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.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Michelle, stay out of my kitchen will you?
I've been watching, off and on, First Lady Michelle Obama's "war" on obesity. We've been told to cut salt out of our diets. That the government needs to mandate lower sodium in our food, no more sugary snacks at school, on and on.
All of this costs more, of course, and moreover most of it causes our food to, well, taste bad.
Much of it isn't really scientifically supported anyway. I've become convinced the food nazis who are out to tell us all what we can and can't eat really just don't want any one to enjoy themselves
Let's start with the salt issue. Yes too much salt is bad for you.
But what the food Nazis don't seem to get that you need salt to live.
Roman soldiers were paid in salt. To say someone is "worth his salt" is to say he's a good man who works hard. Loyalty even used to equate to salt. To say that "you ate someone's salt" meant you owed them loyalty because they had given you what you needed to live from their own hand.
The ones handing down these sodium standards also seem to forget that the amount of salt each person needs varies. There are people with medical conditions who require huge amounts of sodium to live.
Then there's the fat issue. Yeah I get that too much fat is bad for your heart. But once again, there are essential acids and nutrients we need in fat.
Oh, and then there's the mercury issue with fish, and you have the raw food diet people, and the... well I could go on and on but why bother.
Look, with all due respect to the First Lady, but can all you food Nazis please just butt out?
If I want my kids to drink water instead of a Coke, I'll make that call, OK?
You're the same people who've told me first to use margarine, then not to use it. That butter was bad and then butter was OK. That eggs were evil, but then eggs were good for you. Not to eat red meat (mmmm steak) and then that it was good for me.
I tell you what, how about I eat what I like?
It all comes down to people with too much time on their hands deciding they need to "save the children" or everybody else or just like telling other people what to do.
We used to have a word for someone who insisted on having their nose in everybody else's business — we called them "busybodies" and told them to bloody well butt out and go away.
Now? We make bureaucrats out of them and put them in charge of things like Health and Human Services. To my mind these are miserable human beings who just want to make everyone around them as miserable as they are.
It all comes down to freedom, really, the freedom to chose. Haven't we been told "choice" is important?
The freedom to decide what you want to put in your body seems to be about as personal and important as it gets.
Once the bureaucrats can tell you what you can and can't eat, is there anything left they can't control?
Look, we have allowed too many essential freedoms to be taken away in the name of "protecting people." The one thing I know for sure, however, is you can't really protect people from themselves. My doctor has told me a couple of times I'm supposed to lay off acidic foods like milk and tomatoes and spicy food as well. One problem, those are some of my favorite foods. Are they bad for me? Well not in the sense of, "going to give me heart disease or a stroke," but yeah, they generally give me a belly ache that sends me hunting for the Tums. So be it, my choice.
Others may ingest more salt than is good for them, or find it impossible to lay off the fatty foods or cookies.
We all have that right.
You want to make yourself miserable by refusing to eat anything that tastes good? Go for it, just stay out of my kitchen will you?
All IMHO, of course.
All of this costs more, of course, and moreover most of it causes our food to, well, taste bad.
Much of it isn't really scientifically supported anyway. I've become convinced the food nazis who are out to tell us all what we can and can't eat really just don't want any one to enjoy themselves
Let's start with the salt issue. Yes too much salt is bad for you.
But what the food Nazis don't seem to get that you need salt to live.
Roman soldiers were paid in salt. To say someone is "worth his salt" is to say he's a good man who works hard. Loyalty even used to equate to salt. To say that "you ate someone's salt" meant you owed them loyalty because they had given you what you needed to live from their own hand.
The ones handing down these sodium standards also seem to forget that the amount of salt each person needs varies. There are people with medical conditions who require huge amounts of sodium to live.
Then there's the fat issue. Yeah I get that too much fat is bad for your heart. But once again, there are essential acids and nutrients we need in fat.
Oh, and then there's the mercury issue with fish, and you have the raw food diet people, and the... well I could go on and on but why bother.
Look, with all due respect to the First Lady, but can all you food Nazis please just butt out?
If I want my kids to drink water instead of a Coke, I'll make that call, OK?
You're the same people who've told me first to use margarine, then not to use it. That butter was bad and then butter was OK. That eggs were evil, but then eggs were good for you. Not to eat red meat (mmmm steak) and then that it was good for me.
I tell you what, how about I eat what I like?
It all comes down to people with too much time on their hands deciding they need to "save the children" or everybody else or just like telling other people what to do.
We used to have a word for someone who insisted on having their nose in everybody else's business — we called them "busybodies" and told them to bloody well butt out and go away.
Now? We make bureaucrats out of them and put them in charge of things like Health and Human Services. To my mind these are miserable human beings who just want to make everyone around them as miserable as they are.
It all comes down to freedom, really, the freedom to chose. Haven't we been told "choice" is important?
The freedom to decide what you want to put in your body seems to be about as personal and important as it gets.
Once the bureaucrats can tell you what you can and can't eat, is there anything left they can't control?
Look, we have allowed too many essential freedoms to be taken away in the name of "protecting people." The one thing I know for sure, however, is you can't really protect people from themselves. My doctor has told me a couple of times I'm supposed to lay off acidic foods like milk and tomatoes and spicy food as well. One problem, those are some of my favorite foods. Are they bad for me? Well not in the sense of, "going to give me heart disease or a stroke," but yeah, they generally give me a belly ache that sends me hunting for the Tums. So be it, my choice.
Others may ingest more salt than is good for them, or find it impossible to lay off the fatty foods or cookies.
We all have that right.
You want to make yourself miserable by refusing to eat anything that tastes good? Go for it, just stay out of my kitchen will you?
All IMHO, of course.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Gotta love them trolls
I recently, well if you define recently as "for months now", have had the dubious pleasure of dealing with a particularly nasty phenomenon known as the "Internet Troll."
On a Web site I post on regularly there is a gentleman, using the term loosely, who is a bit of a monomaniac on the subject of man-caused global warming.
This guy loves to bleat on, post after post, about how the Earth is getting hotter and it's all our fault. Like most trolls (as an aside, they're called trolls for a couple of reasons, one they're "trolling" for a response by posting outlandish things, and two, they're usually just plain rude) he loves to denigrate other posters, hijack conversations and otherwise just make a nuisance out of himself.
After months of arguments, and this individual's refusal to actually answer questions or address criticisms, I decided to give him, and the others like him, an opportunity to state their case.
So I left a post saying, that since I'm willing to debate anything, let's accept for the sake of argument that the Earth is getting hotter and it is man's fault. So then what precisely do the global warming believers propose we do about it?
The crickets are still chirping.
The only 20 responses (usually a thread like this will generate many more) have been from people like me who think man-caused global warming is utter nonsense.
All of which didn't really surprise me.
You see, it's been my experience that the global warming types don't really have any useful suggestions. What they're really after is to curtail the freedoms of other people.
It's been noted that most greens are really watermelons — green on the outside and red in the middle.
It's an accurate assessment. If you take a close look at the supposed "fixes" for global warming, climate change, climate disruption, whatever the name du jour they almost always involve using the bludgeon of government power to force people into desired behaviors.
This is an ideology driven more by what they don't want than what they do. They don't want cars, or power plants or roads, or well, much of anything which makes modern life possible and bearable, except of course for themselves.
And here's the key. Every proposal I've seen put forth means giving more power to government and thereby giving bureaucrats more and more power over our lives.
I wrote else where recently, about our slide into tyranny, this is one of the ways it happens, a little at a time, so that you don't notice, until you wake up one day to find you're a serf, and you've allowed it to happen to yourself.
All IMHO, of course.
On a Web site I post on regularly there is a gentleman, using the term loosely, who is a bit of a monomaniac on the subject of man-caused global warming.
This guy loves to bleat on, post after post, about how the Earth is getting hotter and it's all our fault. Like most trolls (as an aside, they're called trolls for a couple of reasons, one they're "trolling" for a response by posting outlandish things, and two, they're usually just plain rude) he loves to denigrate other posters, hijack conversations and otherwise just make a nuisance out of himself.
After months of arguments, and this individual's refusal to actually answer questions or address criticisms, I decided to give him, and the others like him, an opportunity to state their case.
So I left a post saying, that since I'm willing to debate anything, let's accept for the sake of argument that the Earth is getting hotter and it is man's fault. So then what precisely do the global warming believers propose we do about it?
The crickets are still chirping.
The only 20 responses (usually a thread like this will generate many more) have been from people like me who think man-caused global warming is utter nonsense.
All of which didn't really surprise me.
You see, it's been my experience that the global warming types don't really have any useful suggestions. What they're really after is to curtail the freedoms of other people.
It's been noted that most greens are really watermelons — green on the outside and red in the middle.
It's an accurate assessment. If you take a close look at the supposed "fixes" for global warming, climate change, climate disruption, whatever the name du jour they almost always involve using the bludgeon of government power to force people into desired behaviors.
This is an ideology driven more by what they don't want than what they do. They don't want cars, or power plants or roads, or well, much of anything which makes modern life possible and bearable, except of course for themselves.
And here's the key. Every proposal I've seen put forth means giving more power to government and thereby giving bureaucrats more and more power over our lives.
I wrote else where recently, about our slide into tyranny, this is one of the ways it happens, a little at a time, so that you don't notice, until you wake up one day to find you're a serf, and you've allowed it to happen to yourself.
All IMHO, of course.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Instead of gun control can we have idiot control?
A couple of months back a story broke that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had been allowing so-called "straw buyers" to purchase weapons in Arizona which they then resold across the Mexican border into the hands of the drug cartels. The theory was they'd track the guns up the chain and catch the big fish.
This, of course, didn't happen. All they caught were minnows, two American law enforcement agents got killed and more than 150 Mexican citizens were murdered with weapons which have since been identified as belonging to the group of more than 2,500 firearms the feds allowed to walk.
This has since been used to try to justify a new "Assault Weapons Ban" — which may have been the point all along — although I'm reluctant to attribute to malice that which can as easily be explained by incompetence.
What's sad is any event like this is always used as an excuse for more gun control, when what's really needed is idiot control.
The so-called assault weapons ban enacted in 1994 was particularly dumb.
A little background is perhaps in order. In 1994, in the name of making us all safer, Congress enacted legislation to ban so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The law they passed actually did neither.
An assault rifle is a military weapon. It is usually what is called an intermediate caliber, meaning the cartridge is in between a pistol and a full-powered rifle cartridge like .30-06. Assault rifles are also selective fire — they can be fired either semi-automatically or on full-auto.
These were actually already fairly difficult to obtain in the U.S., requiring a special license to own. What Congress did is make up a list of purely cosmetic features they thought looked scary and say if a rifle had two or more of them it was banned.
Manufacturers promptly removed such things as pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs and went back to selling the same rifles the next day. The features the Congress critters didn't like had nothing to with function. Moreover semi-auto and bolt action hunting rifles were, and remain far more powerful than military-style rifles firing the same rounds the military uses.
For instance, the AR-15 which is the civilian version of the M-16, and fires what is basically a .223 varmint hunting cartridge, has a maximum effective range of about 500 yards. The maximum effective range for the .30-06 cartridge, which is common for deer hunting, is twice that.
The only thing the "assault weapons ban" did, was drive up the price of military-style rifles and make gun shop owners a pretty penny. Same thing with the magazine ban. That simply banned the manufacture or importation of ammunition magazine which held more than 10 rounds. That there were huge stocks of "pre-ban" magazines already in stock didn't seem to matter. The unintended consequence of the magazine ban was that manufactures created a new class of smaller pistols which fired higher-powered ammunition than the pistols which had the high-capacity magazines.
Moreover, the price on "pre-ban" magazines went up and gun shop owners made a pretty penny.
So basically, in the name of getting rid of a class of "ugly" weapons all the ban did was help small business, and inconvenience law abiding gun owners — and that's the rub. What the gun banners never seem to get is new laws do not inconvenience criminals, just law abiding citizens.
The logic would seem to be inescapable — criminals do not, by definition, care about the law. Therefore, logically, restrictive laws — of whatever kind — are no deterrent to crooks, only to those already inclined to obey the law.
Logically, then, wouldn't it make more sense to increase penalties for using a firearm in a crime, while reducing restrictions on those who are using them legally?
You would then have a double benefit. Those who commit a crime are removed from society, and the law abiding have more freedom. Isn't more freedom always a thing to be desired?
All IMHO, of course.
This, of course, didn't happen. All they caught were minnows, two American law enforcement agents got killed and more than 150 Mexican citizens were murdered with weapons which have since been identified as belonging to the group of more than 2,500 firearms the feds allowed to walk.
This has since been used to try to justify a new "Assault Weapons Ban" — which may have been the point all along — although I'm reluctant to attribute to malice that which can as easily be explained by incompetence.
What's sad is any event like this is always used as an excuse for more gun control, when what's really needed is idiot control.
The so-called assault weapons ban enacted in 1994 was particularly dumb.
A little background is perhaps in order. In 1994, in the name of making us all safer, Congress enacted legislation to ban so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The law they passed actually did neither.
An assault rifle is a military weapon. It is usually what is called an intermediate caliber, meaning the cartridge is in between a pistol and a full-powered rifle cartridge like .30-06. Assault rifles are also selective fire — they can be fired either semi-automatically or on full-auto.
These were actually already fairly difficult to obtain in the U.S., requiring a special license to own. What Congress did is make up a list of purely cosmetic features they thought looked scary and say if a rifle had two or more of them it was banned.
Manufacturers promptly removed such things as pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs and went back to selling the same rifles the next day. The features the Congress critters didn't like had nothing to with function. Moreover semi-auto and bolt action hunting rifles were, and remain far more powerful than military-style rifles firing the same rounds the military uses.
For instance, the AR-15 which is the civilian version of the M-16, and fires what is basically a .223 varmint hunting cartridge, has a maximum effective range of about 500 yards. The maximum effective range for the .30-06 cartridge, which is common for deer hunting, is twice that.
The only thing the "assault weapons ban" did, was drive up the price of military-style rifles and make gun shop owners a pretty penny. Same thing with the magazine ban. That simply banned the manufacture or importation of ammunition magazine which held more than 10 rounds. That there were huge stocks of "pre-ban" magazines already in stock didn't seem to matter. The unintended consequence of the magazine ban was that manufactures created a new class of smaller pistols which fired higher-powered ammunition than the pistols which had the high-capacity magazines.
Moreover, the price on "pre-ban" magazines went up and gun shop owners made a pretty penny.
So basically, in the name of getting rid of a class of "ugly" weapons all the ban did was help small business, and inconvenience law abiding gun owners — and that's the rub. What the gun banners never seem to get is new laws do not inconvenience criminals, just law abiding citizens.
The logic would seem to be inescapable — criminals do not, by definition, care about the law. Therefore, logically, restrictive laws — of whatever kind — are no deterrent to crooks, only to those already inclined to obey the law.
Logically, then, wouldn't it make more sense to increase penalties for using a firearm in a crime, while reducing restrictions on those who are using them legally?
You would then have a double benefit. Those who commit a crime are removed from society, and the law abiding have more freedom. Isn't more freedom always a thing to be desired?
All IMHO, of course.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Too bad they'll never let us do it
An old friend and colleague of mine Charlie Martin recently wrote one of his patented uber-science geek pieces about a new (well really a highly refined old) process called Gas To Liquid.
Seems Shell Oil has refined the coal-to-liquid process that dates back to World War II to be able to create diesel, kerosene (jet fuel) or gasoline from natural gas.
Without getting into the highly technical specifics, which I frankly don't completely understand anyway, this is huge for a number of reason.
First and foremost because as clean burning as natural gas is, it has a number of disadvantages which mostly have to do with shipping. To move natural gas you first have to turn it into a liquid. To do that you have to either put it under high pressure or make it very cold. Both are dangerous and difficult to transport, meaning that for the most part, it isn't shipped overseas. If a pipeline infrastructure isn't in place to move it, in most countries it's simply "flared off" — burned at the refineries as a waste gas.
This new process means it can easily be converted into a liquid which can be shipped where ever it's needed.
The best part is the price. Charlie tells me that so long as oil is over $20 a barrel this process is economically feasible. Since oil is currently hovering around $100 we're talking about a significant savings.
The problem of course, is actually political, not scientific.
The fuel produced by this process is actually cleaner burning than that which is produced from crude oil as natural gas (methane) has very little in the way of impurities. However, to the environmental movement, the goal is not low emissions, it's no emissions.
That this process could save millions, make countries which have hitherto depended on supplies of oil being shipped across oceans energy independent and help to reduce oil spills is irrelevant.
That there is far more natural gas in the world than oil is likewise irrelevant.
It's still burning something.
The environmental movement is so invested in this wind/solar fantasy that nothing else is considered an option.
The problem there is neither wind nor solar is technically or economically viable. The electricity to power the electric cars they so prize has to come from somewhere (and let us not even get into the pollution created in the production of lithium-ion or lead-acid batteries or the attendant recycling difficulties) but wind and solar simply will not work.
This new process could quickly free us from dependence on people who do not like us for our energy. Unfortunately it is more than a little unlikely Shell will ever be allowed to build one of those plants in the U.S. Those who worship at the altar of the Church of Global Warming and its prophet Al Gore cannot admit they are wrong or that anything but wind and solar are an answer. To do so would be to violate one of the basic commandments of their faith "Thou Shalt Not Allow Others to Burn Dead Dinosaurs (but it's OK if you do it since you're spreading the faith and that's what's important)."
I say it's unlikely, but that's not entirely true. I think people are getting tired of the environmental movement and their constant barrage of "no" to drilling, building, refining, mining and every other "ing" which would bring energy prices down. There's going to come a point, and I think fairly soon, when environmental activists are liable to get tarred, feathered and run out of town on a chuck of oil pipe and we'll finally get back down to the business of building this nation.
All IMHO, of course.
Seems Shell Oil has refined the coal-to-liquid process that dates back to World War II to be able to create diesel, kerosene (jet fuel) or gasoline from natural gas.
Without getting into the highly technical specifics, which I frankly don't completely understand anyway, this is huge for a number of reason.
First and foremost because as clean burning as natural gas is, it has a number of disadvantages which mostly have to do with shipping. To move natural gas you first have to turn it into a liquid. To do that you have to either put it under high pressure or make it very cold. Both are dangerous and difficult to transport, meaning that for the most part, it isn't shipped overseas. If a pipeline infrastructure isn't in place to move it, in most countries it's simply "flared off" — burned at the refineries as a waste gas.
This new process means it can easily be converted into a liquid which can be shipped where ever it's needed.
The best part is the price. Charlie tells me that so long as oil is over $20 a barrel this process is economically feasible. Since oil is currently hovering around $100 we're talking about a significant savings.
The problem of course, is actually political, not scientific.
The fuel produced by this process is actually cleaner burning than that which is produced from crude oil as natural gas (methane) has very little in the way of impurities. However, to the environmental movement, the goal is not low emissions, it's no emissions.
That this process could save millions, make countries which have hitherto depended on supplies of oil being shipped across oceans energy independent and help to reduce oil spills is irrelevant.
That there is far more natural gas in the world than oil is likewise irrelevant.
It's still burning something.
The environmental movement is so invested in this wind/solar fantasy that nothing else is considered an option.
The problem there is neither wind nor solar is technically or economically viable. The electricity to power the electric cars they so prize has to come from somewhere (and let us not even get into the pollution created in the production of lithium-ion or lead-acid batteries or the attendant recycling difficulties) but wind and solar simply will not work.
This new process could quickly free us from dependence on people who do not like us for our energy. Unfortunately it is more than a little unlikely Shell will ever be allowed to build one of those plants in the U.S. Those who worship at the altar of the Church of Global Warming and its prophet Al Gore cannot admit they are wrong or that anything but wind and solar are an answer. To do so would be to violate one of the basic commandments of their faith "Thou Shalt Not Allow Others to Burn Dead Dinosaurs (but it's OK if you do it since you're spreading the faith and that's what's important)."
I say it's unlikely, but that's not entirely true. I think people are getting tired of the environmental movement and their constant barrage of "no" to drilling, building, refining, mining and every other "ing" which would bring energy prices down. There's going to come a point, and I think fairly soon, when environmental activists are liable to get tarred, feathered and run out of town on a chuck of oil pipe and we'll finally get back down to the business of building this nation.
All IMHO, of course.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
In Memoriam
As I write this it is Memorial Day 2011. It has so far been a year of triumphs and tragedies and both need to be remembered this day.
We've seen our service men finally bring Osama bin Laden to justice — but we've also seen the tragedies of the tornadoes which ripped across the south killing more than 300 and the EF-5 tornado which blasted a 14 mile swath of destruction across Joplin, killing more than 140 people and injuring at least 1,000.
On this day of remembrance let us remember the heroes of that day just over a week ago, as well as the victims. Let us take a little bit out of our day of grilling and swimming to remember the lost.
Let us remember those lives which were snuffed out too early in a few minutes of terror on that warm spring night in Joplin, Missouri.
Let us also remember the lives which have been spent over the years so that this great nation can remain free.
We always hear "freedom is not free," this is true, but we rarely think of the bill. As our military has become all volunteer and more and more professional it has also become more divorced from everyday life. We rarely think of the men and women who have given up years of their lives in order to protect us, those "rough men" who as George Orwell said "stand ready to do violence so we may sleep soundly."
We have spent blood and treasure many times over the years in order to defend not just this nation but freedom itself. It is a terrible price but one which must be paid.
In Joplin, the blood does not defend freedom but it is just as sacred as the blood of patriots who water the tree of liberty.
The dead in Joplin and the patriots who even as I write this labor to rebuild represent the best of America. The stories of Joplin are incredible. It is impossible, even with all the media who are in the area to tell all of them. I was there within a half hour or so of the tornado and already people had chainsaws and front-end loaders out trying to clear the streets. The entire Four States and indeed the entire nation responded. Some of those same patriots who were preparing to put their lives on the line in Afghanistan found themselves in Joplin risking their lives to find the missing.
Memorial Day should be a day, not to grill out or go to the lake — but a day to remember those who have gone before, not just in the service but all those we have lost.
Let us grieve for them, but only for a season, secure in the knowledge we will see them again.
I leave you with the words of Rudyard Kipling's "The Widower." He said so much so well and far better than I ever could.
For a season there must be pain
For a little, little space
I shall lose 'the sight of her face,
Take back the old life again
While She is at rest in her place.
For a season this pain must endure,
For a little, little while
I shall sigh more often than smile
Till Time shall work me a cure,
And the pitiful days beguile.
For that season we must be apart,
For a little length of years,
Till my life's last hour nears,
And, above the beat of my heart,
I hear Her voice in my ears.
But I shall not understand -
Being set on some later love,
Shall not know her for whom I strove,
Till she reach me forth her hand,
Saying, 'Who but I have the right?' .
And out of a troubled night
Shall draw me safe to the land.
We've seen our service men finally bring Osama bin Laden to justice — but we've also seen the tragedies of the tornadoes which ripped across the south killing more than 300 and the EF-5 tornado which blasted a 14 mile swath of destruction across Joplin, killing more than 140 people and injuring at least 1,000.
On this day of remembrance let us remember the heroes of that day just over a week ago, as well as the victims. Let us take a little bit out of our day of grilling and swimming to remember the lost.
Let us remember those lives which were snuffed out too early in a few minutes of terror on that warm spring night in Joplin, Missouri.
Let us also remember the lives which have been spent over the years so that this great nation can remain free.
We always hear "freedom is not free," this is true, but we rarely think of the bill. As our military has become all volunteer and more and more professional it has also become more divorced from everyday life. We rarely think of the men and women who have given up years of their lives in order to protect us, those "rough men" who as George Orwell said "stand ready to do violence so we may sleep soundly."
We have spent blood and treasure many times over the years in order to defend not just this nation but freedom itself. It is a terrible price but one which must be paid.
In Joplin, the blood does not defend freedom but it is just as sacred as the blood of patriots who water the tree of liberty.
The dead in Joplin and the patriots who even as I write this labor to rebuild represent the best of America. The stories of Joplin are incredible. It is impossible, even with all the media who are in the area to tell all of them. I was there within a half hour or so of the tornado and already people had chainsaws and front-end loaders out trying to clear the streets. The entire Four States and indeed the entire nation responded. Some of those same patriots who were preparing to put their lives on the line in Afghanistan found themselves in Joplin risking their lives to find the missing.
Memorial Day should be a day, not to grill out or go to the lake — but a day to remember those who have gone before, not just in the service but all those we have lost.
Let us grieve for them, but only for a season, secure in the knowledge we will see them again.
I leave you with the words of Rudyard Kipling's "The Widower." He said so much so well and far better than I ever could.
For a season there must be pain
For a little, little space
I shall lose 'the sight of her face,
Take back the old life again
While She is at rest in her place.
For a season this pain must endure,
For a little, little while
I shall sigh more often than smile
Till Time shall work me a cure,
And the pitiful days beguile.
For that season we must be apart,
For a little length of years,
Till my life's last hour nears,
And, above the beat of my heart,
I hear Her voice in my ears.
But I shall not understand -
Being set on some later love,
Shall not know her for whom I strove,
Till she reach me forth her hand,
Saying, 'Who but I have the right?' .
And out of a troubled night
Shall draw me safe to the land.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Tornado brings out the best in people
I have, over the years, covered a couple of tornadoes and their aftermath. What I saw last Sunday in Joplin was worse than anything I'd seen to that point.
I saw firefighters, shaking with frustration as they watched a house burn, rolling up the hoses they couldn't use because there was no water pressure.
I saw people wandering through the streets, with a dazed expression on their face, looking for missing loved ones. Others simply sitting in stunned disbelief at the devastation of what was once a thriving, growing community.
I also saw amazing things.
The employees of a Walgreens pharmacy at 20th and Main simply walked out of their shattered store with armloads of medical supplies and blankets and started treating the wounded who were wandering up. Soon enough the parking lot of that store was a makeshift triage center.
I saw people walk up and simply ask, "What can I do to help."
I only got a small snippet of what was going on in Joplin that frightening evening. I know there are at least 90 dead — a number likely to rise — and hundreds, if not thousands, wounded.
What I did see was something that always makes be proud to be from this part of the country.
No one was sitting around waiting for someone to come help them. No, they dug themselves out of the rubble, shrugged, got their sense of humor in place and then went looking for someone to help.
No one knows what the next weeks and months will bring. There are many businesses and their attendant jobs which are simply gone.
If past experience brings any insight, it is that Joplin's population will likely shrink some as people look elsewhere for housing and jobs. But I also know Joplin will bounce back, as other communities have done.
I know there has been some looting in the aftermath of the storm, there always is. Disasters like this always bring out the worst in some people. However, it also brings out the best in far more.
Already there have been many selfless acts in Joplin. People who are opening their homes to those who have lost everything. Businesses donating food or shelter to those who are on the streets.
The road back for Joplin will not be an easy one. I worked in Parsons in the aftermath of the EF-4 which hit there about 10 years ago. It took the best part of a decade for Parsons to return to what it once was. I imagine that will likely be the case here as well.
I know the people of Joplin are as tough and resilient as they come and the vibrant community that was Joplin will return as well.
In the meantime, Kansans, who are no strangers to this kind of devastation, will be here to help with our hands, our hearts and yes, our prayers.
All IMHO, of course.
I saw firefighters, shaking with frustration as they watched a house burn, rolling up the hoses they couldn't use because there was no water pressure.
I saw people wandering through the streets, with a dazed expression on their face, looking for missing loved ones. Others simply sitting in stunned disbelief at the devastation of what was once a thriving, growing community.
I also saw amazing things.
The employees of a Walgreens pharmacy at 20th and Main simply walked out of their shattered store with armloads of medical supplies and blankets and started treating the wounded who were wandering up. Soon enough the parking lot of that store was a makeshift triage center.
I saw people walk up and simply ask, "What can I do to help."
I only got a small snippet of what was going on in Joplin that frightening evening. I know there are at least 90 dead — a number likely to rise — and hundreds, if not thousands, wounded.
What I did see was something that always makes be proud to be from this part of the country.
No one was sitting around waiting for someone to come help them. No, they dug themselves out of the rubble, shrugged, got their sense of humor in place and then went looking for someone to help.
No one knows what the next weeks and months will bring. There are many businesses and their attendant jobs which are simply gone.
If past experience brings any insight, it is that Joplin's population will likely shrink some as people look elsewhere for housing and jobs. But I also know Joplin will bounce back, as other communities have done.
I know there has been some looting in the aftermath of the storm, there always is. Disasters like this always bring out the worst in some people. However, it also brings out the best in far more.
Already there have been many selfless acts in Joplin. People who are opening their homes to those who have lost everything. Businesses donating food or shelter to those who are on the streets.
The road back for Joplin will not be an easy one. I worked in Parsons in the aftermath of the EF-4 which hit there about 10 years ago. It took the best part of a decade for Parsons to return to what it once was. I imagine that will likely be the case here as well.
I know the people of Joplin are as tough and resilient as they come and the vibrant community that was Joplin will return as well.
In the meantime, Kansans, who are no strangers to this kind of devastation, will be here to help with our hands, our hearts and yes, our prayers.
All IMHO, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)