On New Year’s Eve, 1992 I read a small, innocuous article, little more than a paragraph, in the Florida Times-Union newspaper. The article told of an eagle’s nest that had been knocked to the ground when the tree it was resting in had been cut down by a construction crew. Environmentalists had rushed the nest and its cargo of eagle’s eggs to a local veterinarian so that they could be saved.
The article stated that, after a thorough examination, the veterinarian had determined that the eggshells were intact. The unborn eagles were healthy and clinging to life, inside of their shells. As a member of the pro-life community, my first reaction was to laugh at the obvious irony, but little more. But the more I thought about it, the more that irony began to bother me, as I began to see what I perceived as a rather obvious disconnect in how society views animal life versus human life.
I decided to write a letter to the editor of the Florida Times-Union pointing out that irony and my subsequent perception of that disconnect. I had never written a letter to the editor before, but I decided that I had something important to point out to my community that no one else seemed to have noticed. This was the letter that I wrote:
3 January, 1993
Dear Editor,
Our society has truly risen to a higher plane of enlightenment. A few recent letters and articles clearly illustrate the direction of philosophical change our nation is taking. A New Year’s Eve article told of a veterinarian’s efforts to determine the presence of “life” inside an unhatched eagle egg which had been disturbed. In our nation today, it is a criminal act to harm, or otherwise disturb, the unborn offspring of endangered species, such as bald eagles or loggerhead turtles.
I don’t understand the logic in these laws. I was under the impression that pro-abortion groups had determined that unborn “life” had no rights in this country. I was led to believe that “life” begins at birth (hatching), and at no time prior, Apparently, that principle only applies to the human species.
If life is indeed precious, then ALL life-forms are precious. If we refuse to tolerate the wanton extermination and extinction of plant and animal life-forms, at all stages of development, the principles of consistency require that that same standard be equally applied to human life-forms, at all stages of development.
Double standards are never fair or justified. The principles which are applied to, or enforced on, one group must be done so equally for all groups. It is only then that true fairness will have a chance to exist. To do less, results only in a constant power-shift from one extreme to the other.
Well, much to my amazement, and excitement, my letter was printed about 4 days later. It was the first time I had ever had anything I had written printed anywhere other than my own personal journals. I was more than a little surprised that the letter was printed with just a few minor changes. I made sure that everyone I knew saw the letter.
A few days later, someone wrote a response taking issue with my suggestion of the double standards with regard to the definition of “life” employed by environmentalist, animal rights fanatics, and pro-abortion groups. In fact, he seemed to infer that I must be some kind of idiot. He wrote:
"13 January 1993
Dear Editor,
A recent letter found a double standard, or inconsistency, with the fact that “it is a criminal act to harm or otherwise disturb the unborn offspring of endangered species, such as the eggs of bald eagles or loggerhead turtles”, while at the same time human abortion is legal.
The rather obvious point that the writer seems to be missing is the fact that the only species to which these laws apply are endangered species. Fortunately, they are not applied to other animals or eggs that are not endangered.
While comparing humans and animals is like comparing apples and oranges, in this case at least, the legality of abortion in humans (clearly not an endangered species) is entirely consistent and, in fact, no double standard exists at all.”
I love a good political argument. This guy had challenged my thesis. His letter got me fired up. He had picked up my thrown gauntlet and inadvertently proved my point for me. I quickly dashed off my response to the editor, which the editor decided not to print. I wrote:
13 January 1993
Dear Editor,
The January 13th response to my letter on double standards provided an excellent example of the point I was trying to make. The writer’s emphatic position that there is no inconsistency between one policy to preserve endangered, unborn animal life and another to exterminate unborn human life clearly demonstrates that a greater value has been placed on the life of the animal.
The writer is correct to point out that we humans are not an endangered species. However, if the dreams of our newly elected, liberal, moral-phobic government are realized, I am sure that this will only be a temporary condition. Maybe then unborn humans will be a protected species.
I learned a few lessons in writing letters to the editor from this episode. Editors generally do not encourage sparring matches between letter writers and if you want to have a letter printed, it is usually best to tone down the sarcasm. Nevertheless, my appetite had been aroused. I had found a medium where I could speak and the whole community would take notice, not to mention the buffing my ego received when friends and family commented on my brilliance!
The point I sought to make in my letters remains valid to this day. When it comes to how we protect unborn life in this country, we view animal life differently than we view human life. Even with regard to non-endangered species, we punish those who harm animals at all stages of development under animal cruelty statutes.
At the other end of the life cycle, we move heaven and earth to prevent the deaths of whales and dolphins who attempt suicide by beaching themselves, yet more and more states are passing euthanasia laws to allow medically assisted suicide for humans. Perhaps if we view humans as merely a part of the animal kingdom instead of the elites of the animal kingdom humans could be afforded the same considerations of right to life.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
08 March 2008
Morally Objective Absolute Principles
Liberal groups, such as the ACLU, regularly call for the expulsion of religious influences from the government and the public lives of Americans. They should be careful what they wish for. The state of anarchy which would most surely follow such a reality would be far less desirable than the presence of religious based moral and ethical standards.
We live in a society which, at least in the opinion of many conservatives, has adopted both a total distaste for objective morality and a genuine passion for unrestrained hedonism. Conservatives believe that the imposition, by codification into law, of moral, objective truths, whether in the home, schools, or society at large, is essential for our society to develop an inner sense of civilized behavior. If we expect our youth to internalize the basic principles of right and wrong behavior, we need to provide them with a clear, unambiguous set of social rules and behavioral boundaries. As William Raspberry once wrote, “You can’t exercise moral authority while denying the authority of morality.”
The persistent liberal rejection of these moral principles, rooted as they are in fundamental religious philosophy, has led to the growing acceptance of, and general acquiescence to, situational ethics and so-called “no-fault” morality. Each individual is supposedly the best judge of what is right or wrong for himself/herself. The reality is that this philosophic approach to the debate is morally bankrupt and leaves the individual in the same situation as the people we read about in headlines everyday: confused and hopelessly searching for some sort of behavioral boundaries.
If we, as a society, decide that morality issues should, in fact, be individual choices, based on the situational ethics of any given moment, how are we then to decide the proper course of action for those moral decisions which affect society as a whole, such as determining which behaviors are acceptable in civilized society and which ones should be categorized as undesirable or criminally deviant, and therefore punishable under our laws? Should we follow the same liberal proscription of individual choice based on situational ethics of the moment, or would the imposition by government of moral principles be allowable in those situations?
Is there, in fact, a basis for the conservative contention that a community, or any given population, has the authority to require adherence to a code of absolute morally objective truths? In 1788, a set of principles were written and formally adopted by the newly formed United States of America as their Constitution. As ratified, this statement of principles became the absolute national standard of law for all of the signatory, and future, states, against which all other principles enacted into law would be compared and tested for consistency with that higher standard.
Those principles determined as not consistent with this absolute rule of law would be invalidated as unconstitutional. Those which upheld the spirit, and intent, of the constitutional absolutes would be enacted into law with the full legitimacy of the constitution as there base. The principles embodied in the constitution serve also as a protection for all Americans because of their absolute, unchanging nature. Even with the few changes that have been made through the amendment process, the fundamental core values originally contained within the U.S. Constitution remain unchanged as the absolute objective truths by which this nation continues to govern itself. But according to some of the folks on the left, the advocacy of moral absolutes amounts to little more than bigotry.
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers spoke of “the Laws of Nature” and listed certain “truths” as “self-evident”. The words and phrases indicate that these men held a firm belief in certain absolute moral principles which clearly transcended any man-made laws that ignored those rights of men which were established under these higher “Laws of Nature”. So, here we have two documents which form the foundation of our nation, that clearly suggest that man’s laws quite properly have their basis, or origin, in higher moral principles, or moral absolutes, such as objective truths, virtues, and justice. It is clear that, at least in the beginning of its history, America’s laws were intended to embrace the concept of a “higher law” which superceded man’s law, and in many cases was to be incorporated into man’s law.
But can these moral absolutes be so easily vetoed by any society? While shifting social mores and related shifts in political philosophies may alter the popularity of absolute moral principles, these principles, by there very definition, are unalterable and not subject to the whim of societal change. They are the eternal “self-evident truths” spoken of by America’s founding fathers. These principles form the basis for most, if not all, of the world’s major religions. Much the same way as a single thread can be traced through the many patterns woven into a tapestry, these principles transcend all denominations and dogmas. All laws, religious and civil, spring from these timeless, absolute, objective moral principles.
Are America’s absolute values limited to just those listed in its constitution? If this is so, then how can we accept the morally objective absolutes, provided to us through our religious heritage, as incorporated into our constitution and our laws, on the one hand, and with the other, deny that same religion a place in the debate and decision making process for establishing the community and national moral standards? There are many, primarily conservatives, who earnestly believe that the founding fathers never intended to silence the voice of religion in public debate. But if, as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled, the U.S. Constitution does in fact mandate, establish and demand a firm separation of religious and secular philosophies, does that ruling then also mandate, establish and demand that, for the sake of consistency, any legislation enacted into law whose basis relies primarily on religious principles must then also be considered as unconstitutional?
If such were the case, most of our criminal and civil laws must be considered as unconstitutional. Laws against murder, theft, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and child abuse, to name a few examples, would no longer be enforced or legislated, since religious principles could not constitutionally intermarry. It would be necessary, however, if we intend to sincerely deny the existence, or appropriateness, of objective, moral absolute principles within our society.
The rejection of objective, morally absolute principles in any society will inevitably result in defining the greater society by its lowest common elements, or what Daniel Patrick Moynahan called, “defining deviancy down”. Immorality will grow unfettered until it ultimately overtakes the greater society, much the same way that the criminal element seems to be doing in America today. Crime currently appears at, or near, the top of most opinion polls of America’s worst problems. Societies form governments for the purpose of securing and protecting the common good, not the subjugation of the common good. Clearly the presence of objective, morally absolute principles does more good than any good in a society that the obvious harm created by its absence.
Objective, morally absolute principles, the central core beliefs of all religions, the “higher laws of nature”, the “self-evident truths” of the founding fathers, are the bedrock of all societies, whether or not they are observed and followed. They provide a clear basis for the firm positive identity of any society. Anytime these principles are compromised, society suffers. If a society’s moral base is strong, no outside base can defeat it. This bedrock of object morality is analogous to the self-actualized human ego. As with the individual, if a society has a firm, positive moral understanding of its self-concept, it grows into a stronger society.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
We live in a society which, at least in the opinion of many conservatives, has adopted both a total distaste for objective morality and a genuine passion for unrestrained hedonism. Conservatives believe that the imposition, by codification into law, of moral, objective truths, whether in the home, schools, or society at large, is essential for our society to develop an inner sense of civilized behavior. If we expect our youth to internalize the basic principles of right and wrong behavior, we need to provide them with a clear, unambiguous set of social rules and behavioral boundaries. As William Raspberry once wrote, “You can’t exercise moral authority while denying the authority of morality.”
The persistent liberal rejection of these moral principles, rooted as they are in fundamental religious philosophy, has led to the growing acceptance of, and general acquiescence to, situational ethics and so-called “no-fault” morality. Each individual is supposedly the best judge of what is right or wrong for himself/herself. The reality is that this philosophic approach to the debate is morally bankrupt and leaves the individual in the same situation as the people we read about in headlines everyday: confused and hopelessly searching for some sort of behavioral boundaries.
If we, as a society, decide that morality issues should, in fact, be individual choices, based on the situational ethics of any given moment, how are we then to decide the proper course of action for those moral decisions which affect society as a whole, such as determining which behaviors are acceptable in civilized society and which ones should be categorized as undesirable or criminally deviant, and therefore punishable under our laws? Should we follow the same liberal proscription of individual choice based on situational ethics of the moment, or would the imposition by government of moral principles be allowable in those situations?
Is there, in fact, a basis for the conservative contention that a community, or any given population, has the authority to require adherence to a code of absolute morally objective truths? In 1788, a set of principles were written and formally adopted by the newly formed United States of America as their Constitution. As ratified, this statement of principles became the absolute national standard of law for all of the signatory, and future, states, against which all other principles enacted into law would be compared and tested for consistency with that higher standard.
Those principles determined as not consistent with this absolute rule of law would be invalidated as unconstitutional. Those which upheld the spirit, and intent, of the constitutional absolutes would be enacted into law with the full legitimacy of the constitution as there base. The principles embodied in the constitution serve also as a protection for all Americans because of their absolute, unchanging nature. Even with the few changes that have been made through the amendment process, the fundamental core values originally contained within the U.S. Constitution remain unchanged as the absolute objective truths by which this nation continues to govern itself. But according to some of the folks on the left, the advocacy of moral absolutes amounts to little more than bigotry.
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers spoke of “the Laws of Nature” and listed certain “truths” as “self-evident”. The words and phrases indicate that these men held a firm belief in certain absolute moral principles which clearly transcended any man-made laws that ignored those rights of men which were established under these higher “Laws of Nature”. So, here we have two documents which form the foundation of our nation, that clearly suggest that man’s laws quite properly have their basis, or origin, in higher moral principles, or moral absolutes, such as objective truths, virtues, and justice. It is clear that, at least in the beginning of its history, America’s laws were intended to embrace the concept of a “higher law” which superceded man’s law, and in many cases was to be incorporated into man’s law.
But can these moral absolutes be so easily vetoed by any society? While shifting social mores and related shifts in political philosophies may alter the popularity of absolute moral principles, these principles, by there very definition, are unalterable and not subject to the whim of societal change. They are the eternal “self-evident truths” spoken of by America’s founding fathers. These principles form the basis for most, if not all, of the world’s major religions. Much the same way as a single thread can be traced through the many patterns woven into a tapestry, these principles transcend all denominations and dogmas. All laws, religious and civil, spring from these timeless, absolute, objective moral principles.
Are America’s absolute values limited to just those listed in its constitution? If this is so, then how can we accept the morally objective absolutes, provided to us through our religious heritage, as incorporated into our constitution and our laws, on the one hand, and with the other, deny that same religion a place in the debate and decision making process for establishing the community and national moral standards? There are many, primarily conservatives, who earnestly believe that the founding fathers never intended to silence the voice of religion in public debate. But if, as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled, the U.S. Constitution does in fact mandate, establish and demand a firm separation of religious and secular philosophies, does that ruling then also mandate, establish and demand that, for the sake of consistency, any legislation enacted into law whose basis relies primarily on religious principles must then also be considered as unconstitutional?
If such were the case, most of our criminal and civil laws must be considered as unconstitutional. Laws against murder, theft, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and child abuse, to name a few examples, would no longer be enforced or legislated, since religious principles could not constitutionally intermarry. It would be necessary, however, if we intend to sincerely deny the existence, or appropriateness, of objective, moral absolute principles within our society.
The rejection of objective, morally absolute principles in any society will inevitably result in defining the greater society by its lowest common elements, or what Daniel Patrick Moynahan called, “defining deviancy down”. Immorality will grow unfettered until it ultimately overtakes the greater society, much the same way that the criminal element seems to be doing in America today. Crime currently appears at, or near, the top of most opinion polls of America’s worst problems. Societies form governments for the purpose of securing and protecting the common good, not the subjugation of the common good. Clearly the presence of objective, morally absolute principles does more good than any good in a society that the obvious harm created by its absence.
Objective, morally absolute principles, the central core beliefs of all religions, the “higher laws of nature”, the “self-evident truths” of the founding fathers, are the bedrock of all societies, whether or not they are observed and followed. They provide a clear basis for the firm positive identity of any society. Anytime these principles are compromised, society suffers. If a society’s moral base is strong, no outside base can defeat it. This bedrock of object morality is analogous to the self-actualized human ego. As with the individual, if a society has a firm, positive moral understanding of its self-concept, it grows into a stronger society.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
01 March 2008
The Manipulation of Consumer Confidence
The online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, defines consumer confidence as “the degree of optimism on the state of the economy that consumers are expressing through their activities of savings and spending.” In other words, consumer confidence is little more than the public’s opinion, or perception or how good, or bad, the economy is doing, at any given time expressed by how much they spend, or don’t spend. This can be easily seen in the stock market.
Positive and negative trends in the stock market are largely driven by the perceptions and expectations of the investors. Actual events are not nearly as important as what the public expects to happen. If investors believe that the economy is strong, they are more inclined to invest in the expectation of larger gains. If they fear a downturn in the economy, they are more inclined to sell off their investments to protect their savings. Once panic sets in, negative expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy and we have a crash in the market. The market is relatively easy to manipulate, positively or negatively, depending on what investors can be convinced to expect. Savvy manipulators of the market can cause major shifts in the market for their own personal gains or purposes.
I was recently reorganizing some old files in my home office and rediscovered a letter to the editor that I had written during the buildup to what has come to be known as Gulf War I. The letter was written in January 1991, during the time that American troops were staging in Saudi Arabia, preparing to visit Sadam Hussein. It referred back to the prior November, when Americans back stateside were beginning their annual Christmas shopping.
My letter addressed what I saw as a curious scam being perpetrated on the American public. I made mention of how Congressional Democrats and the news media had been insisting for quite some time that America was on a collision course with either a major recession or an economic depression. Both groups had, in fact, been predicting economic doom and gloom for much of George H.W. Bush’s term in office, not to mention Ronald Reagan’s two terms, prior to that. Such prognostication has become something of a liberal Democrat tradition during those periods when Republicans occupy the White House.
As shoppers began filling the stores that Christmas season, the TV news shows sent their reporters out among them to determine just how bad the shopping season was going to be for merchants, based on the media’s expectation of low consumer confidence. Shopper after shopper was interviewed. Much to the obvious surprise, and dismay, of the reporters, folks were spending quite heavily. By all appearances, merchants were going to have a very profitable holiday season.
Shoppers were repeatedly asked why they were spending so much on gifts when the country’s economy was on the verge of a major recession. Most of the folks acted somewhat confused by the question and its dire prediction. Several stated that they did not know about any pending recession. What they did know was that they had had a very prosperous year and they were planning on having a nice Christmas for their families.
The news media were persistent, if nothing else, as night after night, they returned to the malls and shopping centers, with the same questions and dire economic predictions. It took about two weeks of this nightly assault before the media achieved their goal and finally began to convince the shoppers that doom and gloom were just around the corner. Many folks began responding that, although they themselves were doing pretty good financially, they were concerned that their neighbors might not be doing so well. A rather severe damper settled in over the remainder of the 1990 Christmas season. Shortly thereafter, the economic downturn that Democrats and the media had lobbied so hard for began to materialize.
It was clearly an orchestrated event that was designed, first, to toss a possible roadblock in front of President Bush’s commitment to removing Sadam Hussein from Kuwait, a commitment which many Congressional Democrats and media members had not supported, and second, it provided an opportunity to give a Republican administration an economic black-eye, which was never a bad thing to the media. It also provides a good example of how easily the media can manipulate consumer confidence in the economy.
One of the concepts at the heart of any good marketing strategy is the ability of the marketer to influence his intended customer’s perception of a new product, or an idea. One of the best strategies for achieving that goal was best expressed by Vladimir Lenin when he said, “A lie [or idea] told often enough, becomes the truth.” In other words, the more an idea is repeated to the general public, the more familiar, comfortable, and accepting the general public tends to become of that idea. Eventually, the new idea becomes an accepted part of what most of the public believes to be an undeniable truth.
For the past few months we have been under a near daily barrage of media reports that we are either in the midst of an economic recession or on the precipice of one. The recent downturn in the housing market, higher prices at the gas pump, higher prices at the grocery store, and the public’s overuse of credit are all offered up as proof of serious economic doom and gloom. Within the past few weeks, Congress, with the encouragement and support of President Bush, has passed an “economic stimulus package” supposedly designed to jumpstart the economy by giving away tax “rebates” to the general public. Little more than a redistribution of wealth in an effort to buy votes, the stated expectation is that those receiving the government checks will launch a major spending spree that will improve the nation’s stagnate economy and improve consumer confidence.
This is the same consumer confidence that the media have spent the last few months trying to negatively manipulate in order to produce a downturn in the economy. As of the last week or so, the media has been largely successful, since consumer confidence is indeed dropping. The media reports that folks are finding it increasingly difficult to put food on the table, make the mortgage payment, put gas in the car tank, or pay for their prescriptions. It is getting increasingly difficult for folks to stretch their paychecks far enough to buy the essentials they need to sustain their families, ergo; the tax rebates are sorely needed.
At the same time, however, the media have reported that contributions to the campaign coffers of the presidential candidates are at historically record setting high levels. Just in January and February alone, the two remaining Democrat candidates have posted contributions of $86 million and $49 million. For all of 2007, the four remaining candidates in the primaries reported contributions of: Barak Obama: $75,139,618.04; Hillary Clinton: $95,132,696.86; John McCain: $30,753,091.76; and Mike Huckabee: $5 346,101.45. Most of these campaigns claim that the vast majority of these donations have come from average middle class folks, not wealthy contributors.
How can the economic conditions in the country be so dire that, on the one hand, folks can barely afford the essentials, necessitating tax rebates from the government to low income folks who pay little or no taxes, yet on the other hand, these same folks have little or no trouble setting records with contributions to presidential candidates’ campaign coffers? There is an obvious chasm between what is being reported about the state of our economy and reality.
If folks stopped sending their excess money to political campaigns and began spending that money on their own personal expenses, maybe that money would produce the “heat” that the media, Congress, and the President tell us is necessary for the economy’s salvation. The Congress could then send the excess funds they planned to use for the tax rebates back to the folks who actually paid the taxes in the first place. Failing that, perhaps the government should screen prospective tax rebate recipients to identify those who contributed to political campaigns. Those folks who apparently had more money than they needed and were able to share their excess with the candidates would not be eligible for a rebate, since they had too much to begin with.
I propose an experiment. Suppose we see what the effect would be on consumer confidence if the media reported only positive economic news for the next six months. All negative economic news could either be downplayed or reported as mostly insignificant. After all, we’ve seen what happens when the media reports only negative economic news and downplays any positives. More than likely, if the next occupant of the White House is one of the two liberal Democrat candidates currently running for the job, this will be the format followed, not just for six months, but until such time that another Republican takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Perhaps the best advice of all for combating the media’s desire for manipulation of consumer confidence was offered by Rush Limbaugh. On his radio show recently he advised his listeners that, when faced with the media-driven economic downturn, he simply chooses to not participate. In other words, media manipulation of the economy, and consumer confidence, only succeeds to the extent that the general public buys into the manipulation. If we ignore the media’s efforts, we, the public, remain in control of the economy.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
Positive and negative trends in the stock market are largely driven by the perceptions and expectations of the investors. Actual events are not nearly as important as what the public expects to happen. If investors believe that the economy is strong, they are more inclined to invest in the expectation of larger gains. If they fear a downturn in the economy, they are more inclined to sell off their investments to protect their savings. Once panic sets in, negative expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy and we have a crash in the market. The market is relatively easy to manipulate, positively or negatively, depending on what investors can be convinced to expect. Savvy manipulators of the market can cause major shifts in the market for their own personal gains or purposes.
I was recently reorganizing some old files in my home office and rediscovered a letter to the editor that I had written during the buildup to what has come to be known as Gulf War I. The letter was written in January 1991, during the time that American troops were staging in Saudi Arabia, preparing to visit Sadam Hussein. It referred back to the prior November, when Americans back stateside were beginning their annual Christmas shopping.
My letter addressed what I saw as a curious scam being perpetrated on the American public. I made mention of how Congressional Democrats and the news media had been insisting for quite some time that America was on a collision course with either a major recession or an economic depression. Both groups had, in fact, been predicting economic doom and gloom for much of George H.W. Bush’s term in office, not to mention Ronald Reagan’s two terms, prior to that. Such prognostication has become something of a liberal Democrat tradition during those periods when Republicans occupy the White House.
As shoppers began filling the stores that Christmas season, the TV news shows sent their reporters out among them to determine just how bad the shopping season was going to be for merchants, based on the media’s expectation of low consumer confidence. Shopper after shopper was interviewed. Much to the obvious surprise, and dismay, of the reporters, folks were spending quite heavily. By all appearances, merchants were going to have a very profitable holiday season.
Shoppers were repeatedly asked why they were spending so much on gifts when the country’s economy was on the verge of a major recession. Most of the folks acted somewhat confused by the question and its dire prediction. Several stated that they did not know about any pending recession. What they did know was that they had had a very prosperous year and they were planning on having a nice Christmas for their families.
The news media were persistent, if nothing else, as night after night, they returned to the malls and shopping centers, with the same questions and dire economic predictions. It took about two weeks of this nightly assault before the media achieved their goal and finally began to convince the shoppers that doom and gloom were just around the corner. Many folks began responding that, although they themselves were doing pretty good financially, they were concerned that their neighbors might not be doing so well. A rather severe damper settled in over the remainder of the 1990 Christmas season. Shortly thereafter, the economic downturn that Democrats and the media had lobbied so hard for began to materialize.
It was clearly an orchestrated event that was designed, first, to toss a possible roadblock in front of President Bush’s commitment to removing Sadam Hussein from Kuwait, a commitment which many Congressional Democrats and media members had not supported, and second, it provided an opportunity to give a Republican administration an economic black-eye, which was never a bad thing to the media. It also provides a good example of how easily the media can manipulate consumer confidence in the economy.
One of the concepts at the heart of any good marketing strategy is the ability of the marketer to influence his intended customer’s perception of a new product, or an idea. One of the best strategies for achieving that goal was best expressed by Vladimir Lenin when he said, “A lie [or idea] told often enough, becomes the truth.” In other words, the more an idea is repeated to the general public, the more familiar, comfortable, and accepting the general public tends to become of that idea. Eventually, the new idea becomes an accepted part of what most of the public believes to be an undeniable truth.
For the past few months we have been under a near daily barrage of media reports that we are either in the midst of an economic recession or on the precipice of one. The recent downturn in the housing market, higher prices at the gas pump, higher prices at the grocery store, and the public’s overuse of credit are all offered up as proof of serious economic doom and gloom. Within the past few weeks, Congress, with the encouragement and support of President Bush, has passed an “economic stimulus package” supposedly designed to jumpstart the economy by giving away tax “rebates” to the general public. Little more than a redistribution of wealth in an effort to buy votes, the stated expectation is that those receiving the government checks will launch a major spending spree that will improve the nation’s stagnate economy and improve consumer confidence.
This is the same consumer confidence that the media have spent the last few months trying to negatively manipulate in order to produce a downturn in the economy. As of the last week or so, the media has been largely successful, since consumer confidence is indeed dropping. The media reports that folks are finding it increasingly difficult to put food on the table, make the mortgage payment, put gas in the car tank, or pay for their prescriptions. It is getting increasingly difficult for folks to stretch their paychecks far enough to buy the essentials they need to sustain their families, ergo; the tax rebates are sorely needed.
At the same time, however, the media have reported that contributions to the campaign coffers of the presidential candidates are at historically record setting high levels. Just in January and February alone, the two remaining Democrat candidates have posted contributions of $86 million and $49 million. For all of 2007, the four remaining candidates in the primaries reported contributions of: Barak Obama: $75,139,618.04; Hillary Clinton: $95,132,696.86; John McCain: $30,753,091.76; and Mike Huckabee: $5 346,101.45. Most of these campaigns claim that the vast majority of these donations have come from average middle class folks, not wealthy contributors.
How can the economic conditions in the country be so dire that, on the one hand, folks can barely afford the essentials, necessitating tax rebates from the government to low income folks who pay little or no taxes, yet on the other hand, these same folks have little or no trouble setting records with contributions to presidential candidates’ campaign coffers? There is an obvious chasm between what is being reported about the state of our economy and reality.
If folks stopped sending their excess money to political campaigns and began spending that money on their own personal expenses, maybe that money would produce the “heat” that the media, Congress, and the President tell us is necessary for the economy’s salvation. The Congress could then send the excess funds they planned to use for the tax rebates back to the folks who actually paid the taxes in the first place. Failing that, perhaps the government should screen prospective tax rebate recipients to identify those who contributed to political campaigns. Those folks who apparently had more money than they needed and were able to share their excess with the candidates would not be eligible for a rebate, since they had too much to begin with.
I propose an experiment. Suppose we see what the effect would be on consumer confidence if the media reported only positive economic news for the next six months. All negative economic news could either be downplayed or reported as mostly insignificant. After all, we’ve seen what happens when the media reports only negative economic news and downplays any positives. More than likely, if the next occupant of the White House is one of the two liberal Democrat candidates currently running for the job, this will be the format followed, not just for six months, but until such time that another Republican takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Perhaps the best advice of all for combating the media’s desire for manipulation of consumer confidence was offered by Rush Limbaugh. On his radio show recently he advised his listeners that, when faced with the media-driven economic downturn, he simply chooses to not participate. In other words, media manipulation of the economy, and consumer confidence, only succeeds to the extent that the general public buys into the manipulation. If we ignore the media’s efforts, we, the public, remain in control of the economy.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
25 February 2008
And So We Begin
And so we begin. With this post, I christen and initiate the “My View From The Eagle’s Perch” Blog as a forum wherein I can post my thoughts and opinions concerning my little corner of the world. My primary intent is to post my take on major and minor current events, news of the day items of interest to me, and the potential impact all of these events may have on our future as a nation. But, as an insatiable student of History, I will also, from time to time, post a few thoughts on historical events and how I believe those events have brought us to where we find ourselves today.
You may ask yourself, and rightly so, “Who is this guy “Eaglebeak” and what qualifies him to write with any authority on any subject? Both questions are equally valid. Sgt. Eaglebeak is a nickname that I acquired during my military service in the U.S. Air Force as a Survival Equipment Specialist and Parachute Rigger, from 1975 until 1983. When I began posting on message boards and blogs in the early 1990’s, I resurrected the pseudonym in order to maintain and protect my privacy, as well as to develop a persona through use of the name. I decided to continue the use of that persona when I decided to set up this blog as a means of recognition for those with whom I regularly conversed and sparred on those other forums who might wish to post here also.
By way of a thumbnail biography, I am a 52 year old heterosexual male, happily married to the love of my life and soul mate for nearly 33 years. I began an intensive self-study of American history about 4 years ago, focusing primarily on the period just prior to the Civil War through the early 1900’s progressive era presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Politically, I am a life-long registered Republican, best described as a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. With the exception of 4 or 5 elections, I have voted in every election since registering to vote nearly 35 years ago. I am an avid spectator of the so-called blood sport of politics.
With regard to my qualifications for posting my view on any topic I so choose, I am no more, nor any less, qualified than anyone else who has an opinion to express. AS I stated earlier, I have done so for many years on other forums. I am an observer of the world around me and as a result, have developed a few beliefs that color my view of that world. My posts on this blog will be largely drawn from these core beliefs.
My Beliefs:
1. All life is sacred and, as such, should be protected and defended. And that means ALL life! No other qualifiers are needed. The status of sacred applies to both pre-natal and post-natal, gay and straight, non-Caucasian and Caucasian, or any other subdivisions of human life you might care to offer as a qualifier.
2. Whatever your current status in life may be – socially, morally, culturally, economically, et al – that status is the result of the decisions, and choices, you have made over the course of your lifetime. You and you alone, bear the responsibility for whatever circumstances you find yourself in today. With each choice and decision you have made in your life, you placed yourself on a particular pathway to your life status today. Granted, not all of the available choices may have been good options, but the choices and decisions were ultimately yours. You chose to be where you are today.
3. It is a useless waste of my mental and physical energies, as well as my time, for me to worry and stress about those things in life over which I have either no control or influence. At best, worry and stress over such things and events negatively impacts my physical and/or mental health. At worst, it diverts my attention from those things over which I do have control and influence. I have learned that the list of things I can’t control far exceeds that list of what I can control. I believe that my time and efforts are better served focusing on what I can control or influence and leaving the stress and worry to others. That leaves me far more time to enjoy life and far lower blood pressure readings. Plus, it seems to really stress and worry other folks that I don’t stress and worry.
4. As a people living under the principles of government set forth in 1781 with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, we are bound to observe, honor, and abide by those principles until such time that we, as a people, either amend, supplant, or replace that Constitution with another set of principles. The U.S. Constitution enumerated the form, functions, and responsibilities of every level of our government, placed restrictions on that government’s powers, and forever enshrined the fundamental rights of we, the people, who live under the protection of its guaranties. It must either be accepted, interpreted, and defended, according to the original intent of the framers. We cannot pick and choose those passages we approve of, or agree with, and disregard, or ignore, those passages we don’t approve of or agree with. It is not a living, breathing, evolving document that changes subject to the mood of the times. The original intent of its words is clear and unmistakable.
While we may, from time to time, discover topics on which we do not agree, I suspect that there will be more than a few on which we can find some degree of common ground. Whichever the case may be, I welcome your comments and input, with the proviso that all comments remain civil and accepting the possibility that, on some topics, we may simply have to agree to disagree. In any event, I welcome your point of view. I promise not to shy away from mine.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
You may ask yourself, and rightly so, “Who is this guy “Eaglebeak” and what qualifies him to write with any authority on any subject? Both questions are equally valid. Sgt. Eaglebeak is a nickname that I acquired during my military service in the U.S. Air Force as a Survival Equipment Specialist and Parachute Rigger, from 1975 until 1983. When I began posting on message boards and blogs in the early 1990’s, I resurrected the pseudonym in order to maintain and protect my privacy, as well as to develop a persona through use of the name. I decided to continue the use of that persona when I decided to set up this blog as a means of recognition for those with whom I regularly conversed and sparred on those other forums who might wish to post here also.
By way of a thumbnail biography, I am a 52 year old heterosexual male, happily married to the love of my life and soul mate for nearly 33 years. I began an intensive self-study of American history about 4 years ago, focusing primarily on the period just prior to the Civil War through the early 1900’s progressive era presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Politically, I am a life-long registered Republican, best described as a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. With the exception of 4 or 5 elections, I have voted in every election since registering to vote nearly 35 years ago. I am an avid spectator of the so-called blood sport of politics.
With regard to my qualifications for posting my view on any topic I so choose, I am no more, nor any less, qualified than anyone else who has an opinion to express. AS I stated earlier, I have done so for many years on other forums. I am an observer of the world around me and as a result, have developed a few beliefs that color my view of that world. My posts on this blog will be largely drawn from these core beliefs.
My Beliefs:
1. All life is sacred and, as such, should be protected and defended. And that means ALL life! No other qualifiers are needed. The status of sacred applies to both pre-natal and post-natal, gay and straight, non-Caucasian and Caucasian, or any other subdivisions of human life you might care to offer as a qualifier.
2. Whatever your current status in life may be – socially, morally, culturally, economically, et al – that status is the result of the decisions, and choices, you have made over the course of your lifetime. You and you alone, bear the responsibility for whatever circumstances you find yourself in today. With each choice and decision you have made in your life, you placed yourself on a particular pathway to your life status today. Granted, not all of the available choices may have been good options, but the choices and decisions were ultimately yours. You chose to be where you are today.
3. It is a useless waste of my mental and physical energies, as well as my time, for me to worry and stress about those things in life over which I have either no control or influence. At best, worry and stress over such things and events negatively impacts my physical and/or mental health. At worst, it diverts my attention from those things over which I do have control and influence. I have learned that the list of things I can’t control far exceeds that list of what I can control. I believe that my time and efforts are better served focusing on what I can control or influence and leaving the stress and worry to others. That leaves me far more time to enjoy life and far lower blood pressure readings. Plus, it seems to really stress and worry other folks that I don’t stress and worry.
4. As a people living under the principles of government set forth in 1781 with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, we are bound to observe, honor, and abide by those principles until such time that we, as a people, either amend, supplant, or replace that Constitution with another set of principles. The U.S. Constitution enumerated the form, functions, and responsibilities of every level of our government, placed restrictions on that government’s powers, and forever enshrined the fundamental rights of we, the people, who live under the protection of its guaranties. It must either be accepted, interpreted, and defended, according to the original intent of the framers. We cannot pick and choose those passages we approve of, or agree with, and disregard, or ignore, those passages we don’t approve of or agree with. It is not a living, breathing, evolving document that changes subject to the mood of the times. The original intent of its words is clear and unmistakable.
While we may, from time to time, discover topics on which we do not agree, I suspect that there will be more than a few on which we can find some degree of common ground. Whichever the case may be, I welcome your comments and input, with the proviso that all comments remain civil and accepting the possibility that, on some topics, we may simply have to agree to disagree. In any event, I welcome your point of view. I promise not to shy away from mine.
That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)