Charlie's Chatter

When it comes to voting in a “democracy”, there has often been a conflict between these two different points of view: On the one hand, some say that everyone should vote; after all, that is what “democracy” is all about. On the other hand, some say that many voters are ill-informed, ignorant, or just plain stupid, in which case their votes will often reduce the efficacy of the elected government. This conflict has played out in various forms, and with all kinds of arguments being used.
      In a few countries, such as Australia, the law often requires that all eligible voters cast a vote, and failure to do so usually results in a fine. Historically, many knowledgeable and prominent men have cast doubts on giving everyone the vote, usually because they feared that too many of the electorate would cast ill-conceived votes, the result often being a poor government at best, and perhaps mob-rule at worst. The phrase “tyranny of the majority” is sometimes used to express this apparent dilemma. By the way, these prominent men did believe in a representative government; they even included some of our “Founding Fathers”. In times past, only male property-owners were allowed to vote since it was thought that those who were not property owners were not as responsable and/or knowledgeable as those who were; in addition, some thought that those who did not own property would be more inclined to tax property; after all, since they themselves had no property, such a tax would not affect them. In the coming presidential election, the argument is often made that Sarah Palin has nowhere near enough experience to be a vice-president; this latter argument is often countered by saying that she would really represent “we the people” because she is more like us, more like the “ordinary folks”. But then that argument is countered by saying “Is that the person we want? An ‘ordinary’ person for such an important political position?” And of course many of us have heard Barack Obama being criticized as being elitist; that is, he really thinks that he knows best; he thinks that he knows more than almost all of the electorate. Well, I think he should know more than most of the electorate, at least if he wants to be an effective president. I just hope that he “knows” the right things – the truth – and that he does not subscribe to falsehoods. For example, I hope that he does know a lot about real economics, foreign affairs and military matters. As for myself, I note that African-Americans almost always vote for an African-American candidate, if there is one. The percentage has almost always been higher than 90 percent! That is a very large percentage! Surely in a two, three or four man race, where one of the candidates is African-American, that does not mean that at least 90 percent of the time the African-American candidate is, in fact, the better candidate! That would be almost impossible! And yet over 90 percent of African-American voters vote for the African-American candidate. Why? (Some would call my latter comments racist. However, if we are to be rational here, the only “racism” shown here is that shown by those African-American voters who vote for a candidate primarily because he or she is an African-American. And there must be a lot of such voters since over 90 percent of African-Americans almost always vote for the Black candidate.)
      The Tonight Show on television sometimes shows a comical segment called “Jay-Walking”; the host Jay Leno goes to a public place and asks ordinary people questions, questions whose answers should be known to the large majority of people. And yet the people that Jay Leno quizzes not only seldom know the correct answer, but they often give answers that are clearly way off-base. I thought that perhaps Jay Leno had edited all the interviews that he had conducted, only showing a select few that indicated ignorance. But perhaps not !   A recent ABC “20/20″ segment on TV by John Stossel made the point that perhaps everyone should not vote. In preparation for this TV segment, John Stossel had asked many potential voters fairly simple questions about our government, and he was astounded at the ignorance shown by too many of these potential voters. Frankly, given my experience with life over the past 50 years, I am no longer astounded.

As should be known by now, Barack Obama clearly seems to have a predisposition to “redistribute wealth”. That is, he wants to raise taxes on high-income earners and give more benefits to those with low or no incomes. His answer to Joe the plumber’s questions strongly indicated that. Now a recording of a radio interview has surfaced. This was an interview which Obama gave in 2001 when he was still an Illinois State Senator. Many of his statements on this radio interview clearly show that Obama is an extreme liberal, and that wealth redistribution is clearly high on his agenda.
    Let me quote just one of Barack Obama’s statements : « You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movements and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society ». Good God ! Obama is saying that the Supreme Court should consider “economic justice”, (whatever that means)! It should also concern itself with the “redistribution of wealth”! Can there be any clearer indication that Obama thinks that the government should get much more involved in our lives, to include taking more money from taxpayers and spreading it around as the government wishes? Even if it takes the Supreme Court to somehow step in and push that?
    Some articles on this atrocious matter can be found here and also here. You can listen to the actual interview on this site.

Some recent news articles indicate that Barack Obama is already making plans for what he will do during his first months as president. Why even the city of Chicago has started making plans for a huge election-night party. Given this news, I suspect that many McCain supporters will now accuse Obama and his supporters of hubris, with Obama already acting as though he were the president even though the election has not yet taken place. However, this planning probably makes sense. It is usually wise to be prepared, even for things that are not guaranteed to happen, but are only real possibilities. Concerning this particular matter, I have only three things to say:

1. Chicago is reportedly going to charge Obama’s election campaign for most of the costs related to the big party to be held there. This is not right. Obama has done much for the city of Chicago; surely the city can return the favor and not charge him !
2. Keep in mind that “being prepared” does not necessarily mean that an event will actually come to pass. For example, the United States military frequently plans for various military options, such as, for example, an invasion of Iran. This does not mean that the military wlll invade Iran; it only means that they are doing the sensible thing and being prepared “just in case”. So when an investigative reporter or a liberal politician discovers that the United States military has a “plan” for an invasion of Iran, they should not jump to the conclusion that such an invasion will actually take place. Heck, that’s one reason the military often calls these plans contingency plans; they are only for use contingent on certain things that may or may not happen.
3. Although there still is a chance that Obama may not be elected president, these chances are decreasing. Last week I put those chances at 1 in 5. Now I estimate the chances at 1 in 8.

In my previous post I wrote that I will say nothing more about the coming presidential election unless a very important point comes up. Well, after watching some political pundits and reporters on the television last night, and after reading a few opinion pieces on the Internet, a very important point has come up !
    Most of us are now aware of the fuss that has been raised in the presidential campaign because of a question posed to Barack Obama by a man now referred to as “Joe the plumber”. In general, the results of this fuss have been as follows:
        o –   Most people in favor of John McCain have said that the question posed by “Joe the plumber” was a very good one. But of most importance, they say that Barack Obama’s answer – “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” – demonstrates that Barack is a man who wants to redistribute wealth. Some say that this shows socialist tendencies on the part of Obama, and I tend to agree, at least somewhat.
        o –   Most people in favor of Barack Obama have made the point that the man “Joe” is in fact not even a plumber !   In other words, Joe is a “fake”, a man who has been misrepresented. Therefore his questions and opinions are dubious, and not worthy of serious consideration !

The accusation that “Joe” is not really a plumber is terribly ironic and almost tragic.   And for two very good reasons:
        1. Those who insist that “Joe” is not a plumber base that statement on only two facts. First of all, he is not licensed in any state or municipality as a plumber. Secondly, he is not a member of the plumber’s union. Therefore he is not a plumber !   Many web sites, including this one, make these points, clearly stating that “Joe” is not a plumber. And yet one irony here is that Joe does, in fact, know how to do plumbing work, and does in fact often work as a plumber. Even some of the web sites which say that Joe is not a plumber acknowledge the fact that he does do plumbing work. At least this web site has the honesty to say that Joe is a plumber, although it also says that he is an “illegal” plumber since he is neither licensed nor a union member. Well now, that says it all, does it not? You can, in fact, know how to do plumbing work, actually do plumbing work, and even be an expert at it, but unless you are licensed you are not really a plumber !
        2. Given the arguments about the qualifications required for a man to be a plumber, I have to ask the question, “Is Barack Obama qualified to be president of the United States?” Does he have the skills, knowledge and experience to hold down what is perhaps the most important and powerful job in the world? Is he licensed ?   Hey, you say, you do not need a license in order to be president! And how true that is. So here I will now repeat the words of Sam Harris : « We live in a country in which a person can not be elected president if he (or she) openly doubts the existence of heaven and hell. This is truly remarkable, given that there is no other body of “knowledge” that we require our political leaders to master. Even a hairstylist must pass a licensing exam before plying his (or her) trade in the United States, and yet those given the power to make war and national policy – those whose decisions will inevitably affect human life for generations – are not expected to know anything in particular before setting to work. They do not have to be political scientists, economists, or even lawyers; they need not have studied international relations, military history, resource management, civil engineering, or any other field of knowledge that might be brought to bear in the governance of a modern superpower; they need only be expert fund-raisers, comport themselves well on television, and be indulgent of certain myths. ».
    OK, there you have it. Joe can not be a hairstylist because he is not licensed as a hairstylist. Heck, even though he knows how to do a lot of plumbing work, and has done such work, he can not really be a plumber because he is neither licensed nor a union member. Shame on Joe ! His opinions are therefore highly suspect. On the other hand, Barack Obama, with limited political experience in national and foreign affairs, but with much experience as a civil rights lawyer and community organizer in minority neighborhoods in Chicago, why he can even be president !   (And so can John McCain.)   No license required !   How ironic !

Gosh, it sure is great to live in a country where the government takes care of almost all living creatures, to include us citizens, of course. We already know that the federal government has set aside over one trillion dollars to help with the financial crisis; and some say that the amount is closer to two trillion dollars. As to those homeowners who are having difficulty making their mortgage payments, why John McCain has even proposed to help them out directly by having the government step in and essentially “re-write” their mortgages so that the homeowners monthly payments will be less. Isn’t that all great? And don’t forget all the help that our government gives to other animals, such as all those that it puts on the “endangered species” list. Most of us know about the polar bears being put on this list. And now I read that beluga whales who “live” in Cook Inlet in Alaska have just been put on this list. Ain’t that great? Such care that our government gives, not only to its citizens, but also to other animals !
    This may be a bit of an overstatement, but I’m afraid that the real endangered species in the United States are adult members of the human species who are totally free, responsible, frugal, hard-working and self-reliant. But I guess that I am just not keeping up with the times. I’m just a grouchy old man who lives in the past.

Good gosh, I just read that a school district in Dallas has laid off 375 teachers! And during the previous weeks a few hundred other working people in that school district had also been laid off, with most of these being clerks and assistant principals. All of this was done supposedly because there was a budget shortfall of about 84 million dollars. Now we can’t have that, can we? Instead we must think of our children who need as much education as possible. If there is a budget shortfall, well then, just raise taxes in order to cover the shortfall !   (Yeh, right.)
    I have always been disgusted by the “management” of most public school districts. They are too expensive, with the average cost per pupil, nationwide, being somewhere between $9,000 and $10,000 a year; it is difficult to come up with a reliable figure; some sources say that the average cost is as much as $12,000 a year. In any case, that is a lot of money for elementary school and high school education. I’ve known for years that most school districts waste a lot of money by hiring too many people for non-essential jobs and by having large and expensive administration buildings which are staffed by people who do not teach but who instead just shuffle papers around. And federal government mandates, such as Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” Act, just add to costs. Since these public schools are supported by taxpayers, with these latter often not having too much of a say in the matter, (whereas the teachers’ unions and the politicians do have a lot of influence here), a lot of “waste” is to be expected. So it is about time that at least one school district is biting the bullet and laying off hundreds of personnel, many of whom seem to be non-essential, such as many of the clerks.
    I’ve known about this situation for years, and I do not now have the time to provide the reader with links to web sites, or book references, which document all of this. However, this web article does demonstrate the waste in the D.C. school district, which is one of the worst in the nation. And another article on the high cost of public schools, with suggestions of what to do about it, can be found here. I agree with most of what is said in the latter article, although there are a few things missing, in my opinion.