Once upon a time “liberal” meant opposition to authority.
Now “liberal” means the worship of government.
Do you see the problem here?
Shared ideas matter. Please pass this along to friends.
Get a high-resolution screensaver of this image. Click on the thumbnail picture below to open a large version that you can download.
Caution: Do Not Over-Feed Government!
Get a high-resolution screensaver of this image. Click on the image below to open large version that you can download.
Undoubtedly, men have it easy in several ways that women do not. Take something only seemingly trivial: clothing.
When men need to dress to impress, the answer is simple: a suit. There is not really a lot of variety here, and little is required of a man in his choice of suit.
Women, on the other hand, do not have a business and formal occasion uniform to rely upon.
Instead, they have fashion.
Which is a whirl of constant change and a world of enervating expense.
I wouldn’t put up with it. But then, I’m a man. The modern dress suit was developed to meet men’s needs for functionality as well as excellence. And our need to not think hard on a matter of mere garment.
So it is with no small pleasure to read, in the Telegraph, of a professional woman who forswears fashion to wear just one design of clothing. “‘I can tell you the cashier in the store look[ed] pretty confused when I asked if she had 15 extra sets of the whole outfit,’ she jokes, ‘but all in all, choosing the uniform was a pretty pain-free process.’”
And the style choice seemed obvious: “I’ve always felt that black and white is a cool and classy look,” so that’s what she went with.
She made herself culturally equal with men. Took for herself a formerly all-male advantage. And she did not depend upon a man for that advance, he-for-she style.
And did not look to government.
This is the way forward.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
The “unexpected” Donald Trump presidential victory has put the folks at The Gray Lady a bit out of sorts.
Heather Wilhelm at the National Review pokes and prods at the absurdities of the New York Times’s cultural cluelessness. And ably enough. So I’ll stick to The Times’s recent “six views” of America’s ideological divide:
Julie Turkewitz recognizes two well-insulated informational bubbles at play. Nothing too controversial — or very deep.
Campbell Robertson muses upon the dominance of the “elites” against which Trump’s insurgents rebel, noting that “the elites are the still the ones who get to decide who gets to be elite.”
Laurie Goodstein takes on religious culture, making much of divergent spiritual outlooks, left and right.
Julia Preston peers at immigration and the prospect of sending a message by building a “wall.”
In the manner of the other five, Sheryl Gay Stolberg digs up real-world people — as does our speechifier-in-chief, Barack Obama — to lightly probe questions of assimilation versus multiculturalism.
Manny Fernandez concludes with a (yawn) discussion of giving and taking offense.
They all miss the underlying structural basis for the divide.
On one side: folks working in the private sector — or local governments and charities, or at home — who have seen the world pass them by in terms of income and security.
On the other: government workers and consultants (and other college grads) who make more, on average, than their “real world” counterparts.
The latter has advanced as a class; the former remain in stasis … at best.
A mystery?
No — it’s the predictable result of what Thomas Jefferson called “the parasite institutions now consuming us.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Original (cc) photo by diana MĂRGĂRIT at Flickr
“…the bogeyman government is like the bogeyman under the bed. It’s not real. It doesn’t exist.”
Citation:
Is it odd to see government employees and politicians — public servants — hold onto particular laws with a death grip?
Maybe not. In Texas, municipal government employees have been working mightily to prevent citizens from repealing local ordinances. According to a report by WOAI News Radio, the Texas “State Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Monday heard horror story after horror story from citizen groups which have tried to circulate petitions calling for repeal of local ordinances.”
It’s not shocking, I suppose, since those laws may give politicians and bureaucrats more power. And perhaps there’s pride of authorship.
But, despite any merit (or demerit) these laws may possess, public servants are still public servants, which means: serve the public.
Which means: uphold democratic processes.
Government is all about processes, really. This shouldn’t be too hard.
Which is why there’s no excuse for what has been going on:
Basically, these government bodies are setting unreasonably high and arbitrary hurdles for petitions to get on the ballot — such as requiring “birth dates and Social Security numbers” of signers.
That often does the trick. One would have to be very careless to put one’s Social Security number onto a public document — one that anyone could see. And photograph.
For later nefarious use.
The fact that these government tactics are all illegal justifies the Senate committee probe into the malfeasance — and demands action.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
