News media sells better than an infomercial
I was reading a little blurb in Newsweek. A college student, Traci Carpenter, was telling the world why politician should pay attention to her and her ilk. She didn't want to be talked down to. She didn't want pandering. To her credit, she does admit to being confused. And in this, she is entirely accurate.
She declares, "I am told to care about issues like Social Security and health care, when chances are high that I won't even be able to find a job..."
I'm leaning towards agreeing with that statement but not for the reasons she believes. Her lack of employment opportunities has everything to do with what is inside her, or lack thereof. Maybe her choice of major leaves her without job prospects. Maybe she understands that her intellect leaves much to be desired. More than likely she's been convinced by Jon Stewart that the job situation in this country is dire. I know that my grandmother also believes this and she doesn't watch Mr. Stewart.
If I gave you a raffle ticket and told you the chances that you will win are 96 in 100, would you tell the world that the probability was high that you would lose? It's a real shame that we report an unemployment statistic. It's obviously a difficult concept for some. Why not report the employment statistic? From the heady prosperity of the late 90's to today's "economic quagmire" the employment level has gone from 96% to 95%. Whoa! Stop the presses. The economy is a flippin' disaster. At least, that's what the young, collegiate Newsweek author believes. (I almost wrote 'thinks', but that involves working synapses.)
She claims that she knows what is going on in the world even though most of that knowledge comes from Comedy Central. That's right, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart is her main source of knowledge. I am acutely aware that every generation bemoans the perceived deficiencies in the the generation that follows, but I have no choice but to fall into that trap. This young adult has access to more information at her very fingertips than any other person in the history of the world. She can read, at no charge, opinions and commentary from sources around the world within minutes of their publication. But sadly, she purports to be informed and informed by a Jay Leno wannabe.
"Sometimes I feel that no matter how I vote, there will still be war, crime and poverty".
Who promised her that it was the job of those she votes for to prevent these things?
No one asked for Hitler to attempt world domination, or Hirohito, or Stalin. No one asked Saddam to terrorize his people and attack his neighbors. No one went to Mao and asked him to create an enemy of the free people of the world. There will be war -- it will continue to be a matter of fact. You can vote for an entire non-violent government and the most likely outcome will be the loss of your country and your right to vote.
She must buy the idea that the law is there to prevent crime. This is the direction recent legislatures have been taking but it is a fool's errand. Would you rob a bank? If no, is it because it is illegal? Of course not. You are a rational and moral person who chooses to be a productive member of society. Those of you who answered yes, clearly did so in spite of the laws against it. No matter which answer you gave it was not based on the legality of such an action. I suppose there may be a few of you who would rob the bank but do not out of fear of being caught and subjected to the law. Even so, you could still commit the act -- the law stops you from nothing. Laws do two things, deter the rational or punish the guilty. They do not 'prevent' crime.
This year is the 40th anniversary of the War on Poverty. Forty years of taking money from some people and giving it to others. Are we any closer to a final victory? You can read plenty of stories from those on the Left about how the gap between the Rich and the Poor is ever widening. How can this be? President Johnson kicked it off, the Democrats controlled the House for forty years until the Gingrich revolution, and America has increased its GDP year after year. With all this, isn't it time to acknowledge that government is not a solution for poverty. I bet all of these facts would come as a surprise to our favorite coed author. All except for the ever widening wealth gap, that is the media's message after all. That's what she gulps down night after night from Jon Stewart or Ted Koppel or Dan Rather. If we only wanted peace, it would happen. If only we had a draft, evil Republicans wouldn't go to war. If only we took even more money from the rich, we'd have less poverty. If only we had more laws, we would have less crime. Government should be seen as the solution to all problems.
I look forward to the day the Ms. Carpenter starts to earn a living, keep up a household, have a family. I want to be there when she begins to pay attention to the 'gross' line on her paycheck instead of obliviously living off the 'net' line; when the concept enters her mind that there is no such thing as 'the government's money', it's her money... and there are people taking it away to give it to someone else.
