I have just finished reading "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I recommend it highly to everyone!

As previous visitors to this blog may have noticed, I espouse the concept of political atheism. In my view, political atheism is not necessarily the same thing as personal atheism. My beliefs are based on the need for consistency in every area of our lives. I believe that the germ of socialism is introduced into our political & economic thinking by our deeply held religious beliefs. Typically, the germ is embodied as the glorification of self-sacrifice and altruism, a central tenet of most major religions. Therefore, religion makes our political & religious thinking inconsistent.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's journey from being a near-militant Islamist sympathizer to skeptical socialist and then all the way to secular near-conservative is inspiring - not because she is some kind of superwoman, but because she is a normal human being who seeks a consistent ideology. However, in the prevailing cultural fog of moral grayness, she is special. She questions inconsistencies, whether they are based on religious or political dogma.

As a fellow-seeker of moral consistency, I was struck by the questions that arise in young Ayaan's mind. For example, she is faced with the stern double-standard of morality in Islam: a woman may not show her face because it may provoke uncontrollable sexual lust in men. Her question, revealing an innocently correct search for consistency "what if the sight of a man's uncovered face incites a similar lust in women?"

After fleeing an arranged, loveless marriage, Ayaan's early experiences with the Dutch nanny-state cause her to marvel at the largesse provided by welfare in a mixed economy. Even as she benefits from the generosity, she is not blind to the problems. She sees the inconsistencies of socialism in the way it affects people on both sides of the equation. At that stage in her life, Ayaan has a limited education, but has the intelligence to observe the 'cause and effect' linkage between socialism and dependency. A rare example in the community of African refugees, she focuses on getting a post-graduate education and breaks away from the pernicious grasp of the welfare cycle. Her intellectual growth continues as she discards Leftist ideology and multi-cultural thinking on the altar of moral consistency.

After 9/11, Ayaan reaches celebrity status due to her denunciation of the faith that provides a moral justification for mass murder. An innocently sincere question that she raises at a public conference is followed by her appearances on TV. She touches off a firestorm within her own Left-leaning political party for daring to question the hypocrisy of multi-culturalism. Following through logically, she publicly discards Islam despite the fact that she faces ostracism from her family. During Ayaan's tenure in Dutch politics, she faces the brunt of full-contact modern day politics in which her opponents have her Dutch citizenship revoked in order to bring down the prevailing government.

A collaboration between Ayaan and Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh leads to a documentary titled "Submission" about the fate of women under Islamic law. When Theo van Gogh is brutally murdered and Ayaan's life is threatened by Islamists, she is forced to go into hiding. Ayaan strips away any romantic illusions that readers may have towards life-in-hiding; for several joyless years, she is shuttled between nondescript 'secure locations' in Europe and the US. While she pays a steep price for her beliefs, Ayaan remains steadfast in her principles.

Most people seek morally consistent belief systems in their early years. Either out of ignorance, or from dogmatic thinking, many young people are given limited choices. Seeking consistency, they often choose some sort of organized Religion in their personal lives and Welfare State Socialism as the political & economic extension of their personal beliefs. Even those who manage to find a principled, objective world-view in their early years seem to sag into the pit of moral relativism in later years. On this blog I apply this criticism equally to Secular & Religious Leftists as well as Religious Conservatives. If you think about it, Religious Leftists may be wrong-headed, but they sure are morally consistent!

Most Religious Conservatives in America will appreciate reading about Ayaan's formative years and her subsequent struggles with Islam and Socialism. However, they will have difficulty in embracing Ayaan's atheism and some of her thoughts on social issues. American Leftists, whether religious or secular, will enjoy the book as a 'good read', but are likely to discard her political and economic world-view. Introspective readers of all persuasions may see ominous parallels in their own thinking that will be difficult to ignore.

Ayaan's book is inspiring, because the story of her life is about a normal person who just keeps asking questions. Unlike most people, she doesn't just 'shut up and conform' but continues to seek moral consistency in her life.

Bravo, Ayaan. Stay safe ..

Our politicians like to 'apologize' publicly for systemic failures made by previous generations. I call them Crocodile Apologies, because they are usually accompanied by crocodile tears.

Usually politicians apologize to television cameras for mistakes that were made many generations ago. For example, it is now en vogue to apologize for slavery. While slavery is a blot on our national historical conscience, there are no Americans alive today who are guilty of practicing slavery.

How about a big real apology for screwing up education from the 1950s onwards? Now that is a mistake that continues to fester, so real, living Americans are involved. And, there is certainly plenty of culpability to go around!

Is there a presidential candidate (on either side) who would like to get 'first water' by being the first to apologize for getting the Govt mired into ownership of schools?

It is very simple: despite our best intentions, we messed up!

Of course there were disparities, unequal outcomes, unfairness etc. But, as a result of our 'solution', the Govt:

* builds, owns and operates schools
* sets curriculum
* hires teachers, administrators, staff
* negotiates salaries with unions
* raises taxes

Results?

* more 'unequal outcomes', unfairness
* high costs that outpace inflation
* low (and steadily worsening) quality

Imagine what might have transpired if the 'reformers' of the 1950s and 1960s had mandated Govt vouchers (only for the needy) - and nothing else!

Neither side has it right, unfortunately, on fixing our K-12 education system.

The suggestions from both sides are minor - involving patchwork to a system that is failing miserably!

Republicans: local control (state level), more money, some accountability .. blah, blah

Democrats: Federal control, more money .. blah, blah

Of the two 'patchwork' solutions, I happen to favor (slightly) the Republican version - but c'mon .. don't any of these politicians get the fact that as a country, we erred grossly when we put K-12 education into the hands of the Govt? Would it matter significantly if it was the State Govt instead of the Federal Govt?

How long will we taxpayers accept band-aids on a gushing wound?

What we need is a 10yr phased privatization of K-12 education.

PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers that are redeemable at any accredited private or public school for every eligible kid
* tax deductibility of tuition to any accredited private school

PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private and public schools
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of tuition

PHASE3 (the future)
* no more public schools
* vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private schools (now a flourishing, self-sustaining part of the economy)

What would the effect be on all the players: teachers, administrators, students and parents?

Teachers & administrators: more pay for competence
Students & parents: higher quality, more choice, lower cost

In a previous post, I posed the following question: If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by Socialism?

An interesting question, isn't it? In this article, I attempt some analysis. Feel free to agree or disagree - I invite your comments!

Is the question based on fact? Consider that America is 80% Christian but a 50/50 country based on political affiliation. Even assuming that the entire 20% of America that is non-Christian leans leftwards (a questionable assumption) that means that 30% of those who lean to the left are likely to be Christians. Another way of stating this is "At least 30% of our voters are religious-leftists".

Of course, a good follow-on question would be "But are they leftists because of their social or economic views?"

An analogous question may be asked of secular conservatives - "Are they conservative because of their social or economic views?"

For the purposes of this discussion, I identify Leftist or Conservative social and economic positions based on definitions in a previous post titled:  What kind of FOUR LETTER conservative are you?

Since Christian principles are usually at odds with the Leftist social viewpoint, does this mean that religious leftists lead with their redistributionist economic views?

Since religion is likely to drive social rather than economic views, it seems intuitive that social conservatives lead with their laissez-faire economic views.

Unless there is a flaw in the above reasoning, conservative economists (e.g. Dr. Thomas Sowell) should be given a lot more air time by Republicans seeking to 'convert' religious leftists to the conservative cause. It would seem that conservative economists would have a much larger 'addressable market' for new voters than conservative spokesmen of the Jerry Falwell variety?

I mean, with 30% of the electorate up-for-grabs, talk about a vote rich environment! Also, from a sheer entertainment point-of-view, wouldn't you like to see Dr. Sowell wipe the floor with Paul Krugman in a debate on economics?

The answer to the above question depends on whom you ask. Let's ask the same question during imaginary interviews with four different people:

Q) If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by socialism?
A) Religious conservative> Christians who buy into socialism aren't real Christians; they have lost their way. Or, they're Christians who are unable to think - they are (insert favorite pejorative phrase here for a 'mental midget') and have misunderstood the Scriptures. Since socialism doesn't work, it doesn't lead to the betterment of humanity. Therefore, it is anti-Christian, notwithstanding all the pious sounding objectives. If a nice socialist engages me in a debate and says that we just aren't implementing socialism very well (e.g. we just need slightly higher taxes to feed everyone), I really have no morally consistent answer.

Q) If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by socialism?
A) Religious leftist> because socialism is based on self-sacrifice, which is consistent with my religion. Socialism also glorifies the downtrodden, and that too, is consistent with my religion. As a result I personally embrace socialism. I work tirelessly to feed the hungry (all over the world), and give willingly of myself so that others can improve their lives. I do not seek affluence, or any of the modern conveniences of the Western world, because those are not my goals, or the goals of my co-religionists. Like them, I am poor but that doesn't bother me, because I rejoice in my faith. My country's affluence offends me, because it shows the stark contrast that is prevelant in the world today. I seek a more spiritual and less material world. "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6:17-26).

Q) If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by socialism?
A) Secular leftist> I don't really have a religion, but I sure am glad to have the votes of religious leftists (who are being consistent with their quaint faith) - while I seek control and power over those who produce wealth. Some may call my approach 'parasitic' but they don't really understand that their world would fall apart without the benevolent influence of enlightened people like me. Oh, because of the contradictory, quaint beliefs of Christians, I will continue to drive more of them towards my agenda in every generation. It works particularly well with younger Christians. Sotto voce: Boy, am I glad that we reformed public education in the 1950s and 60s! Its so easy to gain the moral high-ground in political debates today - all we have to do is scold religious conservatives for being anti-social towards the downtrodden.  I just love to watch them squirm, while dancing on the head of a pin. I particularly love it when they get angry, self-righteous and hateful - because I can use that too against them!

Q) If "Jesus was no leftist" why are so many of his followers seduced by socialism?
A) Secular conservative> I am either atheistic in my personal life - or, I keep my religion away from politics. That is because I understand the inconsistency of religion and Capitalism - which is synonymous with freedom.

If the above description troubles you, it should!

I have just finished reading "The Bell Curve" by Herrnstein & Murray (1994) and - although it is a tough read for the mathematically challenged - I recommend it highly to anyone who wants to weigh in on subjects related to education in America.

Here is the Wiki link for those who may not have enough time to read the book - I must confess that it took me over a month, given my schedule! The Wiki link also presents some of the criticism that was levelled against this book (e.g. that it promotes scientific racism).

My personal opinion is that the material & data is presented clearly. Conclusions that are drawn seem to be objective, and the authors repeatedly caution against using the material outside the intended scope.

Obviously, dealing with multi-variable issues in a statistical manner is difficult. The authors carefully 'control' for relevant parameters and dissect the available data (sources of which are also explained). The effects of divorce, illegitimacy, parental socio-economic status, parental education, race, welfare, crime and other issues are carefully accounted for in this book - and the results are occasionally predictable but sometimes surprising.

Reputable sources of data are examined, for example the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY), a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics tracking thousands of Americans starting in the 1980s. All participants in the NLSY took the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT), a measure of cognitive ability comparable to an IQ test.

The statistical techniques employed are well explained - even to the mathematical novice - and correlations are carefully stated. 

The conventional wisdom is that K-12 Public Education in America is a failure. However, some people point to the stunted nature of Private Education as proof that privatization is not the answer.

Often cited is the fact that there is a long 'waiting list at the expensive public schools'. Does this make sense? Can we apply Econ101 and come up with an explanation?

Remember: economics deals with the allocation of scarce resources.

If you think about it, the fact that there are waiting lists for the good pvt schools actually demonstrates the impact of 'free' public education on the market for Private Education.

The analogy that comes to mind is that of the Private Enterprise (black market) shops in the former Soviet Union.

While the grocery stores in the Soviet Paradise had bare shelves, people would line up for hours for a chance to get their hands on the scarce luxuries (e.g. meat) at the Pvt stores.

Except for the fact that Pvt schools in the US are not illegal, the scarcity of good education as a commodity is the result of Govt control of this sector.

BTW, if the NEA had its way, don't you think that Private schools would be illegal! If that sounds absurd, stick around for a decade or two ..

And now, for a thought experiment!

Your name is GoodTeacher. You, along with three other good teachers, decided to become educational entrepreneurs - so, you start a company called EnterpriseEd. You see a market in AnyCity, USA because the public schools were underperforming.

Clearly, you could make a case that there is a need for better schools. But is there a 'demand' for a for-profit school?

Rather than wait around for public schools to 'reform' themselves, EnterpriseEd decides to do something about it themselves - exemplifying their true American spirit!

So EnterpriseEd puts together a business plan - and off they go in search of funding to start a pvt school. They finally manage to get in front of a Venture Capital firm called GotBucks, Inc.

The first question (and maybe the final one) from GotBucks would be "How do you compete against a 'free' system"? With parents already paying for public schools via taxation, can you quantify the demand?

EnterpriseEd (along with its charter member, GoodTeacher) don't have a good answer, because their addressable space (a term that VCs like to use) is almost non-existent.

Lacking capital, GoodTeacher (and her partners) go back to their jobs as Govt servants, depriving the citizens of AnyCity, USA of an alternative.

Now, imagine this scenario taking place all over the US, and for many, many generations. Is it surprising that there aren't enough pvt schools? Is it surprising that there are shortages in a country that lacks for very little in most other areas?

What is the missing ingredient?

As I argue in "Johnny can't read .. it's time to think outside the box", that missing ingredient is free-enterprise.

A visitor from a foreign country would be justified in making the following observation: "Free-enterprise institutions work well in America, delivering good quality at prices that are affordable to everyone. Americans must love their food and entertainment, because they have made sure that those areas benefit from this uniquely American thing called free enterprise.

"It would also appear that the quality of education is unimportant to Americans, as long as there is access to it. Why else would they have utilized a worn-out, broken down system to educate their kids? Americans also seem to consider teachers to be inferior professionals . Somehow, Americans think that they are not really qualified. They NEED a Union, they need to be cocooned from the marketplace."

I disagree vehemently with any notion that teachers are 'weak', either intellectually or morally. I've met many, many teachers who have the intellectual and moral strength to succeed in ANY profession. They choose to be teachers, because it is THEIR LIFE. But, any success they have comes IN SPITE of the system - not because of it. They will continue to be the best teachers in a free-enterprise system of education. In fact, they will be 'recruited' by many schools, bidding desperately to get the best staff on their teams.

The current system is designed to attract mediocre people into the teaching profession. The exceptions to that rule are a few really good, motivated, talented people who burn out after a decade and (if they're lucky) get recruited by the few private schools that manage to survive in the swamp created by Public Education.

We love to think that our system attracts thousands of Jaime Escalantes a la "Stand and Deliver". But that is not what really exists in our schools. We're all impressed by the movies that show a heart-of-gold teacher with the forbearance of Mother Theresa and/or Gandhi, the intellect of Edison or Mme Curie and the street cred and toughness of Morgan Freeman. The fact that some teachers exist who embody all those attributes is wonderful - but in a macro sense, a system that is designed to work only when run by supermen and superwomen is destined to fail.

Observe that the private sector produces SUPER quality (forced by competition) while being run by seemingly NORMAL individuals. Similarly, a private sector education system would also produce high quality output (well educated kids) while harnessing the productive abilities of teachers and administrators.

If we don't switch to free-enterprise education, we are dooming future generations of students to mediocrity. We will also lose many potentially wonderful teachers.

Imagine .. 
A presidential candidate whose platform for education included the following:

A) Making tuition to accredited Private Schools tax deductible

AND / OR

B) Providing vouchers to families with school age kids - vouchers that could be used at accredited public AND private schools

Such a candidate would get the interest of parents (read: voters) from both sides of the political spectrum.

Needless to say, such a candidate would not appeal to most union-istas - except for those who also happened to be parents who put their kids' education ahead of the political loyalties.

What would the above proposals achieve?

They would:

• constitute a relatively minor change in our existing system - and give us a chance to see if this reforms the system
• revive private education - currently struggling, with some notable exceptions
• increase competition for teachers - raising salaries for good teachers
• set the country on a path towards free-enterprise-education; IMO this should've been our approach from day one!

Please take a moment and jot down your responses to the following questions:

1) Would you vote for such a candidate regardless of the candidate's party affiliation?

2) Are there any disadvantages to either of the two proposals?

3) Can you name any candidate with the huevos to take on the status-quo in education?

4) Can we accept the status-quo? 

I maintain that if a conservative position can't be defended based on fundamental rights, the constitution or objective law, then it is lost.

Note: that does not constitute an anti-Religious sentiment. What it does mean is that I accept the reality that issues cannot be decided in modern America on a religious basis alone.

My preference is to be politically atheistic, keeping my religious values private. This platform begets moral consistency - I can speak loudly from self-interest, and ignore any of the platitudes that are based on 'helping' the down-trodden.

The fact that the pursuit of self-interest actually helps the down-trodden (by reducing their numbers significantly) bolsters the pragmatic and moral case for such a stance.

Also, separating religion from politics forces us to make consistent policy decisions on social issues. In a previous article, I present such an approach to the Gay Marriage issue.

I don't expect all conservatives to agree with my position(s) on social issues, but it is difficult to argue against consistency.

My point is that Christianity (and most other institutionalized religions) preach the virtues of self-sacrifice. There is also a tendency to glorify the downtrodden. Once ingrained with those concepts, people are programmed to accept Socialism.

Leftists have exploited this weakness. It is also the reason why good people begin their lives as leftists (it just seems like the moral high ground), until their life experiences make the blinders come off. Think of the cliche "if you aren't a liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't a conservative at age 40, you have no brain!" 

The fact that a large percentage of older American Conservatives are Christian actually shows that many are able to separate Religious Self-sacrifice from their politics and embrace Capitalism instead. It is also telling that there are quite a few Christians who switch from the Left to the Right in their 30s and 40s.

However, it is an indisputable fact that we lose many good (mostly younger) Christians to the Left. If we stop to think why that happens, we will find that it is because of this dichotomy - good Christians truly want to help the needy; as a direct consequence, taxation for the benefit of others is acceptable to them. Building on this mindset, it is easy to see why so many Christians support welfare programs, public education, universal health care and other Leftist entitlement programs.

It is very difficult for religious conservatives to argue that taxation for the purpose of entitlements is immoral. Pick any of the above programs and try to put forth a moral argument against it (other than the pragmatic argument that it just will not work).

So, does anyone want to make a moral argument against welfare, public education or universal health care? Try it and you will find yourself 'dancing on the head of a pin' to avoid a religious contradiction. Or, try to justify the conservative stance on illegal immigration - besides the law-breaking, aren't they just hardworking, good, unfortunate people who want jobs?

But what is it that makes people consent to such policies? Why have so many generations of people fallen for the concept of Communism or socialism? What is it that glorifies 're-distribution' to the point that no one dare oppose it for the evil that it truly represents?

Obviously, once a country is in the hands of Communists, they are able to use force to stay in power. But what would you say about our own country's voluntary, but inevitably leftward slide? What makes people voluntarily vote in favor of socialist programs such as public education, welfare, universal health care - and continue to support them despite the obvious failures?

After all, there is such a thing as the "consent of the governed". And, if the governed (read: voters) are susceptible to the creed of self-sacrifice, they are prime targets for re-distributionist ideas.

And that is the point - the concept of self-sacrifice loads the dice in favor of socialism. Since the creed of self-sacrifice comes from institutionalized religion, I state that socialists take advantage of our 'religious bias towards self-sacrifice' and subvert it for their purposes.

If we don't understand the origin of our society's attraction to socialist ideas, we will not be able to defeat socialism. 

"Don't be judgemental", say the multiculturists! And that is exactly where they get it wrong - right at the very beginning!

After all, if we suspend our judgement (as the multi-cultis suggest) we are easy prey to anyone who uses their (usually twisted) judgement of our society against us.

Multiculturists are empty-headed frauds with a perverse, self-hating streak.

Observe that the multiculturists often feign a look of absorbed interest in some random (usually medieval) and anachronistic concept. Having accepted the idea of suspended judgement (read: intelligence) they have no ability to carry out a real study of the facts.

All that they need is to say, with a fake look of benevolent attention "Oh my goodness, that is so interesting, Ngumpo-mumpo! Tell me more about the ancient tribal rain-invoking chants of the Mau-mau. Gosh, you natives are so much closer to Mother Nature than us greedy Americans. I can certainly understand why you hate us so."

How do we counter this nonsense?

Be judgemental - be very judgemental! If you suspend your judgement, you have effectively suspended your power of thought. Asking a human being to suspend his judgement is like insisting that a cheetah should suspend its ability to run fast. Without judgement, humans would starve to death. Even cavemen used their judgement to decide (based on experience) which berries tasted good, and which ones caused a tummyache!

A person who begins his argument with "let's not be judgemental" is a con-man, who is usually asking you to suspend your judgement, so that he can set you up for the con.

When dealing with a fawning multi-culti, remind them "but don't the Mau-mau live in leaky mud huts and have a life-span that is 50% that of Americans?"

A similar argument can be made when a multiculturist attempts to establish a moral equivalence between 7th century Islamists and 21st century Americans. Here is one possible response: "Imagine: over a billion people, and they have fewer patents in their entire recorded history than did the citizens of Utah last year."

Note: the above statistic was 'borrowed' from an article on the American Thinker site.

We should use the infinte powers of our intellect to first recognize, then remove the double fraud that is multiculturism.

Why is it a double fraud?

First, because multiculturism is passed off as an ideal. Secondly, those that claim to be multi-cultural are almost always faking it! 

Disclosure#1: I am a happily married, heterosexual, conservative male. Socially, I don't have a personal stake in this debate. What is the significance of this disclosure? In our polarized country, it is assumed that only Gays or liberals care about Gay Marriage and that all straight conservatives oppose it. However, conservatives too believe that there has to be fairness and equality in our policies.

Disclosure#2: Due to my political atheism, I choose to ignore the religious viewpoint that opposes gay marriage or any other issue. If a conservative (or libertarian) position can't be defended based on fundamental rights, the constitution or objective law, then it is lost anyway! As I have mentioned before, that does not constitute an anti-Religious sentiment. What it does mean is that I accept the reality that issues cannot be decided in modern America on a religious basis alone.

I find that the secular, conservative viewpoint opposing Gay Marriage is weak. Most of the points that are raised by secular conservatives can also apply to heterosexual marriage as well. Therefore, conservatives who oppose Gay Marriage typically fall back on the argument from tradition or religion.

What if:

• heterosexual couples also received a Civil Union document along with their marriage license
• gay couples could also obtain Civil Union documents
• the word 'marriage' had religious and traditional connotations, but no financial or civil benefits
• all Civil Unions were treated identically by the state

While on the subject, why not assume that:

• taxes were 'flat'
• married couples did not get any special treatment under the tax laws

Would gays still agitate for the right to marry if there were no economic benefits involved?

It took a Civil War to end Slavery -- perhaps Civil Unions will end the the 'War' on Gay Marriage?

Since many people throw out analogies & examples on this subject, here is a parallel that hasn't been made before (I think). Homeowners are allowed to deduct their housing cost (mortgage interest) for tax purposes; renters are not afforded the same privilege. Although this might be beneficial to the real estate market as well as the lenders, it seems unfair to the renters. TH readers are smart enough to figure out that homeowners in this example are analogous to heterosexuals - while renters are analogous to gay couples.

So, should renters also get a tax deduction for their housing costs? In fairness, they could certainly make such a case. The reasons that there hasn't been a taxpayer revolt on this issue are (a) most renters eventually aspire to become homeowners (b) landlords are not as organized as real estate professionals (c) due to the numbers, there isn't enough financial or political motivation behind this issue

My solution: repeal this deduction and lower taxes for everyone - clearly the Govt doesn't need this money, if they can give it back selectively!

I invite thoughtful comments from readers, preferably along non-religious grounds. Why? Because it usually ceases to be an intellectual debate when one injects Religion into poltical or social debate.

Although I'm an ABCB conservative, I am also a fan of Jon Stewart & Steven 'Colbeah'. In fact I Tivo both shows every night.

Why? Because they are funny - even to a conservative who disagrees with their world-view. But I am aware that their comedy is like the bait on a fishing hook.

It achieves two purposes:

First and foremost, it sells extra-primo-good advertizing. The 18-35 demographic is a prime segment, and is less concerned about intellectual consistency or historical accuracy than entertainment with a feel-good bias. And Lefty ideology may be broken, but it sure can FEEL GOOD! Warms the ol' cockles to hoot derisively (while basking in the camaraderie of fellow hooters) at anyone who can intellectually defend CEO salaries.

A distant SECONDARY motive is politics. This may sound incorrect to some conservatives who believe that the PRIME motive behind those Lefty comedy shows is politics. If they couldn't sell beer and chips to the target audience, they wouldn't exist.

No free-market conservative should begrudge the business success of these shows. After all, they know their audience, and they serve them well.

The sharp end of the comedy-laden hook is their ability to influence politics. And there is no doubt that Jon Stewart had an impact in the waning days of the Nov '06 campaign while broadcasting from battleground Ohio every night.

Conservativism lacks the 'feel-good' and provocative dynamic, but is anchored in reality. So, an action/drama show like '24' that has a conservative take can succeed. But a comedy .. not so easy to be irreverent.

Dennis Miller has had some success due to the fact that he takes an irreverent look at the PC culture which evolved from Lefty ideology. But that's a long way to go to get laughs! 

Leftist satirists have an edge, because a large part of contemporary comedy comes from irreverence.

And, the essence of Leftist ideology is to BE irreverent. For example, Leftist comedians can always get an easy laugh when they poke fun at our Govt (especially a Rep administration) and otherwise lambaste American failings.

Conservatives have a respect for American principles - so, we cringe when someone pokes fun at our country, irrespective of which party may happen to be in charge.

Since we also reject the tongue-in-cheek irreverence that is fashionable in contemporary comedy, we come off as 'boring' and dated in this genre.

However, we are more consistent in our thoughts and actions. In the long run, that counts for a lot more than the sneering, America-bashing Leftists.

Note: my comments here are intended to encourage thoughful comments from others who have tried to understand the success of Leftists in the area of entertainment in general and comedy in particular.

I believe that the rise of info-tainment as a political force deserves more attention. Since comedy plays a significant part in this, our lack of focus in this area will cost us dearly in the future.

I realize that it 'don't work that way', but if we are going to end American's love affair with Govt-funded space exploration, can we at least get some of our money back?

Actually, the space program was (is) a good thing - even though, as a laissez faire capitalist, I am against Govt funded scientific research. My support for the Govt-funded space program is due to the size and scope of the space program, from the 1960s to the present.

In the early days of the space program, there was no infrastructure, no training, and no expertise in the field.

But now, we have generations of scientific accomplishments behind us in the space program, and huge cadres of trained scientists.

Instead of mothballing the space program, it is time to privatize the Govt-funded space program and allow private enterprise to take over. Why would private companies do so? To earn revenues from satellite launches, Govt-paid defense projects, space tourism and other ventures.

And, here's a thought: the money that our Govt raises during the privatization could be returned to the taxpayers! How's that for a novel idea?

The result:

* we would continue to have an American space program (although privately run by divisions of American giants such as [GE, GM, Microsoft, Google, ..]

* the 'space dividend' tax rebate would spur other Americans to harness THEIR productive energies and create more for themselves (and the country).

Let freedom ring .. in space!

It has become fashionable to look down on 'profit-making' enterprises, and speak glowingly of 'non-profit' ventures. Somehow, people seem to trust non-profit entities more than for-profit corporations, despite the fact that it is much more difficult to hold non-profit entities accountable.

Most people assume that profits apply only to businesses, or to cartoon-like, bloated, cigar-smoking, whisky-swilling capitalists. Also, the adjective that is most commonly associated with a for-profit corporation is .. "evil". In movies and cartoons for children, an evil corporation is quite often seen dumping toxic chemicals, or turning the kids' park into a parking lot.

So, is the profit-motive inherently evil ? Does it create a system that relies on exploitation?

Consider the example of Joe, an honest, hard-working worker who works at Acme Inc. and gets paid $15/hr. What is his profit motive?

You can write Joe's profit-and-loss statement (in words) as follows:

Joe works 8 hours a day - he is investing his capital (labor, time), in return for $15/hr. To Joe, the $15 that he makes for every hour worked has more value than any other use of those 8 hours - if not, he wouldn't invest those hours.

The $250K machinery that is provided by Acme allows Joe to be more productive with his 8 hrs than otherwise. In fact, if Acme had not invested in the machinery, Joe's productivity could not have commanded an hrly rate of $15/hr, it would've been more like $8/hr.

What does Acme Inc. get out of this relationship? Do they do it 'at cost', just because they like having Joe around? Well, since they too are interested in making a profit, Joe's 8 hours are worth MORE than $15 each to Acme. Let's say that Joe produces goods or services that are worth $25/hr to Acme, because that is what they can sell those goods and services to their customer, who happens to be Wily Coyote, Inc . (WCI).

WCI, who may be an 'end user' of Joe's goods/services, thinks that they are getting a bargain on those products at $25/hr; that's because it may have cost them $50/hr to produce the same! Why? Presumably because they weren't in the business of producing that particular product or service - but needed it in their own enterprise.

Is WCI taking advantage of Acme, who (in turn) are taking advantage of Joe's labor. Of course!

Is anyone getting hurt or exploited? No!

Is everyone in this intricate game acting on their own self-interest (read: profit motive)? Yes!

Is there somethin' DIRTY going on? No!

So, why do most people instinctively feel "non-profit good, profit bad", to badly paraphrase the Orwellian "four legs good, two legs bad"?

That's because self-interest has become a dirty word in our lexicon, despite the fact that it is honest, consistent with human nature and the source of productive capitalism.

This is a philosophical dichotomy that causes us to 'feel' our way towards huge mistakes - with the noblest intentions at heart and the counterfeit currency of altruism. As a result, we 'feel' that Public Education is the only way that we can ensure a quality education. Or, we just hate the idea that doctors, nurses, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies make a profit while providing life-saving services and products. So, we 'feel' our way towards Universal Health Care.

The result: we pretend to be altruistic, and fake our way through life. Since our affluence comes from actions taken in our self-interest, we feel guilty for our success.

We claim altruism as a Value - but secretly value our affluence - setting ourselves up for guilt over our well-deserved high standard of living. So, the Joy of attaining our real value (earned through hard work and careful risk-taking) has to be hidden.

Perversely, we honor philanthropy over well-earned wealth. We seem to forget that the process of earning wealth is actually more difficult than the process of giving some of it away. The process of earning wealth also directly or indirectly contributes much more to 'society' than a wealthy person's philanthropy. So, why is Bill Gates reviled for earning billions (while revolutionizing the business world), but lauded for giving away a few millions?

What is it in human nature that sets us up for these contradictions? Why are we so susceptible to the mostly manufactured aura of selflessness? If we could answer that, we would have a good understanding of the instinctive dislike that many people have of the profit motive.

Perhaps it might also give us some insight into the allure of socialism.

The business world is getting more complex and competitive, and it takes a lot to be successful, or even to maintain an existing company.

Try to start a business (any business), and you will understand.

A simple analogy - since there are a lot more channels for entertainment these days, the landscape is more competitive. Not surprisingly, the actors and producers of hit TV shows and movies make a lot more money than entertainers of the 60s, 70s and 80s. We still pay about the same money for a record (notwithstanding the digital format), but avg recording contracts for performers are at least 50-100x higher than two decades ago.

BTW, it has ALWAYS been difficult for people who start and run successful companies (I speak from personal experience on both counts).

* It doesn't just take 'book smarts', although a good education doesn't hurt!
* It takes a level of self-confidence that is a rare commodity
* It requires a strength of mind to make a string of correct decisions without any fore-knowledge of success. This is something that the MBA case-studies never reveal, because they have the luxury of hindsight, which makes everything so patently obvious to the reader who might say "Hey, that looks easy, anyone could do it!".

So, yes, capable CEOs who can guide their companies towards revenue growth and profitability are in EXTREMELY short supply. And, if you attempt to regulate their compensation pkgs, you will hurt the 'workers' a lot more than the CEOs.

Consider these issues that either didn't exist, or were relatively minor matters:

* global competition
* compliance issues: e.g. S-Ox
* hostile media
* jaundiced public opinion

The reality is that there are an infinitesimally small number of capable, productive, self-starter types in any society (even in America). And it is on their shoulders that we all stand, while feeling 10ft tall.

If you found a way to curb Bill Gates' ability to make money, he would probably hit the 'permissible' cap that you would place on his personal wealth - say, $200M instead of $34B. The loss to all those who benefit from his generosity (and I'm not talking about his philanthrophic 'giveaways') would far exceed $33B. His lifestyle would only be minimally impacted - but his customers, employees and vendors would be hurt.

So, you would be smart to 'permit' Bill Gates to earn his $34B, or more. To paraphrase a philosopher (any guesses?) whose words are often forgotten, "When you take away the shirt off an industrialist's back, you are actually giving up your own!"