Random Thoughts - 11/21

Graduate school is different. So far in one class this semester the professor just stopped grading, no longer providing any tangible feedback to students. At least there doesn’t seem to be any kind of ‘default’ grade but there is no way to know what will happen in these final weeks of the semester. I actually received a returned assignment that had no feedback at all, it was exactly as I turned it in, I wasn’t sure what to do with that. In my other class a slew of subjects were rushed through in time for the final exam which is maybe out tomorrow or perhaps next week. Class notes from last week mention multiple dates some from last year telling class that the slides weren’t all changed from the last time they were used. I tried to turn in the last class assignment, by email, only to be asked to resubmit at a later date when the professor would be back in town. No explanation was given for why the assignment would have to be turned in again to the same email address and why the current date’s email was insufficient. In this same class the midterm included a problem that had an inexplicable solution not found anywhere else, questions on it were not returned.

A difficult personality type is the egotist with little or no evidence of success. Recent experience has led me to really think about the things that I say or my approach to some things, hopefully leading to improvement. A person I know constantly criticizes others they work with for not taking his sage advice and methodology. Finding myself working with this person I learned a reason why they don’t take that advice. Hoping for constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement I got nothing but nebulous platitudes and was chided for requesting clarification. Perhaps I’m dense for not understanding just what to do with brilliant advice. I can’t help the feeling though that a person so enamored with their own business sense would be much more successful more than 40 years into a career. What I take from the experience is that it is very important to be as clear as possible and if someone doesn’t understand what it is that I am saying that it may not be them.

Enjoy Bankruptcy, Ohio

The state of Ohio this past Tuesday voted to reject the elimination of collective bargaining for public employees. The reason behind the initiative was that benefit and compensation plans collectively bargained by public sector employees, not to mention union employment rules, have played a significant role in the large budget deficit facing the state. Unionization is an antiquated concept. They began in this county with the industrial age when there was scant regulation for employers and not much competition for labor. These conditions no longer exist and for every employee that is helped by union contracts there are many others hurt by them. Being an exemplary employee no longer matters because there’s no point when your compensation is preordained by collective bargaining and not related to your effort. Public sector unions are even more pointless, there are no conditions within the United States in which government employees at any level are mistreated in a way that justifies a labor union. There is no explanation for union necessity in the modern United States other than adding an unaccountable layer of management.

Two primary reasons were attributed to the failure of the Ohio initiative. The first was an orchestrated advertising campaign costing tens of millions of dollars financed by public sector unions. Without collective bargaining there is reason for a union to exist, the unions were simply protecting their very existence. The ad campaign was contemptible frightening citizens by making promises of increased crime and home destruction because of reduced Police and Firefighting services. This illustrates the reason why collective bargaining should not be permitted for public employees, their union agents will not hesitate to coerce voters with thinly veiled threats. The fact is that the initiative included no reductions in employment for neither police nor firefighters. And it’s laughable to think that secure public employees will flee to the uncertain private sector en masse faced with the types of benefit changes that would still be larger than that within the private sector.

The second reason given was the relative unpopularity of Republican Governor John Kasich who in recent weeks has been described as cantankerous in the face of attacks on the initiative. This is a difficult concept to analyze but it is often said that conservative principals require someone with an optimistic disposition. It’s just about impossible for anyone to remain optimistic when faced with nearly constant criticisms, especially of the type applied towards conservative ideas and politicians. Following months of attacks on his character and the initiative, it’s difficult to blame Governor Kasich for showing signs of irritation. The money spent by unions was used effectively to craft a narrative that was difficult to counter and the Governor was derided in many different and personal ways.

It will always be difficult to run against free lunches. And it will always be difficult to run against favorable public services. These facts don’t cloud the fact that collective bargaining raises the cost of labor and it can be argued that it is unfair for public employees to enjoy benefits greater than their counterparts in the private sector because the government does not aggressively bargain with unions. Ohio has an enormous budget deficit that will not dissipate with good intentions. The voters of Ohio spoke, against a measure meant to save their system and maintain current levels of employment demonized as mean-spirited. That vote did not change the fact that the system is unsustainable and was the equivalent of a vote towards insolvency.

The lazy and the typical

I know, I know, with a million other problems and the whole world apparently plunging into catastrophe The Muppets movie doesn’t matter much. I’ve never been the kind of person to buy much into such arguments. Truth is almost everyone doesn’t have much say in every, much less any, global scale type problem and worrying about them constantly to the point of inducing a nervous twitch and becoming a preachy dolt does nothing for anyone. The Muppets is very important in the sense that it’s just another stupid attempt at youth indoctrination.

The story to the new Muppets movie is that oil is found on the land below the abandoned Muppet Theater and oilman Tex Richman plans to destroy the theater to drill. Some new Muppet mobilizes with his human brother, the tall dude from ‘How I Met Your Mother’, to stage a Muppet Telethon with reunited Muppets to raise the money needed to ‘save’ the theater. It’s as simple and annoying as it is eye-rolling. An insult to the intelligence and no doubt, if popular, could prove to be instrumental in the development of the worldview of many young people.

How hilarious, the evil oilman, Tex Richman! Because he’s from Texas and he’s a Rich Man! And he drills! That the theater isn’t in use apparently means nothing and that the Muppets themselves are all over the world doing other things doesn’t matter. Why not utilize some simple formulaic good guy/bad guy caricature? This kind of nonsense is the exact reason why most “Occupy” protestors couldn’t explain what it is that Wall Street does or what it takes to drill and then refine oil into usable products. We’ll know who subscribes to such mindlessness when the ‘Republicans for Tex Richman’ bumper stickers start to pop up on Subaru Station Wagons in the Whole Foods parking lot.

While it’s true that the ever elusive peace in the Middle East and the world debt crisis, not to mention many other priorities, are of much more importance; The Muppets movie’s attempted brain washing and other attempts by the entertainment industry counts too and there’s plenty of space to call them out.

Being on one’s own

A fundamental difference of opinion was unearthed this week with the following comment “then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own’”. A campaigning President was appealing to fundraisers by warning those in attendance that the consequences of a failed re-election would include self-reliance ushered in by his caricatured opponents. Perhaps there’s something more in this statement, something under the surface that is profound and enlightening. That finding any wisdom in such a statement requires mental gymnastics to include a willing detachment from the English language reassures its dissemination at face value. It is what it is and means exactly what is meant by stringing those words together.

People are different. Responsible people often find different paths to self reliance. The more free-spirited types might work temporary technician or landscaping type positions to fund their wants and needs, preferring to live by their own schedule. Others might wake at the same time every morning and head to the same place for the same amount of time and develop a taste for coffee while being perfectly content in a desk job. There’s no right or wrong to either path. The free spirit needs no government intervention as they figured out on their own how to provide for their desires. And the desk worker realizes that the more government intervenes supposedly on their behalf, their employer may be more reticent to offer advancement opportunities because of increased risk and their healthcare plan may be more costly because of mandates irrelevant to them but that must be covered anyway. Both do what they have to in order to live the lifestyle they decide is best for themselves.

It used to be a definition of adulthood, being self-reliant. For almost ninety years the United States government ushered in reforms meant to create a safety-net, a way for those who couldn’t do for themselves to survive or to provide temporary relief for those finding themselves in unfortunate circumstances. Over the years the definitions of unfortunate circumstances and those who couldn’t do for themselves has broadened significantly. Political correctness has rendered it a thought crime to question the validity of benefits to those seemingly capable. Every year politicians campaign as champions of the less fortunate who seem to grow in proportion with the number of programs meant to help.

This never ending spiral illustrates a key difference between liberals and conservatives. It is nice and emotionally satisfying to provide something to someone in want or need. But, eliminating the cost for a certain group of people doesn’t make it free. Someone has to bear that cost and eliminating that cost for some will encourage more to become part of that some or to remain part of that some by hindering self reliance. Also hindered will be those forced to pay those costs by taxation. Liberals choose the simpler path of offering aid with no strings attached. Conservatives choose the more difficult path of encouraging people to become self sufficient and aim to help them achieve it. There exist the truly needy who can’t help themselves and for them we should maintain the safety net, if it were to include only them it would be much smaller than it is today. Simply put, the government should let you be on your own.

No Treats for Anyone!

I found myself confused by the news today that in many northeastern areas tonight trick-or-treating has been canceled. I’m not confused with regard to why they did it. There was some nasty winter weather in that area this past weekend and it would seem reasonable to encourage people to stay home. But, what exactly will it be like out there later today and what is the capacity of the citizens there to deal with inclement weather? It’s easy as a resident of a city with 350 or so days of sunshine a year to flinch but it’s doubtful that people in Connecticut are all that shocked and unprepared by snow in late October. The second question that comes to mind is, exactly how can trick-or-treating be canceled? Was candy ordered off the shelf of the local drugstore? Was it taken from non-procrastinators? Has it been deemed a misdemeanor to offer candy to random guests throughout the night? Is there effective manpower to ensure that no children are out soliciting treats? What about entirely contained apartment complexes? Are they disallowed for reasons of fairness even though the weather won’t affect anyone walking inside them? I know, this is silly but I can’t help myself. I just can’t help myself from imagining the machinations of such a ban. Given the recent stories of lemonade stands being taken out I don’t think we can limit ourselves imagining the overreactions of nanny-stators when it comes to an easy target. So long as they can claim their crusades being in the name of safety.