Fox News Ticker

Saturday, June 7, 2014

In defense of manhood

I have — tired — of the constant attacks on men these days.
From the "rape culture," to bumbling depictions of men on television, to the constant drumbeat that manly and masculine behavior is somehow antisocial, to the over-medication of primarily young boys in school, misandry is rampant in our current culture.
And all the while the administration and the media bleat about misogyny and the "Republican War on Women™.
Is misogyny real? Certainly.
But so is misandry. So is this idea that somehow traditional ideas of manliness and "the man thing" is the source of all trouble.
So forthwith is a defense of manhood, starting with a description of what a man truly is.
A man treats women with respect and protects them. They are, in general, physically weaker than we are, and that gives us a frightening amount of power to harm them. A man therefore has a responsibility to not abuse that power and with it a woman. A real man looks down on anyone who would threaten, intimidate or physically harm anyone weaker than he is. They are beneath his notice, except when he must step in to prevent such abuse.
A man works. He works hard. He does not let his woman support him while he lounges around the house. If he cannot find a job, he creates one for himself. He takes pride in whatever work he has, and does a good job simply because it _is_ his job.
A man has respect for himself. He does not tolerate disrespect from others and does not treat them disrespectfully either. To quote the late John Wayne in _The Shootist_ “I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
A man loves his woman. He takes care of her. He provides for her and for her children.
He raises his children properly. He teaches his boys what it takes to be men. While he works hard, and works the hours necessary to take care of his family, he does not ignore them and makes time for them. They are the purpose of his labor, not a distraction from it.
A man loves to learn and takes every opportunity to learn something new. Whether it be computer programming, rebuilding a carburetor or how to build a shed, a man loves to find out new things and become more accomplished.
Manliness is not the chest-thumping parody we see on TV.
While most real men of my acquaintance are accomplished in many areas and can do many things, and do them well, neither are they bumbling fools like Tim Taylor. While it may make for good television, the messages idiot portrayals like that send to young women are as damaging as the images of unrealistically thin models on magazine covers.
The modern portrayal of men teaches young women that men are nothing but overgrown children who must be cared for and guided by the mature, responsible women in their lives.
While it is true that there is always a large element of the boy in most men (and most men who are worth a damn have that in them) a grown man, a real man knows when it is appropriate to let that side of him out and when it is not. The boyish side is what lets him enjoy time with his children and bond with his sons, it is what allows him to let his hair down with his woman and have fun with her. He does not, however, let it rule him. He controls it. He channels it and he uses it like the tool it is. This is the principle difference between a man and a boy.
I remain convinced that most women _want_ men to behave as I have described above. I am further convinced that if more adult males acted like men, and moreover taught their sons to behave like men, this nation, indeed this world, would not be in the shape it is.

A few questions for David Brin

Because SF Writer David Brin is a coward and a fraud. And owing to the fact that he has refused to answer some very pointed questions on his Facebook page where he has chosen to wave the flag of his so-called scientific credentials to belittle and besmirch anyone who disagrees with his rather radical leftist views while claiming the mantle of "moderate."

Here forthwith are those same questions. I invite Mr. Brin to respond, before I use my rather considerable talents as an investigative journalist to prove to the world his perfidy and expose him as the despicable liar he is.

Mr. Brin,

You have repeatedly used your qualifications as a scientist to denigrate those who disagree with you, particularly on this issue.

A friend has asked me, as a nationally-known investigative journalist to ask you a few questions. This individual, who for professional reasons must remain anonymous, has posited these questions, but, as a journalist, I ask them as well.

If you are a scientist, where’s your scientific publications?  Your public sources list 6 papers in the scientific field in which you trained.  Based on your published Bio, three-to-four were from your Master’s, and two don’t really count, since they constitute a two-part paper authored by your Advisor with you in the “courtesy student author” slot.  

You have one main publication obviously from your PhD dissertation, but absolutely nothing for the next 8 years – where was your scholarly output as a post-graduate professional scientist?

You have only four scholarly papers since your PhD – one was SETI, three in fields other than what you trained, and one of those clearly marked “speculation” – where is there any evidence of you doing science?

All of your academic positions are for “instructor,” “post-doctoral fellow,” “associate,” “visiting scholar.” Nowhere do you list any faculty or academic scientific positions, neither do you list any actual scientific jobs – so how are you a practicing scientist without working in science?

You have 4 scientific publications in over 30 years, and no publications relevant to your scientific training in over 25 years.  How is it that you can currently claim to be a scientist?

Your first novel was published while you were in your PhD program – did you neglect your PhD research to write the novel, or did you in fact write the novel before you could lay claim to being a scientist?  Given that it can take years to go from manuscript to published novel, how *many* of your first novels were actually written before you received your PhD, and how did you reconcile the conflicting time demands of research, teaching, SF writing, and scientific writing?

Your ResearchGate profile shows your affiliation as “Caltech” but Caltech does not list you as a faculty member.  Your bio shows that you were a “visiting scholar” at JPL over 20 years ago.  Doesn’t that make your ResearchGate profile (a purely voluntary listing) a lie?


You have no scholarly output, no research credentials, no academic credentials, no faculty position and you’ve lied about your affiliation with Caltech – isn’t that fraud?

Sources:  http://www.davidbrin.com/biography.html  and   www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Brin/

Saturday, April 19, 2014

The 2014 Hugo Awards

Congratulations to Toni, Vox, Brad and Larry, may the glittery hoo haas explode in your names!
The finalists for this year's Hugo Awards and John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer were announced on Saturday 19 April 2014.
The shortlist announcement was streamed live from the UK to the web and conventions in the United States. The presentation can be watched again here: www.ustream.tv/hugo-awards. Our thanks go to Satellite 4, the British National Science Fiction Convention (Eastercon), Norwescon 37 and Minicon 49 for their support in making this unique event possible.
1923 valid nominating ballots were received and counted from the members of LoneStarCon 3, Loncon 3 and Sasquan. (1889 Electronic  and 34 Paper.)
BEST NOVEL (1595 ballots)
  • Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie (Orbit US / Orbit UK)
  • Neptune's Brood by Charles Stross (Ace / Orbit UK)
  • Parasite by Mira Grant (Orbit US / Orbit UK)
  • Warbound, Book III of the Grimnoir Chronicles by Larry Correia (Baen Books)
  • The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson (Tor Books)
BEST NOVELLA (847 ballots)
  • The Butcher of Khardov by Dan Wells (Privateer Press)
  • “The Chaplain's Legacy” by Brad Torgersen (Analog, Jul-Aug 2013)
  • “Equoid” by Charles Stross (Tor.com, 09-2013)
  • Six-Gun Snow White by Catherynne M. Valente (Subterranean Press)
  • “Wakulla Springs” by Andy Duncan and Ellen Klages (Tor.com, 10-2013)
BEST NOVELETTE (728 ballots)
  • “The Exchange Officers” by Brad Torgersen (Analog, Jan-Feb 2013)
  • “The Lady Astronaut of Mars” by Mary Robinette Kowal (maryrobinettekowal.com / Tor.com, 09-2013)
  • “Opera Vita Aeterna” by Vox Day (The Last Witchking, Marcher Lord Hinterlands)
  • “The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling” by Ted Chiang (Subterranean, Fall 2013)
  • “The Waiting Stars” by Aliette de Bodard (The Other Half of the Sky, Candlemark & Gleam)
BEST SHORT STORY (865 ballots)
  • “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” by Rachel Swirsky (Apex Magazine, Mar-2013)
  • “The Ink Readers of Doi Saket” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Tor.com, 04-2013)
  • “Selkie Stories Are for Losers” by Sofia Samatar (Strange Horizons, Jan-2013)
  • “The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere” by John Chu (Tor.com, 02-2013)
Note: category has 4 nominees due to a 5% requirement under Section 3.8.5 of the WSFS constitution.
BEST RELATED WORK (752 ballots)
  • Queers Dig Time Lords: A Celebration of Doctor Who by the LGBTQ Fans Who Love It Edited by Sigrid Ellis & Michael Damian Thomas (Mad Norwegian Press)
  • Speculative Fiction 2012: The Best Online Reviews, Essays and Commentary by Justin Landon & Jared Shurin (Jurassic London)
  • “We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative” by Kameron Hurley (A Dribble of Ink)
  • Wonderbook: The Illustrated Guide to Creating Imaginative Fiction by Jeff VanderMeer, with Jeremy Zerfoss (Abrams Image)
  • Writing Excuses Season 8 by Brandon Sanderson, Dan Wells, Mary Robinette Kowal, Howard Tayler, and Jordan Sanderson
BEST GRAPHIC STORY (552 ballots)
  • Girl Genius, Volume 13: Agatha Heterodyne & The Sleeping City written by Phil and Kaja Foglio; art by Phil Foglio; colors by Cheyenne Wright (Airship Entertainment)
  • "The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who" written by Paul Cornell, illustrated by Jimmy Broxton (Doctor Who Special 2013, IDW)
  • The Meathouse Man adapted from the story by George R.R. Martin and illustrated by Raya Golden (Jet City Comics)
  • Saga, Volume 2 written by Brian K. Vaughan, illustrated by Fiona Staples (Image Comics )
  • “Time” by Randall Munroe (XKCD)
BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (LONG FORM) (995 ballots)
  • Frozen screenplay by Jennifer Lee, directed by Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee (Walt Disney Studios)
  • Gravity written by Alfonso Cuarón & Jonás Cuarón, directed by Alfonso Cuarón (Esperanto Filmoj; Heyday Films; Warner Bros.)
  • The Hunger Games: Catching Fire screenplay by Simon Beaufoy & Michael Arndt, directed by Francis Lawrence (Color Force; Lionsgate)
  • Iron Man 3 screenplay by Drew Pearce & Shane Black, directed by Shane Black (Marvel Studios; DMG Entertainment; Paramount Pictures)
  • Pacific Rim screenplay by Travis Beacham & Guillermo del Toro, directed by Guillermo del Toro (Legendary Pictures, Warner Bros., Disney Double Dare You)
BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION (SHORT FORM) (760 ballots)
  • An Adventure in Space and Time written by Mark Gatiss, directed by Terry McDonough (BBC Television)
  • Doctor Who: “The Day of the Doctor” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Nick Hurran (BBC Television)
  • Doctor Who: “The Name of the Doctor” written by Steven Moffat, directed by Saul Metzstein (BBC Televison)
  • The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot written & directed by Peter Davison (BBC Television)
  • Game of Thrones: “The Rains of Castamere” written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss, directed by David Nutter (HBO Entertainment in association with Bighead, Littlehead; Television 360; Startling Television and Generator Productions)
  • Orphan Black: “Variations under Domestication” written by Will Pascoe, directed by John Fawcett (Temple Street Productions; Space / BBC America)
Note: category has 6 nominees due to a tie for 5th place.
BEST EDITOR - SHORT FORM (656 ballots)
  • John Joseph Adams
  • Neil Clarke
  • Ellen Datlow
  • Jonathan Strahan
  • Sheila Williams
BEST EDITOR - LONG FORM (632 ballots)
  • Ginjer Buchanan
  • Sheila Gilbert
  • Liz Gorinsky
  • Lee Harris
  • Toni Weisskopf
BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST (624 ballots)
  • Galen Dara
  • Julie Dillon
  • Daniel Dos Santos
  • John Harris
  • John Picacio
  • Fiona Staples
Note: category has 6 nominees due to a tie for 5th place.
BEST SEMIPROZINE (411 ballots)
  • Apex Magazine edited by Lynne M. Thomas, Jason Sizemore, and Michael Damian Thomas
  • Beneath Ceaseless Skies edited by Scott H. Andrews
  • Interzone edited by Andy Cox
  • Lightspeed Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams, Rich Horton, and Stefan Rudnicki
  • Strange Horizons edited by Niall Harrison, Brit Mandelo, An Owomoyela, Julia Rios, Sonya Taaffe, Abigail Nussbaum, Rebecca Cross, Anaea Lay, and Shane Gavin
BEST FANZINE (478 ballots)
  • The Book Smugglers edited by Ana Grilo and Thea James
  • A Dribble of Ink edited by Aidan Moher
  • Elitist Book Reviews edited by Steven Diamond
  • Journey Planet edited by James Bacon, Christopher J. Garcia, Lynda E. Rucker, Pete Young, Colin Harris, and Helen J. Montgomery
  • Pornokitsch edited by Anne C. Perry and Jared Shurin
BEST FANCAST (396 ballots)
  • The Coode Street Podcast Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe
  • Galactic Suburbia Podcast Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, Tansy Rayner Roberts (Presenters) and Andrew Finch (Producer)
  • SF Signal Podcast Patrick Hester
  • The Skiffy and Fanty Show Shaun Duke, Jen Zink, Julia Rios, Paul Weimer, David Annandale, Mike Underwood, and Stina Leicht
  • Tea and Jeopardy Emma Newman
  • Verity! Deborah Stanish, Erika Ensign, Katrina Griffiths, L.M. Myles, Lynne M. Thomas, and Tansy Rayner Roberts
  • The Writer and the Critic Kirstyn McDermott and Ian Mond
Note: category has 7 nominees due to a tie for 5th place.
BEST FAN WRITER (521 ballots)
  • Liz Bourke
  • Kameron Hurley
  • Foz Meadows
  • Abigail Nussbaum
  • Mark Oshiro
BEST FAN ARTIST (316 ballots)
  • Brad W. Foster
  • Mandie Manzano
  • Spring Schoenhuth
  • Steve Stiles
  • Sarah Webb
JOHN W. CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER (767 ballots)
Award for the best new professional science fiction or fantasy writer of 2012 or 2013, sponsored by Dell Magazines (not a Hugo Award).
  • Wesley Chu
  • Max Gladstone *
  • Ramez Naam *
  • Sofia Samatar *
  • Benjanun Sriduangkaew
*Finalists in their 2nd year of eligibility.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Castalia House releases new novel


Castalia House is proud, pleased, delighted, and deeply honored to announce the publication of AWAKE IN THE NIGHT LAND by John C. Wright. It is, quite simply, one of the best books we have ever had the privilege to read. It is not an easy book to categorize. Part anthology, part novel, it consists of four novellas that are tied together in one vast story spanning five million years. It blends three subgenres, SF, Fantasy, and Horror. It is set in the world first created in a novel published in 1912 and yet it is far more original than the vast majority of SF/F published in the last fifty years. It is dark and set in a world more inhumanly horrific than anything you are likely to imagine, and yet it is an uplifting tribute to the unquenchable human spirit.
It is monstrous and glorious and ghastly and magnificent.
Consider the reactions of the early reviewers:
• "The Last of All Suns" may be the best SF novella I have ever read. I am not kidding.
• Every now and then someone comes along who not only can say things nicely, but can say important things nicely. That somebody, in the modern age, is John C. Wright. 
• He projects an atmosphere of hope amid the vast emptiness of a dead world.

• Set millions of years in the future the story and setting can really only be compared to the worst nightmares of Lovecraft. I cannot stress enough, read this book! If you like Lovecraft, the darkest visions of Stephen King, or the visions of H.R. Giger you will love this book. If you like science fiction especially the 'Dying Earth' genre of Jack Vance, Leigh Brackett, Michael Moorcock, you will love this book. If you've never heard of those authors or those books, read this book.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Comrade! We haff story for you!

They've since backed off, however as late as last month the Federal Communications Commission was putting forward a plan that would have put federal monitors in radio and television newsrooms.
"The Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CINs) initiative was proposed last May. The FCC explained that it wanted information from television and radio broadcasters 'to ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CIN's and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.'" Fox News reported. "The FCC has identified eight CINs, or key topics that the government believes should be covered."
Words fail. I mean seriously, I don't even know where to start.
Let us begin with the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'm not sure what might abridge the freedom of speech or of the press _more_ than having government political officers sitting in on your newsroom staff meetings taking notes about what you intend to cover and why — or worse, making "suggestions" about what to cover. Note above: "The FCC has identified eight CINs, or key topics that the government believes should be covered."
I can just see some Soviet Zampolit saying: "Comrade! We have story ideas for you!"
And if that seems alarmist, consider that this administration has already admitted to spying on the American public and on journalists as well.
Consider as well that America has slipped to 46 on Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index. Seriously, Namibia ranks higher than we do.
What's more frightening to me is that there has been very little outcry among journalists, beyond the right-leaning new media.
Where is CNN flipping a biscuit over this? ABC? CBS? I leave out MSNBC and NBC News as they would probably welcome a Commissar to make sure they were not deviating from the approved message.
Leaving politics aside, I simply cannot fathom the media even 10 years ago laying down like this for _any_ administration.
After the initial furor over the reports that the Department of Justice was wiretapping the Associated Press, the story has died away. I cannot imagine any other president — of either party — surviving that sort of Constitutional infringement.
But the press has been strangely silent on this. I will not speculate as to why, although I could do so, but I will say the lack of reaction is at least as chilling as the suggestions.
A free press is as necessary to the security of a free state as the right to keep and bear arms. Without a free press the government is free to do as it wills, when it wills without regard to the legality of its actions.
Given that the natural tendency of government is to expand its power and to arrogate ever more authority unto itself, some check on its ability is required. The press was designed to be this.

We cannot function effectively — indeed at all — with government monitors watching our every move. The national media should be ashamed of their lack of outrage at this unprecedented intimidation by the FCC.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Russia and the waning Pax Americana

I've heard tons of theories over the last few weeks as to why Russia -- and specifically Russian President Vladimir Putin -- have invaded Crimea and Ukraine, but the comment that really sent me around the bend was that "no one could have seen this coming."
Really?
Because the open-source intelligence firm Stratfor saw this coming back in 09. Anyone with a brain actually saw this coming back about 1989 or 90 with the fall of the Soviet Union.
A little history. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire from about 1783 on. It was largely ignored in the 19th century but became important again in the early 20th and was a founding member of the USSR before gaining independence in the fall of the Soviet Union.
Ukraine hasn't really been a country of it's own for very long, while there have always been nationalist movements, Ukraine has been at the least a satrapy of one Russian Empire or another for over 200 years. And it is a strategic region. Particularly the Crimea. It was for centuries one of the breadbaskets of Europe, much of Russia's wheat still comes from Ukraine.
Moreover Crimea has Russia's only year-round port and is home to the Black Sea fleet. Ukraine also provides defensive depth for Russia. Moscow is a bare 350 miles from the Ukrainian border -- which sounds like a lot, but is not, particularly given the speed of modern warfare -- with no significant natural barriers to invasion. Which means an Army is not limited to roads. It was the defensive depth given to Russia by Ukraine which allowed them to contain, and eventually drive back Germany in World War II.
So seen from that perspective, the move was inevitable. Russia has never truly regarded Ukraine as independent and would, under the right set of circumstances, move to take it back.
Enter former KGB officer Vladimir Putin, a Russian Nationalist, dictator and all around bad guy, but much loved of his people. He's been moving to reconstruct not so much the USSR as the old Russian Empire (with himself as Tsar) since he took office after ousting the Amiable Alcoholic Boris Yeltsin. He's had to reconstruct an economy, which is still shaky, and a military which is shakier yet, but more powerful than anything else in the region. Russia is not a resurgent Superpower -- yet -- but it's certainly a Great Power again.
Now enter the last two presidents.
Russia snaffled off part of Georgia under George W. Bush, mostly because we were over extended and distracted in the Middle East and, frankly had little strategic interest in Georgia. Putin knew it, Bush knew it, and both knew that Bush was unlikely to ignore provocation in Ukraine. While we allowed Putin's little Georgian adventure, we also made moves to strengthen ties with Ukraine and some of the other former Soviet Republic, gave a little military aid, and promised a missile defense shield.
These moves were enough to let Putin know where the line was and that we would not allow it to be crossed.
Comes now Barack Obama. He's seen world-wide as weak, and waffling on foreign policy. He doesn't appear to be really interested in it. Neither of his Secretaries of State has been particularly strong and he's gone so far as to tell Putin's Puppet Dmitry Medvedev that "after the election I'll have more freedom."
Our military is exhausted, demoralized and being cut not to the bone but through it. In short we're projecting not strength but weakness.
Russians do not respect weakness. Putin goes around without a shirt on all the time for a reason. Yes it looks ridiculous to us, but not to Russians, who see him as strong, virile and a leader. Certainly it looks no more ridiculous than Obama in mom jeans riding a bicycle with a helmet on -- and that image is replayed repeatedly all over Russia.
What it comes down to is this: When you are the preeminent empire in the world (yes, yes we're more hegemony than empire, just go with me on this) you cannot EVER afford to look weak. The Pax Americana which followed the Pax Britannia has relied chiefly, as such Paxis do, on the strength of the nation enforcing it.
We are allowing that strength to wane and the peace we have enforced will go with it. Russia is capitalizing on that as other nations will as well.
We must either move to reestablish the Pax Americana or be prepared for what will follow World War III.

Friday, March 15, 2013

The case for capitalism

Today class we're going to we’ll examine why greed is good, otherwise known as enlightened self interest.
Liberals often complain those evil Rich Folks have too much money, and worse they’re hoarding it.
Liberals often tend to make this mistake.
First in defining Rich Folks. To my mind a guy who makes say $250,000 a year is not rich. And I say this as a guy who makes FAR less than that. But the current administration has set this as the threshold at which point it is OK to raise taxes. Leaving aside the wisdom or lack thereof in raising taxes in a recession, let’s try to define “rich.”
Someone with say, $1 million in assets could possibly be defined as rich, and many would do so. Those people, of course, would not live in a rural community. Most farmers have far in excess of $1 million in assets. Of course they tend to have a lot of debt to go with that. Most small business owners also have in excess of $1 million in assets. Again, they often have the almost crushing debt load that goes with it. So for the sake of argument, let’s define “rich” as someone with little to no debt, at least $5 million in assets and an annual income in excess of $1 million.
Now he may have inherited this wealth, but in this country he most likely worked very hard for it. This person will likely be in early to late middle age, worked his entire life invested wisely probably owns a business, employs anywhere from 10 to 100 people and pays them a good wage as well.
Often enough this guy started out broke.
Now to a liberal, this poor schmuck, (who, by the way, is already paying something like 40 percent of the tax burden) is a cow to be milked. He’s evil, he has too much money.
He probably is holding on to his money right now because he’s scared. Why is he scared? Well the president keeps saying he’s going to raise Rich Guy’s taxes. He’s also looking at all the new regulations coming down the pike from health care “reform” and the banking “reform” and the Wall Street “reform.” New EPA regulations, Homeland Security regulations, FCC regulations, FTC regulations and probably new regulations from the Regulatory Commission on Regulations.
He doesn’t quite know what all this means, but he does know it’s liable to cost him money -- so he’s sitting on his. He’s not hiring, because minimum wage keeps going up so he doesn’t know what he’s going to have to pay or what the new regulations are going to cost him. He’d like to keep his people employed so he’s got to save money to be ready for it.
Now the liberal answer to this is to tax the nuts off this poor guy and then give the money out to whomever strikes their fancy. This is known as “redistributing the wealth,” and the rest of us call “equalizing misery.”
Now all this brings us back to our fledgling conservative who has been brought up to think everyone has a right to health care, a house, food, clothing and a 64-foot flat screen TV in every room.
Since everyone has a right to these things it’s obviously the job of the government to provide them and since the money has to come from somewhere, (until such time as we reach that great worker’s paradise and everything’s free, ‘cause you know that’s worked out so well everywhere else it’s been tried -- not,) obviously the solution is to soak the rich.
Our young darksider has been nibbling the cookies and is starting to realize this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. He (or she, I must not be sexist) has come to realize that perhaps we don’t have a right to those things. We have these rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the rights further enshrined in the Constitution make those things possible.
But we don’t have any guarantees. Capitalism is inherently risky, liberals at their core are afraid of their own shadows, they have no self confidence and are highly risk averse.
In a capitalist society you have the opportunity to become the Rich Guy and possibly have your dangley bits taxed off -- but no guarantees.
Our new conservative is also realizing that contrary to what he (or she) has been taught, businesses do not exist in order to provide their employees with jobs. Businesses exist to make money, in the process of that they provide jobs, which provide more jobs which provide more jobs and so on.
In point of fact, it’s impossible to make money or spend money without creating more wealth for other people as well.
Anytime you do either of those functions someone is going to benefit from it. Only in the case of government can you spend money without creating wealth. In that particular case the government has had to take wealth from someone else, without giving them anything of value in return, in order to give it to a third person.
And this is where liberals tend to get confused. They see wealth as a finite resource so that one person cannot become wealthy without forcing someone else to be poor.
This is not true. Wealth creates more of the same.
This brings us back to enlightened self interest, or greed is good.
If I earn more money, I spend more money, which means the person I paid has more money, which means they spend more money and so on and so on.
The best thing we can do for this economy and to help the poor is to give Rich Guy his dangley bits back, remove the uncertainty that keeps him from investing and hiring. Ease burdensome regulations and make it OK for him to look out for number one.
Do that and the economy will get running again, more people will move into the middle class, more people in the middle class will move up and the cycle will repeat -- and maybe I can get that big screen I’ve been wanting.