All the Difference

Hmm, no takers on that last post. I've either offended you (and it had to happen sometime) or, I was preaching to the choir.

I've been considering Robert Frost as of late, and perhaps his most famous poem, "The Road Not Taken." However, instead of personalizing it, I am looking at it from the perspective of our country, good ole' US of A.

At this point, our country is at a fork in the road, and there is a huge impetus to drive it left, while the majority are comfortable staying to the right.

For the past nary 200 years, we molded "progressive" ideology into the nation and more or less, have benefited from that. By more or less, I mean we've established national parks, liberated slaves, gave voting rights to women, civil rights to all, and so on and so forth. Progressive does not mean the modern day liberal we see around us. Yes, that is their new moniker, but back in the day, it meant for the betterment of society. I think we can all agree the above mentioned changes were for the better, and interestingly, it was the Republicans who gave us 3 of those 4.

Looking at another "progressive" standpoint -- the newer version -- we have a myriad of social programs that meant well, but are on the brink of failure. But, before we get into that, we need to look at a bigger picture.

I've spoken about it before, but the Democrats mean well. Or at least I hope they do. They want to help as many people as possible with as many government sponsored projects. That's why we have Social Security, MediCare & MediCaid, Welfare and so on and so forth. In a way, it is good to have these crutches to fall back on in the time of need, just as is unemployment insurance which is something that we pay into every month and then receive when the going gets rough.

The problem is that as Roosevelt set up Social Security, it was supposed to be a retirement plan for everyone that paid into it. On your checks, this is known as FICA, or Federal Insurance Contributions Act passed during the Great Depression. I've said before, and I'll say it again, it is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. A Ponzi Scheme is when you take peoples money, say you'll invest it into stocks, bonds, whatever, and then you use the money for your own hedonistic purposes. When it comes time to pay the piper, you just take other potential investors' monies, and divvy them out. Bernie Madoff had a scheme of nearly $50 billion, but this is peanuts comparatively speaking. Coincidentally, insomuch as Roosevelt started Social Security, he was also the first politician to rob its coffers: $90 million to fund the Manhattan Project. (Some analyst believe Social Security is up to $100 trillion in the red after all governement IOUs are talibrated, but all agree that it is at least several trillion behind.) From their own report, in 2016, the FICA tax will be insufficient to meet recipients. Read this article for a better idea on the matter.

This can be fixed, but not easily. You can raise the age for retirement, make some people grumpy but stave off the inevitable topple. You could raise the taxable amount able to be 'donated' to FICA, currently $108,600 is the maximum the feds can take out -- meaning, there is a cap and eventually the tax does end. Or, just raise the FICA tax altogether. Or, go soylent green. Less people taking out benefits makes it easier. Wow, nice segue into the next social program.

Health care! Honestly, if you have government run health care, people die quicker. I thought this was an ironic thing the other day, but apparently Medicare denies more claims than all the private industries, percentage wise. I've heard arguments about how insurance companies don't offer good rates to the elderly. Well yeah, when the government is giving away insurance coverage, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield wants $300 a month, which would you choose? But, I've already discussed this topic, and as noted in my previous post, MediCare and MediCaid are going down in flames, financially speaking, and they want all of us to join in on that ride. They probably will pass some legislation, whether it be the Baucus bill or some aspect of it, something will be passed just to stroke the ego of The One. (P.S. Don't believe the price tag of this bill, they calculated it from 2010 - 2019, when the actual full coverage doesn't begin until 2015.)

Welfare benefits started with LBJ and his "Great Society" and subsequent "War on Poverty" back in the mid-sixties. Sounds nice, but how about a study from the Heritage Foundation which recently calculated that since Welfare's inception, we've doled out $15.9 trillion dollars in "benefits," which is more than double all of our wars and conflicts combined in price, and adjusted for inflation. And yet, the poor are still among us. You could say we are still at war with poverty, and from the looks of it, reinforcements are headed their way. Does this mean I am against helping the poor? No, I've been there. I lived in a tent for 3 months in a field with cows. I kid you not.

All these programs are/were a step towards a liberal utopia, where everyone has equality. Obviously, with the legislation on the docket these days, we're pushing once again for that utopia. The problem is that they are pushing it. Compelling citizens to accept this dream world fantasy will never work, because it conflicts with our current utopia, i.e., the way of life we've come to accept.

I read an interesting blurb about Arnold Schwartzneggar the other day. I've always been a fan of his -- even wrote a fan letter once (he didn't reply). We also starred in the same movie together, Kindergarten Cop, though I am a mushy background extra.

Anyway, a few days after arriving here from Austria (a German speaking country...), he was watching a debate on television between Nixon and Humphrey. His friend spoke German and English, translated the exchanges for him. As he related the story, he said that Humphrey was repeating socialistic rhetoric, and Arnold having left Eastern Europe, wanted nothing to do with it. Then he heard Nixon talk about free enterprise, lower taxes, and so forth. He asked his friend what party Nixon was, to which he replied, "Republican," and then Arnold stated, "Then I am a republican."

Not to say Republicans are perfect, nor, for that matter, Arnold, but the world has already seen the lackluster performance of socialized countries, and the devastation of communistic ones. These are not utopias, yet it is clear that this is the path 'the Left' is taking us. This is evident with the supposed health care reform, the cap-n-trade law, immigration reform (amnesty for illegals), the Respect for Marriage Act which will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and probably a litany of others that escape me after mid-night.

So here we are, at cross-roads, one leading down a path that Frost described as "fair [a]nd having perhaps the better claim," and another path so well described as "I doubted if I should ever come back." And that's the point if the US becomes even more socialistic. If the Leftist policies that are being put into motion are not stopped, then I think the end of this poem captures the possibility that we should be alarmed about: "I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." Remember, Frost doesn't say it was the right decision, but merely, a choice that "has made all the difference," regardless of whether it was a good idea. Yet, in this case, we even know where that road leads; just ask Arnold.

The Unachievement Award

Friday mornings are typically pretty good. It's the last work day of the week; the weekend, regardless of plans, is a welcoming event from the usual mundane train we ride week after week. This last Friday was even better -- I didn't have to work due to flexing of hours. I was planning to sleep in.

Then at 7:48 in the morning, I get a text message from a good friend that said, "Obama wins Noble Peace prize -- ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOL!" Sounded like a joke to me, so I tried to sleep some more, but that just doesn't happen with 2 kids. Oh well. And then the news finally does validate itself; Oslo has awarded Barak Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. I still think it is a joke.

Now, in all honesty, I haven't taken the Nobel Peace prize seriously since I started tracking it. And that disappointment stems all the way back to the 1940s, when Mahatma Gandhi was denied the prize 5 different times between 1937 and 1948, even in his year of assassination, the Nobel administrators came out and said there would be no award winners because there were "no suitable" valid candidates. Gandhi, the king of non-violence who inspired MLK, Mandela, even Barak Obama & the Lama, didn't get the award, yet they all did.

Others that would have been meaningful recipients would have been Eleanor Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. All passed over, and others such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter & Yassir Arafat have gotten it. Maybe next year Michael Moore could win? Or Polanski! So, thus you see why I don't particularly care who wins it anymore. Oh, but I do care, because others put stock into it.

Let's just look at what it takes to win an award, any award, in "normal life" perspective. You have to do something beyond expectations, or meet a measurable criteria, and just be better than average. For the rest of us, we get that annoying green ribbon that states we were a participant -- the "everybody is a winner" badge. Boy don't those just pump you up!

For the Nobel Peace prize, put forth by Swedish dynamite and smokeless powder inventor Alfred Nobel, the premise to such award is, "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." And from the front page of the Nobel prize website regarding Obama's win, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Not only this, but in order to be considered for the award, you have to be nominated before February 1st of the same year, with the award being handed out in October of the same year. You cannot self -nominate and, unfortunately for the rest of us, the names of the nominees will not be released for 50 years. So we do not even get to know the competition for a half decade, which in this case, was over 200 nominations. But, there is a handful of deserving individuals we could come up with and assume they were part of the peace prize nomination. Wouldn't make a difference at this point, however.

Nonetheless, the point is that 11 days into Barak's Presidency (after the inauguration) someone nominated him for the Nobel Peace prize. Presumptuous? Nah, destined for greatness as we all know which shone forth 11 days into his reign and got him nominated.

Anyway, going with the above explanation for awards and this award in particular, the question becomes: how on earth did Obama win this "prestigious" award?

The Nobel administrators say "for his extraordinary efforts," I take issue with that immediately. Why? Because, how many times have we said to each other, "you get an 'E' for effort" when someone tries but fails? This is exactly the same as the green participation ribbon! Good attempt, so close, you'll be okay, better luck next time. We're all recipients of those platitudes. So the fact that Obama has made "efforts" but hasn't received any results, how does that qualify him for this award over anyone else? We're all making efforts here, why should one failure get an award over the rest of us?

"[T]o strengthen international diplomacy" is the next supposed qualifier, and I'm having a hard time finding where he was successful there. Tensions are increasing in the middle east, not getting better. North Korea is still "rogue" and Iran is gearing up to produce a nuclear bomb. Maybe Obama going around apologizing for everything is what they mean, but how is that good for diplomacy? I don't remember who said it, but, "Weakness is provocative." When you see a weakness, you exploit it. And far be it for me to assume that many other nations don't perceive this. Name one major foreign policy win this man has negotiated?

The last part is "cooperation between peoples." It's part of the above paragraph, but what, exactly, is Obama doing for that? Sure, he suggested we be a nuclear bomb free world, but he's not the first to say that, and frankly, we still have nukes, and as do all the other countries, and then some that are trying to get them. Honestly, looking around, would you want the US to be without nukes right now? Through he did cancel our missile defense shield, much to the chagrin of Poland, et al. I guess we'll just accept whatever nukes fly overhead towards us. Not to mention running two wars of our own, and one that apparently needs 40,000 more troops... Oh the irony of this award, especially after that SNL skit!

Some people have opined that this is the "thanks for not being Bush" award. In that case, anyone that replaced Bush would have won this award, and that makes it even more worthless. I've read others lauding his "vision," but again, that's not complete (whatever that is) and thus, not applicable to the winners' circle. Others have said this is a consolation prize for being hugely snubbed on the Olympic bid. Could be a hundred reasons, even political aggrandizement, but we have to take the official explanation at face value.

Here's what Obama said regarding the honor,“I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." So he believes he still needs to earn this award. He also said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformational figures who have been honored by this prize." I agree.

But, I can't blame Obama personally. You can't self-nominate, and the committee in Oslo decided he was the winner. But if I were in his inner circle, I would cordially admonish him to respectfully decline the offer. He does not deserve it. At this point, he is a talking head with no accomplishments aside from ascending to the office of US President. And there is still plenty of time for things to go awry, nationally to globally. This award, like all others, is one that you are supposed to earn. Plus, by accepting it, you're just amping up the pathological narcissism and cult of personality that is becoming all to apparent. Declining this would be therapeutically beneficial.

Looking at it from the Nobel Prize committee perspective -- what exactly are they trying to do here? Perhaps this is their means to help him push his agenda? I feel there is more going on behind the scenes than we know about. Clear partisan politics, except, not so clear. But otherwise, why choose someone with such a short resume on actual peace progress? Yeah, a little bit of a conspiracy theory there. Bah, what is politics without conspiracy? They are being criticized immensely, and it's funny!

I don't think I have much more on the matter, except, that, once again, the US won the Nobel Prize for Medicine. In the last 30 awards given for medicine, the US has won 19 of them. Who needs socialized medicine, again?