The Virtues of Entrepreneurialism

Straight to the point: I think more people should start a business, work in sales, or do something entrepreneurial with their lives.

One hundred years ago, 10% of America was NOT self-employed. Today, it’s 90%. I grant you, we are far less an agrarian society today, but I fear an important ethic of self-reliance has also gone missing.

More widespread entrepreneurialism, I think, can be an important step toward:

*A greater ability for the ‘average joe’ to climb the socioeconomic ladder, bridging growing net worth inequality.

*A more heightened control over one’s financial future.

*More community involvement. No one is more involved in their communities than local merchants.

*Maintaining a competitive edge among foreign competitors.

*Uniting families around a unified cause.

*Healing the health care crisis in America. The bridge to lower costs is higher accountability.
Besides a co-pay and a paycheck reduction, the only accountability that the working class has is collective higher unemployment.Those are just some initial thoughts.

I got this from Rod Dreher's website. Truly scary...

Juan Williams, who is brilliant, interviewed the President. Here is the transcript.

Most of the interview was fine, provided you can forgive some slight missteps in speech. One thing, though caught my eye:

MR. WILLIAMS: Will the budget be balanced through spending restraint or taxes?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The budget is going to be balanced by keeping taxes low. In other words, we're not going to raise taxes. And as a result of keeping taxes low, the economy is doing just fine, and when the economy is doing well, it yields a certain level of tax revenues that we can live with. And then making sure that we constrain federal spending, and you do that by setting priorities. And our priority has got to be this global war on terror and supporting our troops, and protecting the homeland, and that is what our budget will say, and we can balance the budget within five years. And that is going to be – that is good for the country. And in so doing, we are dealing with the short-term deficits, but we have also got to deal with the long-term deficits inherent in, for example, programs like Social Security and Medicare.

MR. WILLIAMS: So, some people would say, well, if you believe in spending restraint, why haven't you vetoed one bill, you know, one appropriations bill?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Because the United States Congress that was controlled by Republicans exercised spending restraint. Now, I didn't particularly like – the size of the pie was what I requested. It's some of the pieces of the pie that I didn't particularly care for, but that is why the president needs a line-item veto, and that is why Congress has got to reform the earmark process. What the American people need to understand is that sometimes special projects get put into bills without ever having seen the light of the day. In other words, they don't get voted on; they just show up, and we need transparency in the earmark process, and expose the process to hearings and votes so that the American people will know that any project was fully heard on the floor of the House and the Senate.

Since 1980, the GOP has controlled either the White House or Congress or both for all but two years. Government has quadrupled since then. There has been no bigger spender than the US government since 9/11, and GW has a big role in that.

To quote Dreher..."In other words, the record levels of spending engaged in by the GOP Congress was actually spending restraint, except when it wasn't, and that was Congress's fault for being so sneaky."

As for the line-item veto, the GOP gave that one to Clinton ten years ago. Funny thing about that Constitution, though, is that a line-item veto isn't in there! Har har har.

Just Smoking Ban?

Our governor, Jim Doyle, wants to increase cigarette taxes and ban smoking in most public places. What’s the right thing to do?

Well, if someone wants to suck the cancer stick, they’re as stupid as that phrase sounds. That’s not the question at hand, though. The real question is to what extent ought the force of the state dictate someone’s ability to suck said stick.

I like to use the just war theory when thinking about legitimate force. Others use it, but its key clauses are in paragraph 2309 here.

[For force to be justifiable], at one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

Is the damage inflicted by the aggressor (Wisconsin smokers) lasting? Maybe. It depends on how you think about it. If by ‘damage’ we mean second-hand smoke, then the damage may be lasting. However, doesn’t the second-hand smokee bear some responsibility to discriminate among places to work and shop, also? I’m on the fence here.

Is it grave? Definitely. Public health is at stake, if not people’s lives.

Is it certain? Yes.

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

This clause clearly does not apply. Smoking rates consistently have gone down through the means of public education.

- there must be serious prospects of success;

Given the inelasticity of tobacco demand, I would peg this clause as dubious at best.

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The term ‘arms’ doesn’t apply, but the means of force (taxation and banning) I think would mean for this clause to apply.

Put it all together, and I think that this would not qualify as legit use of force by the state. I’m open to what others think, but I’d probably go ahead and vote no.

Thinking on January 23rd...

Yesterday was January 22nd. That means we’re going on 34 years since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down.

Some thoughts come to mind…


· Of the three fundamental God-given rights – life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness – the most important is the right to life. It’s not even close. If we do not have a fundamental right to be alive, we should just hang it up and head home. That so few people recognize this is scary beyond all belief.

· When pro-choice politicians can admit that an abortion isn’t an ideal situation (Bill Clinton, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden), that’s really reassuring to me.

· This is an issue that doesn’t have a political solution. If, tomorrow, Roe v. Wade were flipped, the number of abortions would probably decrease. That being said, the decline would be short-lived without first addressing entrenched poverty. It will mean nothing if pro-lifers stop their work there.

· A culture of life can be created without banning abortion. It, and not a mere political proceeding, ought to be the end in mind for pro-lifers everywhere. Said political proceeding is a fruit of a culture of life, and not the root of it.

· While a majority of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong except in the event of rape, incest, or a threat to mom’s life, ninety-five percent of abortions are performed as a secondary contraceptive. How does one balance the two? The only thing I can conclude we that we are addicted to sex beyond belief, to the point where we're generally unwilling to understand that sex has an inalienable procreative element beyond our control (more or less).

· Whenever the politics of an issue become more important than common sense, nothing good can happen. This is particularly true with the abortion debate. That’s why we have crap like partial-birth abortion and infanticide for abortion survivors.

City of Pessimism

I grew up in Chicago. Great town. I have fond memories. I still pull for the Bulls, Bears, and Blackhawks, with a nominal shoutout to Loyola University. (Actually, I grew up in Villa Park, but you've never heard of the Garden Village).

I’ve always felt, though, that there’s a certain negative energy that owns the bulk of Chicagoland area residents. It’s why they don’t vote, or when they do incumbent crooks keep their job. It’s why people don’t start up new businesses. It’s why people pay tolls, and commute for ungodly hours. It’s not quite hopelessness, but it’s not a city filled with Andy Dufresnes, either.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re great people. But, by far, there’s a heightened spirit of intangible pessimism in the Prairie State relative to everywhere else I’ve ever visited, Boston notwithstanding.

Today, I netted a bit more evidence. The Chicago Bears play the franchise’s biggest game in 21 years on Sunday in the NFC Championship game at home against a team who won 19% fewer regular season games. All 6 major online bookies have the Bears favored. ESPN’s John Clayton wrote a huge article on why the Bears will win.

And yet, as of 4:01 on the Thursday afternoon before the game, 86% of online voters at the Chicago Sun-Times’s online sports section believe that the Saints will win the game. A total of 18,404 people had voted.

Don’t get me wrong, the Saints deserve respect. Maybe they even win the game, I can’t say I don’t see it as a possibility. Maybe Saints fans clogged the online voting (although that’d be a bit more Chicago-esque).

What we do know is that 6 of 7 Sports’ Section readers of the second most widely read paper in Chicago don’t see the hometown team winning. That says something about said readership.

Shame.

P.S. Prediction time: Bears 38, Saints 31. New Orleans’ pathetic secondary is good for at least 3 Grossman-Berrian bomb touchdowns; the running game and defense will "take care" of the rest.

Rethinking Iraq

I’m trying to think Iraq through, and a couple of things come to mind:
*I don’t believe that the invasion met all necessary criteria for a just war. Therefore, any decision we make from here on is made in light of an egregious error from the start.
*I believe a unified Iraq is either impossible or not reasonably possible enough to work toward.
*Pandora’s box was opened upon the invasion, opening the door to the current Civil War.
*Whatever alternative leads to a minimized loss of life should be favored from this point forward.

In the event of an American withdrawal from the region, the retardation of Iraq’s Civil War would be removed. I fear an all-out bloodbath, followed by the installation of an anti-West government that ends up worse than the old Saddam regime.

In the event of an American escalation, said retardation will have a quasi-permanent status. Much like the worst of welfare recipients, Iraq will have no incentive to maintain its own security. Our present limbo will continue without significant improvement. Sustainable peace may take a decade or two to implement.

I really have no idea what the right thing to do is.

What this quandary illustrates, though, is the fact that earlier wrong decisions force us into tougher and tougher calls down the road. Precedents are set, wrong doors are opened, favors are owed, money is lost, lives are ended, etc. Had the US government applied a consistent ethic of life toward its decision to invade -- and in fact stayed home – we’d be all the better.

60 Square Miles Surrounded by Reality

Some of our elected officials apparently don’t understand what democracy means.

Sometimes, the majority of those around us think differently than we do, and they vote in policies with which or people with whom I don’t agree. I guess that’s the price of living in a democracy; to me, it’s a fair price.

When this happens, the burden falls on me to persuade my fellow man of my point of view. Dialogue is a good thing.

Apparently, certain members of the Madison City Council don’t quite understand this.

Government workers, including City Council members, are required to swear an oath of allegiance to Wisconsin’s state Constitution. If you don’t happen to live in the Badger state, 59% of Wisconsin voters just passed an amendment to it defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Madison’s mayor, Dave Cieslewicz, along with other City Council members, doesn’t like the new look and feel of the now-amended Constitution. Upon his possible reelection, he and other city workers intend to take their oath of office “under protest.”

“Obviously the real solution is for us to repeal that language in the constitution in the first place," says Madison’s Mayor. ". . . What we (would) have, at least for now, is a way for those of us who are very opposed to that language to be able to take the oath of office with a clean conscience." Translation: the Mayor’s views are better than the Constitution’s, and he’ll be damned if he’s going to conform himself to it.

But that’s precisely the point of taking an oath; we conform ourselves to something outside ourselves. To take an oath under protest is to not take an oath at all, as it still leaves the oathtaker an out in the event they run into something they don’t like.

State law requires the oath, though, so that’s not an option, without resigning from office.

In a democratic society, there are going to be plenty of views with which we disagree. A good leader, though, understands that persuasion is the key to change, and not the force of law. Furthermore, being a leader implies we exercise a certain humility (note: not an overboard one) toward the establishment, disagree though we may.

The Matrix: Preying on Fields of Ignorance

The House of Representatives is apparently passing a bill that would authorize federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.

Let’s recap, in brief.

A human embryo is created. It has the potential to turn into a stem cell. To do this would destroy the embryo, necessarily. Once the embryo is a stem cell, research can be done which may save future lives. The embryo, and the potential for life therein, are destroyed.

That apparently no one thinks this is precisely what happened in the Matrix is beyond me. Fields of people are subdued and robbed of their lives so that machines can use their bodies for energy. Doesn’t that sound a whole lot like embryonic stem cell research?

I’d suggest that no reasonable person wants America to turn into the Matrix.

The only counterargument I’ve heard is that the embryos would be discarded with or without embryonic stem cell research. That takes this discarding process for granted. Why can’t we think critically about that, also? Why should that practice continue?

It’s not as if embryos are our sole source of future stem cells. Amniotic fluid contains the same scientific potential as do embryos. And, while not as apparent in scientific promise, there are adult sources of stem cells that don’t turn us into fields of future body parts.

Ends do not justify means. A wrong can never be justified. If we value human life, this practice must end.

Clutch

Marcus Landry is my hero.

What is Love? Baby [I’m open to being hurt]

You may recall these song lyrics from a pretty funny Saturday Night Live skit…

What is love
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

Here’s a guy wondering if he can call his relationship love, if in fact he continually gets hurt by his lover.

Somewhere in the course of history, we lost sight of the real definition of love. We now publically doubt that love might mean occasionally feeling hurt.

Here's reality. There is no greater love than to continually open oneself to another, suspecting or even knowing that pain is imminent.

Love is not a feeling. It’s not your mood. It’s not your pain. It’s not your delight, or excitement. It’s not what you feel like.

It’s an act of the will. It’s actions. It’s a verb. It’s putting another ahead of you.

Sometimes, that doesn’t feel good. It might mean hurt. It always means humility.

But it’s also a full-time realization that life isn’t about you, or me, or any individual. It's about God, followed distantly by being about a collective we.

What’s love but a second hand emotion?

Every good a virtuous thing besides that.

McGwire, continued...

"Ignoring all peripheral issues surrounding his alleged substance usage, Mark McGwire is one of the 5 best 1Bmen of all time. He is one of the 50 greatest all around players of all time. He put up slam dunk hall of fame credentials."

The problem for most people will be, of course, those first four words, as most people readily assume the clutch anti-McGwire argument: that McGwire enhanced his performance through steroids and that steroid users should be kept out of the hall.

To make that argument assumes a few things, all of which I believe are wrong...

1.) Cheating alone should remove someone from the hall of fame, ergo Gaylord Perry, John McGraw, Ty Cobb, and hosts of others noted cheaters should be removed.
2.) Steroids are the only reason that McGwire was a hall of fame worthy hitter. Or, if he was a hall of fame hitter without steroids, alleged steroid usage at any point in his career should negate his performance at all other times.
3.) Major League Baseball and the media did not passively approve of players’ alleged drug use. Or, if they did approve of drug use, this point is irrelevant.
4.) The fact that steroids are illegal is sufficient grounds to expect a player to avoid them, as the league did not privately ban them during the time in question.
5.) There was not league-wide knowledge of steroid use among players and owners.
6.) Player- and union-wide ignoring of alleged steroid use did not constitute a condoning his usage. Or, once again, if it does constitute a condoning, this is irrelevant.
7.) A lack of proof as to a player’s alleged steroid use does not forbid assuming guilt.
8.) Assumed guilt is the equivalent of proven guilt.
9.) When a player comes along for which it is suspected that performance-enhancing drugs are being used for which there is no testing, like HGH, we should use only our suspicion as a guide and not offer said player the benefit of the doubt. We will want to mirror Salem Witch Trials as closely as possible, and no doubt place power hitters under an unfair microscope, while ignoring all pitchers, defensive specialists, and leadoff hitters.

All of those assumptions are critical to arguing that McGwire used steroids and that steroid use should keep someone from the hall.

Here’s why all of those are wrong, in order…

1.) There is clearly no precedent to expect cheating alone to deny someone from the hall of fame. Sammy Sosa corked a bat, he received a 10-game suspension. Babe Ruth corked a bat. Willie Mays used amphetamines before games. Rollie Fingers threw a spitball. Players cheat, they get punished, we move on.
2.) There is absolutely no way to prove that steroids were the only reason McGwire had a hall of fame worthy resume. The burden of proof is on believers of that clause, and it going unproven should kill it, unless one is deeply close-minded. But then you're an idiot, and probably shouldn't be having this conversation.
3.) The media and MLB did, in fact, passively approve of players’ drug use. The media couldn’t get enough of McGwire as he chased Maris, fully aware that he was using Andro (which was legal in MLB at the time). There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that most owners were aware of rampant steroid use in the game even before the strike of 1994; nothing was done. What is baseball if not media, owners, and players being loosely organized around the game each summer? If two of the three passively approve of a player’s drug use, the player is at worst less culpable but ought to be off the hook.
4.) Judging by the fact that the USA leads the world in per capita incarceration, clearly the strong arm of the law does little to deter us. The fact is, the burden is on the league for effective steroid banning, which they failed to do. In my family, we have a rule against doing drugs in our house, but if my daughter tokes it up someday it will be me enforcing the rule and not Madison’s finest.
5.) I mentioned this in part 3, but there was clearly league-wide knowledge of steroid use during the time in question.
6.) The MLBPA actively fought against steroid testing when it first came out. If that’s not passive approval, I don’t know what is. If your own union approves of something, how is that irrelevant?
7.) This assumption is grossly un-american. Pardon me while I look for the best in people…
8.) Go ahead and take any intro Civics class. Remember those Miranda rights things? Besides, how does one meet the ‘burden of assumption?’ That’s absurdly subjective.
9.) If none of the aforementioned refutations do anything to shake the ground of the argument on which voting against McGwire rests, this one ought to.
We’re basically given a choice:
a.) blanket forgiveness of the steroid era, or
b.) a Salem Witch Trial-esque pointing of fingers at anyone we don’t like and calling them a steroid user, provided they meet our own grossly subjective burdens of assumption.
Now you tell me, wherein lies the greater good? Unfairly discriminating against power hitters and those otherwise unfriendly to the media by going Salem style, or keeping our opinions to ourselves and trusting the toughest steroid policy in American Sports? Inevitably throwing the innocent under the bus, or understanding the era in the big picture?

I cannot, for the life of me, find a good reason to agree with any assumption that the clutch anti-McGwire argument is forced to make. I, therefore, cannot agree with the argument. That leaves me with a top five 1Bmen of all time.

I can’t vote against that.

Thinking about the Baseball Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame announcements will be announced on Tuesday. I don’t get a ballot, but I thought it’d be cool to write about how I would vote if I did.

My thinking about the hall of fame basically centers around where a player ranks all-time at his respective position. You are a slam-dunk hall of famer if you are a hitter in the top ten at your major position, all else being equal (Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, etc.). You will be a hall of famer 90% of the time, in my book, if you are in the top 15 at your position. I won’t think someone’s crazy to push that to top 20.

Pitchers are a little goofier.

(Players appearing on 75% of ballots will be inducted this summer. Players appearing on 5% of ballots are renominated for up to 15 years after their eligibility begins.)

My hypothetical ballot…

Tony Gwynn – I love Tony Gwynn. His middle name is class. Great fielder early in his career, but for a five year stretch he was this fat guy that just kind of poked line drives through the infield on his way to a bajillion batting titles. Upper echelon right fielder. The only problem with Gwynn was his teams didn’t make the playoffs all too often.

The best man in my wedding, Adam, worked as a bellman at some fancy hotel in Milwaukee the summer that Miller Park hosted the All-Star game. He’s working for ESPN wearing his three piece suit and all. They finish taping, Gwynn goes up to his room and changes into an oversized Bulls jersey, shorts and air force ones. Tony Gwynn can roll with my crew any time he wants.

Cal Ripken, Jr. – My last memory of Ripken was he appearing in the 2001 All-Star game, which he clearly didn’t deserve, and then winning the MVP award for the game, which he clearly did not deserve.

If Ripken played in the outfield, or really any other position besides shortstop, I think I’d probably have to leave him off of my ballot. But he was a shortstop, and my whole hall of fame thinking revolves around the elite at each position – and not merely the broad thinking of elite – and I can’t name five better shortstops than Ripken.

Yeah I’m probably a Ripken hater. His peak was shorter than most. Nothing special at OBP or Slugging. He was a B/B+ player for an eternity. Yawn.

Alan Trammell – Name ten better shortstops than Alan Trammell, and I’ll entertain a possibility that he doesn’t belong in Cooperstown. Honus Wagner, Vaughn, Ripken, Banks, Larkin, Ozzie, Yount, Cronin. Maybe Reese, Appling, Boudreau, and Aparicio, but probably not. Here’s the thing, though:
1.) he’s in that group, and
2.) he belongs in that group, and
3.) all of those guys are in the Hall.

Trammell, along with others at offense-thin positions, suffer from unfair comparisons to outfielders. If someone’s criterion is to only permit elite hitters into the hall, and not bear in mind position, that is a principled argument. But then you can’t vote in Ripken, or Sandberg, or Alomar, or Brooks Robinson, or Gary Carter, or Gabby Hartnett, etc. I understand the argument, but its logical conclusion is false, and therefore it is false.

Anyway…

Rich Gossage – He’s definitely in the “tell Bobby Valentine where to go" Hall of Fame. Name five better relievers of all time.

The worst non-Cubs year of the Goose’s pre-age 40 career was with the White Sox in 1976. He had just come off of an electric year in the bullpen: a 1.84 ERA over 140 IP. What does older-than-dirt interim Sox manager Paul Richards do? Puts him in the rotation, and the Sox finish in last place.

Mark McGwire – I might just catch heck on this one, so let’s start with what we can all agree on.
Ignoring all peripheral issues surrounding his alleged substance usage, Mark McGwire is one of the 5 best 1Bmen of all time. He is one of the 50 greatest all around players of all time. He put up slam dunk hall of fame credentials.

I’ll argue the rest later.

Pot, Meet Kettle

President Bush is calling on Congress to cut back on spending for pork projects.

On the one hand, I do sincerely have to praise Bush for calling out a need. Better late than never.

On the other hand, there has been no bigger spender of government dollar than George W. Bush himself to ever hold the White House. Not FDR. Not Clinton. Not Nixon.

In fact, since 1980, the “party of small government” has controlled the White House, Congress, or both for all but two years. The result? Government has quadrupled.

Imagine a family that makes $100,000 per year, but faithfully spends $140,000. Certainly, at times, this may be appropriate, if not beneficial; a family member starting a business, a child going to college, etc. What if this family overspent by 40% each year, every year, in perpetuity, and debt financing was its long-term strategy to reduce its debt? Would anyone argue as to its sustainability? Of course not. In fact, what lender would continue to float this structure without either calling its loan or raising the interest rate in balance with its perceived risk? No one.

Let me spare you a pending shock: the US government’s lenders (bondholders, mostly in Eastern Asia), won’t stand for the status quo for long.

I don’t like tax and spend. Most Americans don’t either. That being said, Clintonesque tax and spend is far more sustainable, and cheaper in the long term, than GOP style borrow and spend.

You might say it’s conservative to be conservative.

Rules Aren’t the End We Had in Mind

When a rulemaking body creates rules -- be it parents, schools, government, employers, etc. – the end in mind is a more harmonic manner in which its vision is achieved. Perhaps it’s to protect safety standards, or promote justice, or safeguard the innocent; all worthy causes.

Very often, however, we forget that rules are a vehicle by which we achieve a more virtuous end, and that their enforcement is not the end in itself. If, in fact, the enforcement of a rule does not create a more virtuous end, reasonable people will throw the enforcement out.

Why do I bring this up? It turns out that the powers-that-be in Fairfax County, VA have decided that when churches feed the homeless, they need to be up to the same health codes as everyone. They’re going to need “a food-manager certificate, a ware-washing machine, drain-boards, ventilation-hood systems,” etc. To comply with all Fairfax County regulations would cost the church – charitably feeding the homeless – near $40,000.

While it looks like enough media attention as to this decision is going to stave off shutting down the church kitchen, that it was ever considered shows a way-too-heightened worshipfulness for the almighty written rule.

We are not the servants of bureaucratic rules or precedent. Instead, a virtuous people will keep in mind what rules can provide – a bettered society – and conservatively enforce them only with that end in mind.