you are not eligible if you use tobacco or illegal drugs, abuse legal drugs (i.e. alcohol), have sex outside of wedlock, etc. Let’s be honest, many if not most of today’s citizenry don’t meet all those stipulations. I guess we’ll need another way to get healthcare care coverage.

Cue government. It’s clear we can’t tax our way to afford single-payer, so we’ll have to cut costs by decreasing the amount of people who require care. According to the CDC, the leading cause of death in the US is cardiac disease beating out cancer by nearly 25,000 deaths. In the top ten causes of death, six are or can be linked to lack of individual responsibility, i.e. smoking or diet. This includes heart disease, oral and lung cancers, chronic lower respiratory diseases, ischemic stroke, type II diabetes, and suicide. Suicide is already illegal so we’re good there, but if everyone is paying for everyone else’s health care, let’s save money by keeping people from hurting themselves.

We can all agree smoking is bad and is linked to pretty much every disease that kills you so let’s make that illegal. Many other deadly diseases are related to diet, so let’s ensure everyone is eating a healthy diet. States have passed laws forcing restaurants to put calories on menus but clearly that is not helping so additional measures will need to be added. Maybe regulating the size of soda you can get, or the amount of salt in a meal. Maybe we should just take it another step further and ban junk food; no one gets fat eating vegetables, so let’s force people to eat them.

Ok, so we’ve gotten rid of smoking and bad foods but that’s still not enough. You can’t just eat healthy, you gotta live healthy; get up and play 60 minutes a day! So we’ll need to make everyone stay on a healthy exercise regimen. We’d have to make sure everyone did it too, so there’d have to be monitoring and just like that we’re in 1984 and fighting to touch our toes as Big Brother cheers us on.

It may seem farfetched for these regulations to be instated however, many of them already have been attempted or passed. In New York large sodas were on the chopping block, caloric and sodium labels have passed now, California has even increased the smoking age to 21. What’s to stop us from going further with restrictions on lifestyle choices; if people are leading more healthy lives, living longer, and feeling better why should we stop the government from forcing health upon us? Well, because I love burgers and greasy fries, small milkshakes served in gallon jugs, I want to sit on my butt if I choose, and because I want a Big Gulp God-dammit!

You cannot force people to be healthy. We’ve known cigarettes are bad for you since the 1960’s yet people still smoke. After the government (wrongly) said fats were bad for you they were still making deep-fried butter down south. There is no single greater representation of freedom than cooking fat in more fat and eating it on a stick. And if you want to leave this world in a round casket who am I to say no? I will say no however, to paying your medical bills after your poor life choices clog an artery for the third time.

Now that I’ve blown my cover and you realize I am not in favor of a government-run single-payer system, I’ll share a better option.

The greatest asset to your health, your primary healthcare provider, is you. Your lifestyle and preventative measures can keep you out of most health scares, and a simple annual physical can give you the jump on many other ailments. We need to encourage these things and give people the freedom to choose what they want.

Before all the hubbub of Trumpcare, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) proposed four pages (compared to 2,700 in the ACA) of legislation that would lead to a world of positive change for healthcare. In it there was a focus on Health Savings Accounts. An HSA is exactly what it sounds like, an account which you can place funds for the purpose of healthcare. I know what you’re thinking; don’t you put funds in insurance companies so they pay for your healthcare? Yes, you’re right, but an HSA gives you more power. In Paul’s bill, each taxpayer has the option of receiving a tax credit for up to $5,000 for an HSA; this means you are credited up to $5,000 towards your owed taxes. This also maintains anything over the $5,000 limit is tax preferred, meaning it won’t count as income.

Why is this good to have along with insurance? Aside from tax breaks, it is money you get to invest in your health; in other words, preventative care. HSA funds would be allowed to be spent on direct practice services, prescription and OTC drugs, and certain exercise equipment and programs. What’s more, if you are using the HSA tax credit it will be easier for you to afford an insurance plan with a higher deductible to lower your annual premium – you’re getting fit and your wallet’s getting fat. The plan also allows for insurers to cross state lines and for people and small businesses to band together to purchase insurance across state lines. This increases competition and strengthens the demand, giving people a greater ability to negotiate for cheaper premiums.

Unlike our president I am aware health coverage is a very complex issue and I don’t believe TNT in the form of the ACA was the best fix. I certainly disagree with Bernie Sanders and other socialists who point to a failed system plagued by government restrictions and say the solution is more government. For instance, liberals are attacking Republicans for trying to prevent everyone from having maternal care in their plans. Why does my dear old mom require that service? Why do young single males? Because that’s how socialized medicine works.

Maybe you are for single-payer, maybe you’re for freedom, but regardless of your views, there is a free market option be it bill-sharing as with Medi-Share, or increasing competition and spending power in the Paul plan. There is no reason to settle for bad plans and rising premiums, the legacy of the ACA.

 

Page 1 of 5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 5

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel