Workers and The Right

In politics, the term "workers" carries connotations of unions, strikes, and Marxism; in short, left-wing politics. It's thought that the honorable working class and their unions are typically Democrats and their rich, manipulative managers are Republicans. I've always disagreed with that interpretation. Unions are Democrat, sure, and Republicans typically aspire to (and often achieve) financial success in business. While unions represent a centralizing authority contrary to the principles of American conservatism, individual workers doing good work for the best pay they can negotiate is a standard conservatives are happy to bare.

In the recent Tea Party sponsored walk on Washington, many present stated they had never been away from work to protest before - these were right-wing workers, protesting an increasing tax burden and pay decreased by inflation. At the other end of the modern political spectrum is President Obama, who hopes students are "aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers." ^{[ABC News/NAACP speech]} That's fine and good (I fully support the part about ballers and rappers), but he ostentatiously ignores workers.

Isn't it a valid dream to make sweet motorbikes or fine watches or kickin' computers? Isn't it honorable to be able to drive past a beautiful building and say "I did that brickwork."? Is there no respect for the men and women who make the bulk of the economic engine of which Americans are so proud run and run well? Personally, I see a blue-collar beauty to that kind of work. Men with black grease on their calloused hands and torn overalls make the rest of our lifestyles possible. And their lifestyles aren't so bad, either; more plumbers own their own yacht than scientists or professors do.

But my respect for the great Skilled Worker leaves me pretty unique in modern politcs -- or so I thought. Turns out I have a kindred spirit from the cast of Cheers: John Ratzenberger runs a non-profit organization called Nuts, Bolts, and Thingamajigs that seeks to bring back the American manufacturer as a figure of honor and prominence; to, as they say, "to nurture the tinkering spirit". If the name Ratzenberger doesn't ring a bell, think of Cliff Clavin of Cheers, the piggybank in Toy Story, or the timeless line "Don't worry; it's lemon!" from Monster's Inc. The perennial everyman of Cheers, it turns out, is an advocate of the worker in the real world, too.

And more power too him! May the independent tradesman flourish!

And now for something completely different...

I offer you the story of Weird Harold:

Once upon a time there was a little girl who loved her Grandpa and Grandma very much. Late one night, Grandpa came to visit, and she was so excited to see him she couldn't sleep. Grandpa asked, "If I tell you a story will you go to sleep like a good girl?"

"Well... okay," the girl said, "But it better be a good story."

Grandpa chuckled. "I'll tell the best story I have, the story of Weird Harold." It went like this:

---

When the children went to play on the blacktop at recess, they never played with Harold. He didn't play on the swings or at the kickball diamond. He would always walk in lazy circles by himself. Sometimes he would pick up a pebble. Sometimes he would put one down just so. Sometimes he would just stand and look at them. It didn't look like any fun. If someone invited him to play regular games, Harold would growl at them and chase them away. It was weird. So they called him Weird Harold.

Harold was happy with that. He liked to play alone with his many small pebbles.

One day, a quiet little girl from Weird Harold's class sat and watched Weird Harold. She watched as he walked in lazy circles. She watched as he stopped to pick up a pebble. She watched later as he stopped to put it down with a lot of other pebbles. When he walked away to find more, she took a step closer so she could see the pebbles. Then another step. The pebbles weren't just put anywhere. They were put just so, in a little square with circles at the corners.

"Are you going to ask me to come play with you?" It was Weird Harold. The quiet little girl didn't notice that he'd come up behind her. She didn't say anything. It was quiet for a long time.

Harold asked, "What's your name?" The quiet little girl didn't answer. It was quiet for a long time.

"Okay. You can watch," said Weird Harold. He put another pebble on the blacktop with the others. He stood up and looked around. None of the other children were paying him any attention except the quiet little girl. Weird Harold was glad about that. It was quiet for a long time.

He took another pebble out of his pocket. It was a different kind of pebble. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was beautiful. He put the beautiful pebble with the others. He put it alone inside the square. Then he stood still and looked at it for a long time. He looked around for other children again, but they weren't paying him any attention. Except for the quiet little girl.

Harold turned to the quiet little girl. "This one is the Princess," he told her. "She lives in her castle. Evil knights come to steal away her beauty and make her boring like all the other pebbles. I'm the good dragon. I protect her. When evil knights come, I growl and breath fire and they go away." He looked at the little girl. It was quiet for a long time. Then he said very quietly, "She's my favorite."

The bell rang. It was time to go back inside. Weird Harold quickly snatched up the Princess and put her in his pocket. He snatched up lots of other pebbles and put them in his pockets, too. He didn't want to be late getting back to class.

The quiet little girl watched him pick up pebbles. She looked very determined. She opened her mouth and said, "My name is Jill." Then she ran across the blacktop back to class. Harold was surprised. Then he grabbed a few more pebbles and went inside, too.

After that, Jill and Harold spent a every recess together. Harold would tell her adventures with the pebbles and the Princess. There was always the Princess. Jill would mostly watch. Sometimes she would say something, but usually she was quiet.

One day, Jill spoke up. She said, "I never talk to anyone else. Only you. You wait for me to talk. Everyone else just wants to talk, not listen." It was quiet for a long time. Then she said, "I'm glad you're Weird, Harold."

Harold said, "I'm glad you talk to me."

As the days went past, it got warmer. The school year was going to end. Jill and Harold wouldn't see each other for months, and there wasn't anything they could do about it.

"Are you going to be here next year, too?" asked Harold.

"Yes," said Jill. It was quiet for a long time. Then Harold reached into his pocket and took out a pebble. He held it out to Jill. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was the Princess.

Harold said, "Take it. Promise you'll give it back next year. It's my favorite." Jill took the Princess. She put it in her pocket. It was quiet for a long time.

Then it was summer. Harold didn't enjoy summer without Jill, and Jill didn't enjoy summer without Harold. Then summer was over, and school started again. At the first recess, Jill ran straight out to Harold smiling. She handed him a pebble. It was the Princess. Harold took the Princess out of Jill's hand. Harold also held on to Jill's hand. They both smiled, and it was quiet for a long time.

Years passed, and they grew up together. Every summer, Harold gave Jill the Princess. Every fall, Jill gave it back. They graduated, married, and aged. They had children and grandchildren. They were happy together for 64 years. Jill was always quiet, and Harold was always weird. Everyone called them "Jill and Weird Harold," like they were one person with one name. No one was ever happier. Every day Weird Harold told Jill, "You're my favorite."

When they were very old, Jill got sick. She was going away, and it was going to be quiet for a very long time. She told Weird Harold, "If you miss me, look in the old coffee can. I left you something." Then she went away.

---

"Do you know what was in the old coffee can?" Grandpa asked the little girl.

The little girl didn't answer. Grandpa reached into his pocket and pulled out a pebble. It was a different kind of pebble. It was shiny and clear and very pale blue, like the sky. It was beautiful. The little girl said very quietly, "It's the Princess!"

"Yes, it is," said Grandpa. "I want you to keep it. You can be the good dragon and protect it from evil knights. You can remember the story of Weird Harold. Maybe it'll make you happy." It was quiet for a long time.

"It already makes me happy," said the little girl. "It's a good story."

Grandpa chuckled. "Then it's time to go to sleep like a good little girl." He tucked her in. He kissed her on the forehead. He started to leave.

The little girl said, "Goodnight, Grandpa Harold. I love you."

Grandpa turned and smiled. "I love you, too, little Jill. You know, you look just like your Grandma Jill when she was your age." It was quiet for a long time. Then he left.

---

A few days later, little Jill went back to school. When the children went to play on the blacktop at recess, Jill didn't play with the other children. She didn't play on the swings or on the kickball diamond. She walked in lazy circles on the blacktop. Sometimes she'd pick up a pebble. Sometimes she'd put one down just so. If someone invited her to play regular games, she'd growl at them and chase them away. Someone called her Weird Jill. Jill was happy with that.

THE END

On Diversity and Strength

Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.

- General Casey on the Fort Hood shootings

When is diversity a strength? Religious diversity let to troubles in Northern Ireland. The diversity between Israelis and Palestinians along the Persian coast has not been strengthening. Canada has Quebecois separatists, Russia has Chechnyan rebels, China has Tibet. Which of these situations exemplifies strength drawn from diversity?

And yet there are countless cases of diversity creating strength. Where would America be without Christopher Columbus of Spain, Sacajawea of the Shoshone, Fredrick Douglass, our Irish Catholic President Kennedy, or Martin Luther King? Generals von Steuben of Germany and Lafayette of France were vital to the colonies' victory in the Revolution, itself motivated by the philosophies of the Scottish Enlightenment. Alexander Hamilton, father of the American system of economics, was half-French Huguenot, half-Scottish, and born out of wedlock in the Caribbean. Spiritual, gospel, blues, jazz, and rock 'n' roll music all arose first from African-Americans, and form the basis and origin of virtually all pop music. Bruce Lee, Muhammad Ali, and Pat Morita (Mr. Miyagi) taught us to fight with honor, igniting an American obsession with martial arts. American society would be utterly different and dramatically worse without these champions from their diverse backgrounds.

But to invoke diversity to protect a murderous shooter is offensive and irrational. Regardless of his religion or ethnicity, he's a murderer who is documented to have long held radical anti-American ideas, even supporting attacks against the US military that protected his dangerous advocacy as an American freedom.

It is not freedom to protect that which destroys freedom. It is not diversity to protect that which violently attacks diversity. One who wishes an institution to fail should not be part of that institution; it is no failure of diversity to remove him from it, ideally before he guns down it's internal supporters.

For diversity to endure, tolerance must be denied those who are seeking to destroy it. To support diversity is to see this madman not as a Muslim that must therefore be sacrosanct and protected as a symbolic protection of all Muslims from group discrimination, but as a mad individual who deserves condemnation for his individual crimes. If others pursue his same crimes, let them be punished for their personal actions. If others share his same religion but reject his actions, they are innocent. But if individual Muslims in the military start confusing the extremism with the mainstream, how are they any better than white Americans confusing mainstream American Muslims with Al-Qaeda killers? It's the same vicious confusion, and should be condemned and punished equally regardless of the ethnicity of the confused person.

That's what the strengthening kind of diversity is: equality in judgment, blind to race, creed, or other background. General Casey is rejecting it in favor of special immunity for minorities, a repugnant and intolerable inequality that protects Muslims from the same criticisms to which all other Americans are subject. His use of the word "diversity" is a destructive lie.

In all fairness, the murderous shooter was actually right about one minor thing from back before he went nuts: he argued that Muslims should be able to request and receive conscious objector status and opt out of violent confrontation with other Muslims in the Afghani and Iraqi fronts. German American soldiers were stationed in the Pacific Front in WW2 by the same good reasoning, to protect against brother fighting brother or, worse, our soldiers switching sides. Except then it was a universal requirement and I only advocate the option be available.

Explanations

In case anyone still reads this blog, here's why I hardly ever post anymore: I've been moving. It's been a huge, complicated mess in which I've been attempting to work full time while moving my hideous amounts of stuff through repeated 400 miles trips in a compact car. Red tape from the transfer of my employment has filled up a lot of my spare time, too, but that at least is over now. All in all, it's a huge, convoluted, depressing mess that I haven't much wanted to talk (or think) about and which probably won't be truly straightened out until early December.

I'm hoping to only rent one U-Haul one time for the bigger pieces of furniture that won't fit in the car. I have good reason to travel back and forth a half-dozen times anyway, so it's not hugely inconvenient to use that process to move my stuff. Not more inconvenient than the rest of the unholy mess, anyway.

So now you know.

Obameter #234:5 Days Before Signing Bills

In 2008, Candidate Obama wanted to prevent bills from being rushed through Congress without people reading them (like the US PATRIOT Act), so he promised to allow five days for public comment and debate after Congress passed a bill before he would sign it. That way, everyone would have a chance to air their views and public oversight would rule the day. Why do birds suddenly appear...?

Okay, back in reality, this was a ridiculous and stupid promise to make. Most bills are debated for ridiculously too long in Congress before being passed. Are you really going to risk a precariously, meticulously constructed majority consensus that took months to build on the passing whims of a public tortured by sensationalist news reports and razor-sharp partisanship? Any bills passing faster than a dead snail are "emergency bills" which Obama's promise explicitly made exception for anyway. Even the US PATRIOT Act was touted as an emergency response to the 9/11 WTC bombing and, thus, would have been immune to Obama's promise.

Of course he didn't keep it. He shouldn't keep it. Anyone passingly familiar with politics should have realized it was an untenable, possibly irresponsible goal and no promise should ever have been made.

Unless he never intended to keep it. Then it was a work of evil genius. It makes him sound like a uniter, not a divider. It's the kind of promise that makes him sound like a champion of government transparency with his fingers on the pulse of mundane America. It's the kind of promise that makes him sound like a great moderate leader, aloof of the establishment but in touch with the people, until the inevitable failure to achieve it makes him look hypocritical and manipulative. Which, on this point, Obama clearly was.

In other news, video game programmers have decided that anytime they figure out a cool new technology they're going to post details online and wait five days for other developers to try to copy the new trick before publishing any game that uses it. And Duke Nukem Forever was released to rave reviews. Pre-order today by sending me money!

Obameter #225: Energy Partnership for the Americas

I started to write an explanation why I haven't been posting much lately, but I realized that it was boring and that it would take just as much time as writing a politically interesting post. So forget explanations and on with the politics!

As much as the USA likes to pretend they're alone in the world, there are actually many other nations in the Americas. One of Obama's campaign promises was to pursue a eco-friendly energy plan agreement between many of the nations in our Western Hemisphere, with emphasis on promotion of clean coal, "next generation" biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear energy.

It's a politically astute goal, at least rhetorically, since it unites traditionally left-wing environmental goals and traditionally right-wing financial goals. (I should probably make a reference to the movie Amazing Grace here.) The theory is that the USA will invent all these great environmentally-friendly energy technologies and the rest of the Americas will buy them up. It's green in two senses, environmentalism and profitability. It even bares some similarities to free trade agreements like NAFTA, and I like free trade.

Basically, Obama wants the USA to become the OPEC of green energy. Which is a pretty good ideal, if you think about it. Having dictatorships and tyrants running the world's energy supply has been… awkward in recent history. It heralds back to the early American ideals of prosperity and freedom supporting and improving each other.

But it's a false impression. Governments promoting green energy inherently means one of two things: putting taxpayer money towards research and infrastructure, or crippling traditional energy with regulations to make green energy seem more financially reasonable by comparison. Both are decreases in financial freedom. The Energy Partnership will actually be the rich USA throwing buckets of money into research (admittedly, throwing money at things is one of Obama's strengths) and as much of the hemisphere as possible regulating all other energy until the USA is the core of an artificial green energy industry.

I'm all for the USA having more financial power. Strong economic power has been an American tradition since Hamilton argued for it at the Constitutional Convention. The pursuit of happiness has always inherently allowed for the freedom to pursue prosperity. But harvesting individual prosperity to pay for environmental friendliness in order to pursue economic prosperity? Harming prosperity to pursue prosperity? That clearly contradicts itself. The economic costs and benefits are clearly working against each other, leaving only naked environmentalism.

I'm not going to rehash the Green debate again. It is sufficient to say that environmentalism remains controversial and disputable, and if a diplomatic session between a few heads of state ends up changing the lives of hundreds of millions regardless of their personal views it will be a poisonous dose of authoritarianism.

In the end, the nations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States agreed to cooperate on environmental research and development and to harmonize energy efficiency standards. It's certainly a promise kept. For me and others who see environmentalism pursued only as an excuse for leaders to amass power, it's a fairly benign development. It might even be advantageous for my views to have an international environmental research partnership outside the UN to compare. It is a bad principle was pursued so slightly that perhaps no harm was done. I reckon, then, that I'm only opposed on principle.

Economists on Jeopardy

How'd you do? I knew them all, though I couldn't think of the second one's name until they said it.