Economic Woes: Who’s to Blame?

January 28, 2010

American economist Thomas Sowell once said:

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

While pointing the finger of blame is often shunned as a counter-productive or divisive practice, as Sowell pointed out, accountability for poor decisions is necessary for effective governance. How else are we to learn from the mistakes of the past and prevent their re-occurrence than to identify poor decisions and those who made them?

In that context, congress’ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is currently interrogating bank executives to identify the cause of the economic melt-down. However, while most of the heated interrogation is being directed toward private financial institutions, lets put the politicians on the hot seat and review the government’s role in getting us into our current economic mess.

First, a basic understanding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their role in the housing and lending market is critical in order to comprehend the root causes of the financial meltdown. In the video below, Senator Jim DeMint offers an excellent summary.

As DeMint stated, it is Congress’ responsibility to provide regulation and oversight of government sponsored entities (GSE’s) such as Fannie & Freddie. Following is a brief time-line of events as it pertains to congress and the regulation of GSE’s.

*Hat tip to Mike Costello for being “the squeaky wheel” that guided me in my research.

  • April 2001 – President Bush raised red flags concerning the size of Fannie and Freddie in his 2002 budget request. He identified the “potential problem” that trouble in either institution could “cause strong repercussions in financial markets”.
  • mid 2003 – Reports and hearings showed Freddie Mac “manipulated its accounting to mislead investors” and that they failed to “adequately hedge against rising interest rates”.
  • July 31, 2003 – The Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 1508), co-sponsored by John McCain, was introduced. President Bush subsequently  recommended a massive regulatory overhaul. The bill passed the Senate Banking Committee, however with every single democrat on the committee opposing it, the bill was doomed.
  • Feb. 24, 2004 – Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, warns congress that “if we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency in crisis; we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States”.
  • Sept. 2004 – A report following an 8-month investigation by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight (OFHEO) showed Fannie executives intentionally manipulated their accounting and overstated their earnings by $10.6 billion in order to hit targets and pocket an additional $27 million in bonuses.
  • Late 2004 – As the video below shows, during hearings, republicans expressed concern and called for swift action and more regulation, while democrats expressed anger toward OFHEO for bringing corruption at Fannie to light, suggesting there was nothing wrong and no need for increased regulation.
  • Early 2005 – Regulatory legislation was re-introduced (S. 109) however with every democrat in the banking committee once again voting against it, the bill never made it to the Senate floor.
  • May 2006 – John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill and said that “if Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole”.
  • July 2008 – After republicans re-introduced a regulation bill (S. 1100) for the third time, it finally passed. Of course by this time, “toxic assets” from years of risky and reckless leadership at Fannie and Freddie had spread through the financial system, and it was too late.

As republicans are the ones who are generally labeled as “big business sell-outs” constantly pushing for deregulation, one may reasonably ask why, in this case, the roles seemed to be reversed.

First of all, democrats were bought-off by campaign contributions from Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Long-time member and current chairman of the Senate Banking Committee democrat Chris Dodd made the top of the list with a purchase price of $165,400. The second top sell-out was non other than…you guessed it, then rookie senator, President Barack Obama. Other democrats making the top of the list include fellow committee member Tim Johnson, current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

While they were apparently not as easy to buy off, Fannie and Freddie also contributed to the campaigns of many republicans, including two who also sat on the Senate Banking Committee. Therefore, another motive moved democrats to support the scandal-infested financial institutions. This motive was most commonly presented as “affordable housing”. While those two words have a tendency to create warm fuzzies within liberals, what it really means is putting poor minorities in homes they could in no way truly afford. I wonder how liberals now feel about “affordable housing”, seeing that their compassion-based pipe dream has cost millions of Americans to loose their jobs as well as their homes due to foreclosure.

Is it no surprise that Obama and the dems strive to demonize the executives of the private financial institutions in order to keep attention away from their grievous errors that helped create and/or worsen our current economic woes? How ironic it is that the same individuals who are largely responsible for the collapse of the housing market are now the very same “leaders” who claim to offer the solution to the problem they helped cause. I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry when I visited Chris Dodd’s website and saw that he actually has the nerve to say that he “leads the fight in the Senate for financial regulatory reform”.

1 Comment | Barack Obama, National Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

Private vs. Socialized Healthcare

November 20, 2009

In a previous post (lie #4) I described how multiple ObamaCare leaders have admitted that a “Public Option” is merely a means to an end – the eventual government take-over of healthcare through a single-payer system. Naturally, one might ask, “Is that so bad? Is socialized healthcare a better system?”. The answer is absolutely, unequivocally, and without a doubt….NO! I will proceed to destroy the five most common arguments in favor of socialized, universal, single-payer healthcare.

False Argument # 1 – Medical treatment is better in countries with socialized healthcare.

The 2007 Lancet Oncology study showed U.S. cancer survival rates were higher in every category than in Europe, especially in Great Britain where their 50-year-old government-run universal healthcare fared worse than the European average.

Also, the 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research study also showed U.S. Cancer survival rates where also higher than in Canada.

False Argument # 2 – Treatment is more accessible in countries with socialized healthcare.

After proving that the quality of treatment in the U.S. is better than it’s socialized healthcare counterparts, the ObamaCare proponent will predictably complain that the statistics you’ve used illustrate only pre-diagnostic data and do not take into account those who, due to financial burden, do not have access to the superior treatment available through private healthcare. Essentially they argue that sacrificing superior treatment is justified if everyone has access to crappy healthcare. While the merit of such a trade-off of quality for quantity is debatable, for the time being I will entertain this argument.

In order to assess the quality of healthcare for all, including those that for whatever reason don’t get treated, statistics illustrating total death counts by cause must be reviewed. Fortunately, we have a 2004 report from the World Health Organization that does just that. When death rates by cause is adjusted for population, the U.S. fares better than the celebrated government healthcare found in Canada, France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

I cranked the numbers for each of the six countries previously mentioned. Death rates for “communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional” (which encompasses TB, childhood diseases, and Hepatitis) where lower in the U.S. than France, Japan, and the UK and only slightly worse than Canada and Italy. Cancer (“malignant neoplasms”) death rates carry more weight in significance as between the six countries I reviewed, Cancer is more than 4 times more deadly than communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional illnesses combined. The U.S. had lower death-by-cancer rates than each of it’s socialized healthcare counterparts.

As these numbers represent death by cause totals, it can be concluded that the current private-run healthcare of the U.S. boasts lower death-rates (by illness) than government-run healthcare….even when access to healthcare, or lack thereof, is accounted for.

False Argument # 3 – Socialized healthcare is less expensive than private health-care.

This argument is humorous as lower healthcare spending is one of, if not the greatest reason for the inferior treatment found within socialized healthcare.

Socialized healthcare, as I discussed in a previous post (lie #2), is not a self-sufficient or “deficit-neutral” system. There is never enough tax money coming in to address everyone’s healthcare needs. Therefore, to avoid taxing everyone out of existence (which socialized healthcare gets as close as they can to doing) and spending the country out of existence, they must set GDP price controls which lead to the rationing of care. Thus, these countries are constantly struggling just to stay afloat and keeping the entire system from imploding on itself. Needless to say, they don’t have the billions necessary to invest toward the development of new and more efficient drugs and treatments. Instead, they wait for those advancements to come out of the US’ private-run healthcare and for the cost to come down enough for their broken system to be able to afford it.

False Argument # 4 – Life expectancy is higher in countries with socialized healthcare.

Warning, this argument is so irrelevant and easy to tear apart it may embarrass the person that spent the time and energy gathering data to prove an irrelevant point. Life expectancy rates do not focus on medical data, but is a broad topic that includes a plethora of non-medical variables such as suicide and alcohol and drug use. The person using this red herring argument is trying to distract you from the medical data that proves their point wrong and is straining to create an argument from irrelevant data.

False Argument # 5 – It’s the government’s purpose to provide critical things such as heatlhcare.

Many things that can be viewed as necessities and as critical were intentionally left unmet and unsubsidized by our founding fathers. Needs such as employment, housing, food, and health insurance where to be provided by, earned, and possessed by a self-sufficient and independent people – not by the government. Essentially, instead of just giving Americans a fish, the goal was to creat an environment in which all could have the ability to learn how to fish. To justify a government takeover of healthcare because of it’s important and critical nature, why not put the government in charge of all important and critical needs such as employment and houseing?

This type of thinking is what I believe led communist Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev to prophecy that the U.S. will be led into communism through “small doses of socialism”. Such thinking leads many to believe that Obama’s magical utopian road of entitlements ultimately leads to the dark and freedomless destination of communism.

2 Comments | Barack Obama, healthcare, National Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

The Big 5: ObamaCare Deception

November 16, 2009

As the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) continues to face debate and scrutiny in the Senate, it seems appropriate to review the history of ObamaCare and what we’ve seen along the road of healthcare reform. Such a recap is disheartening as we review the 5 big lies Obama and the democrats have made in their effort for healthcare reform.

LIE # 1 – Obama wants transparent negotiations and an informed public.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly declared that throughout the healthcare reform process, he would ensure negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN, that he’d “enlist the American people in this process”, and that “the public would be part of the conversation”. However, less than three weeks after taking office, Obama began multiple closed-door meetings with private health-industry executives which resulted in a secret deal with the same pharmaceutical lobbyist he criticized in one of his campaign commercials.

Obama proceeded to create a sense of urgency by pressuring congress to pass the 1,000 page bill in less than a month, before the August recess. When such a rush leads democratic congressman John Conyers to state that there was no point in even reading the bill, its apparent the American people are being left out of the process and conversation.

As the healthcare debate continued, information and opposition toward ObamaCare seemed to increase in tandem. In response, the white has led a fascist-like campaign to silence opposition through fear and intimidation. Obama’s threat to the first amendment was most clearly illustrated through the illegal establishment of flag@whitehouse.gov as a means for people to report “fishy” opposition toward health insurance reform. This was followed by the White House’s effort to attack what seems to be the only news organization who isn’t working for the Obama administration. The White House’s war on Fox News even led competing CNN to defend a news organization’s right to report political opposition without fear of attack by the government.

LIE # 2 – Obama: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.”

President Obama created quite a stir by issuing his own “read my lips” declaration by stating he would not support healthcare reform that isn’t financially sustainable. Obama’s acknowledgment that being deficit-neutral is a critical component of a successful government-run healthcare program assured Americans that our country will not follow in the footsteps of price-controlled rationing found in other socialized heathcare programs world-wide. If only it were true…

It was the number-crunching wizards of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that exposed the lie. Their review of the proposed bill determined that it would not only not be deficit-neutral, but that it would increase the deficit by $239 Billion in the next decade. CBO director and wizard master Douglas Elmendorf also stated that “the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window.” It’s no surprise then that Obama’s deception would be referred to as “deficit dishonesty“.

LIE # 3 – Healthcare for illegal aliens.

Many were surprised at Rep. Joe Wilson’s break of decorum when he shouted, “you lie” during President Obama’s heath care address to congress. While fellow members of congress were well aware of what fueled and arguably justified such an outburst, at the time, most Americans were not.

Obama and the democrats claimed that ObamaCare wouldn’t offer tax-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants, pointing to section 246 of H.R. 3200 that, on paper, limits “federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” However, this lie was later exposed by the Congressional Research Service which concluded that in practice, there would be no restrictions keeping illegal aliens from receiving government-offered healthcare.

No big deal though, with illegal immigrant loop-holes brought to light, the bill could simply be amended to ensure that the immigration status of ObamaCare participants is verified. This would be easy through the use of already existing and effective programs such as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program. Two such amendments doing just that were authored by republican representatives Nathan Deal of Georgia and Dean Heller of Nevada. Democrats showed their true colors by voting down both amendments, implicitly allowing illegal immigrants to milk the would-be Obamacare.

Thus, with two small words, Wilson successfully brought the illegal immigrant deception to the attention of the American people. It was so successful, the resulting backlash of an informed public forced Obama to support a provision that would require proof of citizenship for enrollment in ObamaCare. ‘Atta boy Joe!

LIE # 4 – The real purpose of the Public Option.

Most in favor of ObamaCare claim that the purpose of a “public option” is to complete against private healthcare in an effort to drive down costs. For the time being, I’ll put aside the fact that you can’t possibly consider tax-funded government programs as real “competition” in the private market, or that subsidizing the price of heatlhcare in no ways changes the cost of healthcare. Instead I’ll simply point out the fact that many of the liberal leaders of healthcare reform have outright admitted that the public option is simply a “sneaky strategy” to eventually usher in a complete government takeover of the private healthcare industry though a single-payer system. Such ObamaCare proponents include Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. of Health), Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s Chief of Staff), Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Russ Feingold, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Paul Krugman (NY Times), and Ezra Klein (Washington Post).

In a later post, I’ll further debate the merits of socialized healthcare and single-payer systems. For now, lets stop pretending that ObamaCare is anything other than what it has been repeatedly admitted to be…a means to eventually replace the private health industry, not to compete with it.

LIE # 5 – The “doctor fix” accounting trick.

Obama set a $900 Billion price tag maximum for healthcare reform. The problem is that dealing with healthcare includes trying to fix the mess found in Medicare which includes the failed “sustainable growth rate” (SGR) payment formula which limits reimbursements for participating physicians. Repealing the SGR, a critical concession to gain ObamaCare support from doctors and the American Medical Association, costs $247 Billion.

Solution? Both House and Senate democrats proposed simply moving the $247 Billion “doc fix” into a separate piece of legislation and presto! More money to spend while still being able to claim it’s under Obama’s $900 Billion price tag.

Hopefully, the American people will see past the lies and deception used by Obama and the democrats and urge and pressure their representatives to reject ObamaCare.

6 Comments | Barack Obama, healthcare, illegal immigration, National Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

I’m not as good as you.

February 28, 2009

Say it with me, “I am not as good as you”. With the right understanding, internalizing this idea is not only therapeutic, but it’s promotion may just save our nation from the path we are currently on of destroying the principles of ambition and success to arrive at the lowest common denominator. Allow me to explain.

To start, I wish to point out that I could have just as easily started with “You’re not as good as me”. However, since it seems to be human nature to accept and even relish in ones own strengths and abilities, it is the envy and insecurity of the lack of ability, or inferiority, in comparison with another that provides the foundation and drive from which this damning movement stems.

Today I finished reading C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters”. In it (specifically “Screwtape Proposes a Toast”) Screwtape, a leading demon in hell mentions that while democracy correctly refers to the political ideal that men should be equally treated, Satan and his demons seek to use envy and an insecurity of inferiority to transition it into a factual belief that all men are equal, thus manipulating the meaning of “democracy”.

As written by Lewis, Screwtape states:

The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.

And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resent every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority.

Screwtape then points out that with such a mindset, those who might otherwise achieve success or excellence can be shamed and discouraged to do so:

Under the same influence, those who come, or could come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from it for fear of being undemocratic.

Screwtape then illustrates how this ideal plays out in the classroom:

The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be ‘undemocratic’.

All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will vanish. The few who might want to learn will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching.

Finally Screwtape summarizes the end result of this false manipulation of “democracy”:

For ‘democracy’ or the ‘democratic spirit’ (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, morally flaccid from lack of discipline in youth, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and soft from lifelong pampering.

Before I’m demonized by politically correct liberals, I wish to declare my belief that God loves all His children equally and wishes them all happiness. This, however, does not mean we must ignore the obvious truth that some are more talented or gifted, in some (or many) ways, than others. The bible (1 cor 12: 14-25) teaches the principle that while our differences will lead us to play different roles with relative differences in apparent honor or nobility, we can each be secure and find success and significance in the role we play. In other words, while the waterboy may not have the skill or enjoy the fame of the quarterback, he can still be a successful waterboy, happy in the significance of his role in the team.
(My Mormon friends and others may also benefit by studying Abr. 3: 17-19)

Recently and currently, liberals have undertaken a campaign to flatter the lazy or those who otherwise seek the shelter of reparations of victimization to believe that those who have achieved success or excellence must be burdened and stripped of the fruits of their accomplishments until everyone else can feel equal and believe “I’m as good as you”. For those who might not realize it, I’m referring to all you “tax the rich, spread the wealth, Sí se puede, Obama is the Messiah” people. In word and principle, the promotion of liberal ideals kills initiative and makes success and excellence shameful and burdensome as a sacrifice to protect the sensitivities of those insecure of the role they play in society.

As stated in “An Inconvenient Book” by Glenn Beck, emphasis is falsely applied to the Declaration of Independence. Instead of reading “all men are created EQUAL”, we should read, “all men are CREATED equal”. For as Beck states, “Every man is created equal. It’s what you do with it from there that makes the difference…we control our own destiny.

8 Comments | Barack Obama, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

The Race Card & White Guilt

December 31, 2008

Political controversy and scandal has once again been recently exposed through the impeachment trial of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder. The situation was made even more sticky and colorful when Blogojevich appointed Roland Burris to fill Obama’s void. This introduced a debate in the Senate over weather or not the appointment of a Governor arrested on federal corruption charges over that very appointment should be honored. It is important to note that Burris was not one of the 7 individuals who were apparently bidding for the seat and appears to be reputable and worthy candidate for such an appointment. In light of Burris’ innocence and qualifications and since Blogojevich is still the acting Governor until he is formally impeached, questioning the appointment appears to be nothing more than “politics as usual”, especially when the issue involves one of the most corrupt political arenas in the nation… and thus (to me), by itself, is an uninteresting story.However, since Burris would be the only current black U.S. senator, the race card has been played, most blatantly by House Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill.). In a press conference held yesterday, Rush seemed to focus his objection to refusing to sit Burris (which, remember, I agree with and also feel the appointment should stand), on the fact that Burris is black, stating that that gives this issue “tremendous national importance”. He even went so far as to challenge the media from investigating Burris or opposing his appointment because doing so would be “hanging or lynching” him. (Click here to see the video.)

If Burris was white and a scientologist (Church of Scientology), would the appointment of the only Scientologist U.S. Senator also be of “tremendous national importance”? Would the ACLU or Jesse Jackson get involved to fight apparent bigotry? I am so fed up with seeing the race card get played again and again. I was taught to look past skin color… but apparently that is a one way street that only whites must adhere to. If equality is what we should be pushing for, shouldn’t we seek to remove race as an issue as opposed to highlighting and dwelling on it? Shouldn’t BET and other organizations devoted to blacks be encouraged and pressured to seek diversity just as much as any other organization? Do you think a White Entertainment Television network or a white fraternity persist without being burned to the ground or sued out of existence by the ACLU? I feel the establishment of such white groups would be harmful to the racial unity we should be striving to achieve, and only make such an observation to point out an obvious double standard.

That said, and in the light of the Burris debacle, below I have posted an article I’ve been sitting on for a while. With permission by it’s author, Tom Adkins, I’ve posted the article in it’s entirety.

Disclaimer: the article is edgy and can be easily viewed as offensive. Had I written it, I probably would’ve been more careful or tactful. However, I have never been a fan of political correctness, and agree with Adkins’ general point… not to mention the extra “edge” Adkins uses, I feel, makes it much more entertaining than anything I could’ve written.

WHITE GUILT IS DEAD
Free at last, free at last!

By Tom Adkins

Look at my fellow conservatives! There they go, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me.. I’m virtually euphoric.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not thrilled with America’s flirtation with neo-socialism. But there’s a massive silver lining in those magical clouds that lofted Barack Obama to the Presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America: The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn’t give a fluff about skin color, and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively worked with America-hating domestic terrorists. Wow! Some resume! Yet they made Barack Obama their leader. Therefore, as of November 4th, 2008, white guilt is dead.

For over a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 60s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution. But if a black man can become President, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barack Obama absolutely destroys the entire validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.

So today, I’m feeling a little “uppity,” if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is now exactly ZERO. And it’s time to clean house. No more Reverend Wright’s “God Damn America,” Al Sharpton’s Church of Perpetual Victimization, or Jesse Jackson’s rainbow racism. Cornell West? You’re a fraud. Go home. All those “black studies” programs that taught kids to hate whitey? You must now thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.

Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. Maxine Waters? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. Go ahead. I’m waiting.

Gangsta rappers? Start praising America. Begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. And please, no more ebonics. Speak English, and who knows where you might end up? Oh, yeah, pull up your pants. Your underwear is showing. You look stupid.

Black Fraternities? Seek diversity. Race Card? It’s now the joker. Miss Black America? Get in line with all the other lovely ladies. Reparations? Paid.

To those Eurosnots who forged entire careers hating America? I’m still waiting for the first black French President.

And let me offer an equal opportunity whupping. I’ve always despised lazy white people. Now, I can talk smack about lazy black people. You’re poor because you quit school, did drugs, had three kids with three different fathers, and refuse to work. So when you plop your Colt 45-swilling, Oprah watchin’ butt on the couch and complain “Da Man is keepin’ me down!!!” allow me to inform you: Da Man is now black. You have no excuses.

No more quotas. No more handouts. No more stealing my money because someone’s great-great-great-great grandparents suffered actual pain and misery at the hands of people I have no relation to, and personally revile.

It’s time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid 60s ideas. Drag it over there, by wife swapping, next to dope-smoking. Plenty of room right between free love and cop-killing. Careful, don’t trip on streaking. There ya go, don’t be gentle. Just dump it. Wash your hands. It’s filthy.

In fact, Obama’s ascension created a gargantuan irony. How can you sell class envy and American unfairness when you and your black wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and got elected President? How unfair is that??? Now, Like a delicious O’Henry tale, Obama’s spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by it’s own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama’s election has validated American conservatism!

So, listen carefully … “Wham!!!”

That’s the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. White guilt is dead and buried.

However, despite my glee, there’s apparently one small, rabid bastion of American racism remaining. Black Americans voted 96% for Barack Obama. Hmmm. In a color-blind world, shouldn’t that be 50-50? Tonight, every black person should ask forgiveness for their apparent racism and prejudice towards white people. Maybe it’s time to start spreading that guilt around.

Tom Adkins is the founder of CommonConservative.com.
He can be contacted at TomAdkinsCC@Yahoo.com

With permission, an edited version of this article appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer Sun Nov 9, 2008.

2 Comments | Barack Obama, Local & State Politics, National Politics, Racism & Political Correctness | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

Narcissism on the Rise

July 25, 2008


A 2007 study from five psychologists reported that today’s college students are increasingly narcissistic and self-centered. For those who aren’t familiar with the term, narcissism is defined as having excessive love for ones self. Terms often used in conjunction with narcissism include, conceit, egotism, and selfishness. In psychology, excessive narcissism is revered to as Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

The heart of the study rests upon the results of 16,475 college students nationwide who completed an evaluation called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), between 1982 and 2006. The 2006 NPI results provided evidence of a 30% increase in above-average scores since 1982.

In the Associated Press article that reported on the findings, study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia spoke of the dangerous impact narcissism has on both individuals and society.

“Narcissism can have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others.”

The study asserts that narcissists “are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors.”

In his essay “The Kinderarchy”, writer and retired Northwestern University professor Joseph Epstein provides an example of narcissism in college.

“So often in my literature classes students told me what they ‘felt’ about a novel, or a particular character in a novel. I tried, ever so gently, to tell them that no one cared what they felt; the trick was to discover not one’s feelings but what the author had put into the book, its moral weight and its resultant power. In essay courses, many of these same students turned in papers upon which I wished to–but did not–write: ‘D-, Too much love in the home.’ I knew where they came by their sense of their own deep significance and that this sense was utterly false to any conceivable reality. Despite what their parents had been telling them from the very outset of their lives, they were not significant. Significance has to be earned, and it is earned only through achievement.”

Popular blogger and college student Ben Casnocha also shares a personal encounter with a narcissistic college student.

“The other week I had lunch with a college student. I raised the topic of education. I said that I’m not sure formal schooling is for everybody. She responded, ‘Well, see, I love school, and I’m thinking about graduate schools in these areas…’ Off she went. Again. It was totally self-involved.”

Casnocha suggests how technology contributes to today’s increase in narcissism.

“Some argue technology is a culprit in the sense that new technology can help a person enact an echo chamber around them that magnifies their own views. Or that technology facilitates, for example, twice or thrice daily phone calls between teens and parents, a frequency which — when aided by the over-parenting instincts of today’s boomers — nurtures self-obsession on the part of the teen. Or that blogs, such as the one I’m writing on right now (a noted irony!), enable a level of public disclosure that’s unhealthy because it can create a micro-celebrity effect. And when was the last time you met a celebrity (micro or macro) who wasn’t an egomaniac?”

The study’s lead author, Professor Jean Twenge of San Diego State University also ties technology to narcissism.

“Current technology fuels the increase in narcissism. By its very name, MySpace encourages attention-seeking, as does YouTube.”

Many Facebook users seem to seek validation of their life’s significance by posting endless pictures of every social activity and to create a shrine of themselves for others to see and hopefully worship, or at least acknowledge.

Finally, writer Charles Krauthammer wrote an article highlighting one of today’s most prominent and popular narcissists, Barack Obama.

“Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.”

Narcissism is a disease that can be hard to diagnose and even harder to treat. The answer boggles even myself. Focusing on others through selfless service seems, to me, to be one of narcissism’s greatest combatants. Also, learning to embrace and accept constructive criticism and humbling experiences instead of instinctively fighting or refusing to heed such correction. Other ideas and suggestion on how to fight narcissism?

9 Comments | Barack Obama | Permalink
Posted by W. Garrett Myler

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.