Louis R. Avallone

Category: 2012

  • Moral Duty

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    The “pick-and-roll” is one of the oldest and most commonly used plays in basketball to get an easy basket for the offense. A “pick” is a screen, or a block, for the player with the basketball, designed to create confusion on the defense, and provide an advantage to the offense for an easy jump shot, lay-up, or slam-dunk. But despite its popularity, and its obvious intentions to increase the number of points scored, and thereby the likelihood of one’s team winning the game, there’s still hardly a commentator, or fan alike, who is calling for banning the use of the “pick-and-roll” because of its obvious advantage to one team, over another.

    But if the folks in Washington had their way, the “pick-and-roll” and the advantage of the easy shot it provides, would be history, deemed “unfair” to those teams who don’t know how to run the “pick-and-roll” at all – especially since the president reminded reporters recently that his job, as president, is “to make sure everyone has a fair shot.”
    Of course, this raises the question, what is “fair”? If we search, word for word, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, we will not find the word “fair.” The First Amendment, for example does not limit Congress from abridging the “fairness” of speech nor of the press, but the “freedom” of speech and of the press. Nor does it protect the “fair” exercise of religion, but the “free” exercise thereof.

    But therein lies the problem with folks in Washington these days. They often substitute “fairness” for “freedom.” As the economist Milton Friedman once said, “I am not in favor of fairness, I am in favor of freedom.”

    But why is that? Well, “fairness” means someone has to decide what’s fair for you, and for me. For some folks, this seems just fine, depending on their definition of “fairness.” Unfortunately, far too many of our citizens are unfamiliar with the notion that a society that puts equality before freedom will largely get neither.

    After all, fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair. Liberty means equality of opportunity – the freedom to take that shot at making that basket – not the equality of the score or a guarantee of victory.

    Good, bad, or indifferent – it just doesn’t work that way (at least not in this world).

    Now, you’ll find many examples in history, of countless countries whose politicians have squandered their nation’s resources and concentrated power in themselves, all under the guise of the high-minded principle of establishing “fairness.” The results, in those instances, have been failure at best, and bloody persecution at the worst. As more aptly expressed in 1776, by the economist Adam Smith, “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.” Or, in other words, as Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    So, should the pursuit of “fairness” be abandoned, then? Of course not. Establishing “fairness” means establishing rules, and the procedures for resolving disputes about those rules. That’s it. It’s not about determining the outcomes of our separate activities.

    But is that what the president means when he says his job is “to make sure everyone has a fair shot?” Does a “fair shot” mean equality of outcome?

    Well, most folks, when they talk about “fairness”, are talking about three basic concepts of “fairness”: First, there’s the “fairness” where everything is equal, across the board. Equality of outcome reigns. No one has more than another, regardless of his or her efforts, or lack thereof.

    Then there’s the concept of “fairness” as deservedness. This is, basically, the idea that you get what you deserve. The hardest working and most diligent folks should have more than the lazy and the indifferent, right?

    And the third concept of “fairness” is based on the “needs” of others. It embodies the Biblical teaching, “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” The degree of fairness, then, is determined in direct proportion to the responsibility, and compassion, that you have to your fellow man.

    Of course, while the “needs” based fairness concept is honorable, and desirable, for individuals to practice and promulgate, this is not the role of our government. In fact, such would be very different than how our Founding Fathers viewed government, which was more of a referee. Government instead has now seated itself to protect us, from ourselves, and whether we want to be protected or not, promoting “fairness” as social justice, at the expense of freedom.

    Unfortunately, this is what Democrats in Washington believe is their moral duty to establish, and this will transform our country in the process.

    The bottom line is this: When you are out there on that “basketball court of life,” take the shot. Whether you’re six-foot-four, or four-foot-nothing, take the shot. Whether you are behind the three-point line, or in-the-paint and under the basket, take the shot. In the words of Emerson, “Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” So play the game – especially when there’s inequality of outcome, and particularly when the shot is a difficult one to make. Liberals won’t get it, but that’s okay, because we understand that the “journey is the reward.”

  • Isn’t It Ironic?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote in his phamplet “Common Sense” that “in America, the law is king.” In fact, America was born of the principle that no one is above the law, especially considering the American colonists opposition to the British monarchy. It was the monarchy’s lack of accountability to the people and its taxation without representation that sparked the American Revolution.

    Many of our nation’s founders believed that, among the “natural rights” of man, was the right of the people to overthrow their government leaders when they acted against the interests of the people. According to philosophers such as John Locke, revolution is a safeguard against tyranny.

    So what happens when government leaders suggest their own overthrow as a means to safeguard against the tyranny of the government? I am sure that sounds crazy to many of us, but that’s just what President Obama appeared to do last month, saying that the most important lesson of his presidency is that, “You can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside.”

    That’s like suggesting that if you can’t open the “door” from the “inside” then breaking the “door” down from the “outside” somehow will make it better. Unfortunately, all of this “most- important-lesson” business is just a bunch of malarkey.

    For example and by contrast to Obama, men like Martin Luther King Jr. did fundamentally change Washington, and the nation, from the “inside” – working with the government, rather than seeking its overthrow, respecting the notion that America is a nation of laws whether at a sit-in at a lunch
    counter or a bus boycott.

    So the question for Obama is, “What type of ‘change’ can you only make from the outside when you are already the leader of the executive branch of the federal government and the commander-in-chief of the United States’ armed forces?” Is it a revolution against tyranny that you seek? Or the overthrow of a government that is acting against the interests of the people? The irony of the president’s comments is he has already very much changed Washington by working from the “inside” through multitudes of broad sweeping executive orders and legislative branch neutering. He already recognizes the power of being “inside” and brandishes that authority, even as the representatives of the people withhold their support to his policies.

    It’s only because he is on the “inside” that the will of people makes little difference to him. As he said recently, “(W)hen Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act … and take steps on our own.”

    And as he told The New York Times again earlier this year, “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.” Even Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag wrote a magazine article earlier this year, extolling the virtues of why we need less democracy.

    Well, if less democracy is the objective for these Democrats in Washington, then they must feel like a football team who is running up the score in the final minutes of the game.

    After all, in just the last few months and without compromise or Congressional approval, this administration has feverishly set about substituting the rule of law through executive orders – from immigration to welfare to birth control.

    Did you know that the Obama administration is enforcing only some of the federal immigration laws? By executive order, Obama established the “Dream Act,” even though Congress could not reach a consensus on the subject – and that was during the two years when the Democrats controlled Congress. Or how about the Department of Justice, who unilaterally decided it would no longer enforce federal laws against the use of marijuana? Or the Department of Health and Human Services gutting and invalidating the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the 1996 welfare reform law under President Bill Clinton? Then there’s the Department of Education, which is now offering waivers for the “No Child Left Behind” law in return for states adopting the Obama administration’s national education standards. Or how about the FCC that is beginning to regulate the Internet, even though a similar proposal failed to make it through Congress? Obama even bypassed the Senate confirmation process altogether to install four officials using his recess appointment powers in January.

    This is the madness of comprehending how anyone could suggest that “change” is only possible from “outside” of Washington, all while they are brandishing the authority to invalidate legislation and the rule of law by their own executive order.

    Yes, we are “a nation of laws, not of men,” as John Adams put it, and men like Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished change by respecting that principle. If the most important lesson you’ve learned is that change is only possible from outside of Washington when you wield the power of the presidency, maybe the kind of change you contemplate simply isn’t the will of the people at all.

  • Saving Our Eco-system

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Our ecosystem is fragile. It can be as small as a drop of water or as large as our entire planet. In fact, the earth is an interconnection of many diverse and interdependent ecosystems that make up the whole. They form the basics of life, such as water, food and shelter. If our ecosystems are not protected, our planet cannot survive. In the rainforest, for example, merely losing one species of animal or plant can cause the loss of the entire rainforest and all its inhabitants.

    This is often referred to as the “keystone species” concept because of the disproportionately large effect that a particular species has in its environment. This concept was developed in the late 1960s when it was discovered that the absence of starfish in the ocean ecosystem caused the remaining species in the area to compete with each other for limited resources. Within a year of the starfish’s removal from the study area, species diversity decreased from 15 to 8.

    Another example is how sea otters control sea urchin populations. Sea urchins feed on kelp forests, and without sea otters feeding on sea urchins; there would not be enough kelp forests, which are used as a habitat for a variety of other species.

    Or take the American alligator, once thought to be an undesirable nuisance. It was then hunted without limit, to the point of extinction. But with the absence of the alligator, there was a population explosion of gar, the alligator’s favorite food. Gar enjoyed eating all the game fish that people enjoyed catching, so then the fish population declined significantly. Once the alligator population was allowed to grow, so did the game fish, and the ecological balance was restored.

    You see, entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, much like the American alligators, are being hunted in our country, without limit, to the point of extinction. They are facing what scientists call “ecological extinction”, which is “the reduction of a species to such low abundance that, although it is still present in the community, it no longer interacts significantly with other species.”

    This “ecological extinction” of entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, is a natural result of historically high pollution levels that our country is experiencing, politically. These pollutants, such as class warfare, higher taxes, and increased government regulations, are toxic emissions in our environment.

    Unfortunately, these pollutants do not naturally decompose, and their continued emission can only result in irreversible, functional damage to our ecosystem, crippling job creation by discouraging capital investments, while encouraging lower productivity (and thus lower wages) by penalizing higher wages (through higher taxes).

    And if you are not sure if the policies of this White House is purposefully seeking the “ecological extinction” of entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, by making the environment inhospitable to their economic survival, consider the following:

    As of April 1, America now has the highest, jobs-killing corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. And did you know this administration has instituted 106 new regulatory rules that have added an estimated $46 billion per year in new costs for businesses?

    Were you aware that by blocking the Keystone pipeline, and through choking off oil production under federal leases, that Obama has effectively, on his own accord, blocked nearly two million barrels per day of North American crude oil from being injected into the American economy, all as gas prices are reaching historically high levels?

    Do you know that Obama wants to effectively double the tax rate on income from capital gains from the current 15% rate? This would reduce the incentive for domestic investment, but increase the incentive to move jobs and capital overseas.

    These are a few important examples of why we need to preserve our ecosystem, and protect endangered species, like entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, that are on the verge of extinction. It’s a different ecosystem that we’re protecting here…an ECO-nomic system, but the fundamental principles work the same as they do in nature.

    Entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, serve as a spark plug in our nation’s economic engine. They birth new ideas, like the iPhone, and start new companies. And that’s important because firms less than five years old have driven virtually all-new job growth in the U.S.

    New firms, on the average, create three million jobs a year, and because of our growing population, we need three million brand new jobs every year, if everyone else is to keep their job, period.

    So, when you discourage entrepreneurs from starting new companies, and thereby eliminate the breeding ground for the majority of these new jobs in the first place, we have an appalling, environmental disaster on our hands. If we don’t have new companies being created, we don’t create new wealth. Without new wealth, the country grows poorer.

    We must act, before it’s too late. If we delay in removing the toxins of class warfare, higher taxes, and increased government regulations, then replenishing the population numbers of entrepreneurs could take decades. And if they become ecologically extinct, what species will replace them in our ECO-system? From where will those three million new jobs needed each year come from? (For you liberals, the answer is not “from the public sector”).

    Yes, “going green” is now more important than ever. So, give a hoot. Don’t pollute. And save the entrepreneur. Our nation’s livelihood literally depends on it.

  • Justice for All

    Justice for All

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Most Americans are just plain dizzy from the “spinning” of the issues that this White House has unashamedly engaged in for almost four years now: Deficit spending is an “investment”; a tax increase is considered “revenue;” and rising gasoline prices are blamed on foreign nations, all while we restrict access and delay permitting for oil and gas exploration right here at home. Policy failures? Well, from illegal immigration to historically high deficit spending, these are blamed on “obstructionist” Republicans, even though this White House had “supermajorities” in the House and Senate for its first two years and was able to pass anything they wanted without the need for a single Republican vote. Historically high unemployment and anemic economic growth even after $1 trillion in stimulus spending? This only persists because this administration “didn’t know how bad it was” when they came into office.

    Didn’t you know also that extending unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks is necessary because it “creates jobs” faster than practically any other program? Or that Congress needed to first pass the 2,700-page “Obamacare” bill affecting one-sixth of our nation’s economy in order to find out what was actually “in the bill” (instead of reading the bill first)? I could go on and on, but I’m pretty sure even Democrats understand the picture by now.

    So last week, when the U.S. Supreme Court justices began hearing the administration’s legal arguments defending the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, I was inspired, encouraged, reassured about our nation of laws … and a sense of order. And why not? Article 3 of our glorious U.S. Constitution was engaged, alive and well. The actions of both the president and Congress were being checked for constitutionality, exactly as Article 3 of the Constitution intended and as our founding fathers envisioned. There was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was inquiring about fundamental matters of liberty, specifically the notion of “changing the relationship of the individual to the government” through a mandate to purchase health insurance.

    There was Chief Justice John Roberts, who inquired if Congress could mandate folks to purchase health insurance under its power to regulate interstate commerce and its call to solve national economic problems? Then could Congress also mandate folks to purchase mobile phones under that same power since having a mobile phone would improve your access to 911 emergency medical services?

    Then there was Justice Antonin Scalia who wondered aloud if Congress can force you to buy health insurance, could Congress also require individuals to buy vegetables such as broccoli? And even though nearly two-thirds of Americans recently polled could not name even one member of the U.S. Supreme Court, we witnessed last week the miracle of our U.S. Constitution in action, perhaps during the Court’s most publicized hearings in preparation for perhaps one of its most sweeping decisions since it was first organized in 1790. As the arbiter of our nation’s most challenging legal matters, it was just refreshing to hear the audio comments from one of the three branches of our government, where a majority of the members therein were informed, prepared and presented well- reasoned comments and criticisms, thus effectively fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide a check on both the executive and legislative branches.

    Dale Carnegie once said, “Neither you nor I nor Einstein nor the Supreme Court of the United States is brilliant enough to reach an intelligent decision on any problem without first getting the facts.” And the facts are plain enough to all of us reading here today: We’re possibly going to cede the health-care industry to the federal government. These are the same folks who are operating a Social Security trust fund that will go broke in 2041, a Medicare program that will be insolvent in 2020 and a bankrupt U.S. Post Office that lost $2 billion last year alone, not to mention the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And why do this? To address about 10 percent of all Americans who need financial assistance for health insurance. A recent poll indicated that 54 percent of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 18 and 34 and many of them voluntarily choose to forgo coverage. In fact, it has been estimated that nearly one-fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, while one- quarter is eligible for public coverage. Only the remaining 56 percent need financial assistance.

    Of course, this administration may likely “win” politically for their intentions to affect health care, regardless of whether the Court decides the individual mandate in Obamacare is constitutional or not. “Perception is reality,” right? Or, in the words of Emerson, “People only see what they are prepared to see.” Still, last week’s hearings were a gloriously refreshing reprieve (however short-lived), from the predictably partisan, uninformed, divisive and misleading national debate that seemingly rewards short- sightedness and sacrifices liberty for the immediate, political gratification of today … even if such means “spinning” completely out of control.

  • Right Direction?

    Right Direction?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Folks, we need to talk. Despite a U.S. economy that continues to stagnate, or declining consumer spending, or plummeting home prices, or record unemployment, or declining wages, not to mention the unraveling of national security resulting from illegal immigration to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, there are still 1 in 3 of us, as likely U.S. voters, who believe the country is moving in the right direction, according to a recent poll. Seriously? I mean, by all objective, measurable standards, how can seemingly responsible and rational adults still muster the motivation to pretend that the country is moving in the right direction, even as the proverbial “wheels” are coming off?

    Some might explain this by pointing out a lack of political awareness among Americans these days. For example, only 2 in 10 Americans know there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Senate, and only 4 in 10 of us know there are 3 branches of government (and also can name each of them). Plus 53% of Americans don’t know the name of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court or, for that matter, can even name a single member of the highest court in the land. And a National Geographic poll revealed that 6 in 10 people, aged 18 to 24, could not find Iraq on a map.

    But here we have one of the most critical, nation-altering elections upon us, just a little more than 7 months from now and, if the polling data is correct, nearly 1 in 3 likely U.S. voters seemingly want to double-down on this administration’s policies and programs, rooted in socialism, that empirically have failed, time after time, throughout history.

    Maybe it’s true, in the words of George Bernard Shaw, perhaps “(d)emocracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”. Well, my fellow Americans, we deserve better.

    And it starts at home, around our kitchen tables with our families, and talking about the issues. Now, these are issues that aren’t glamorous to talk about and won’t necessarily make you the most popular guy or gal in the class. They probably won’t be subjects of conversation on Entertainment Tonight, but these are issues, for all Americans, to not merely talk about, but to understand.

    After all, the next generation of Americans are in great need of our voices of reason, our common sense, knowledge of history, and they need our protection now, more than ever, from those whose vision for America includes less liberty, not more…from those who prefer government control and management of people’s lives, rather than the freedom to choose and a desire to be left alone. And yes, this is the slippery slope we’re on.

    Do these folks (who think that the country is moving in the right direction) realize the historical evidence that governments will always find a need for the money they collect (or borrow, from future generations), and that collecting money from some people, in order to “do good” for another group of people, is the most inefficient method of spending money? Or that such spending may not “do good” at all?

    And since you brought it up, I’ll give you an example. Deficit spending during the Obama administration has been nearly $5.17 trillion, including $787 billion in “stimulus” spending to “save” jobs. The results have been record unemployment, and those looking for a job for more than six months make up 40% of the unemployed (which is the highest level since 1948). If you include those who have simply stopped looking for work, this makes the actual unemployment rate almost 20%, despite trillions of “stimulus” spending.

    And I’ll give you another example. Our nation will spend $953 billion on welfare programs this year (up by 42% since Obama took office). Still, we still have record levels of poverty—46 million are classified as living in poverty—the highest number since 1959.

    And why is this? Why is more and more money, towards stimulating the economy, or moving people from welfare to work, failing? One reason is because, again, spending someone else’s money on someone else is the least efficient way to spend any money, for the value you receive. Yet, in 2012, local, state, and federal governments will spend $6.3 trillion dollars in this very way, on services and bureaucracy (and we wonder why our local and state governments are nearly bankrupt as well).

    So do these folks (who like the direction our country is heading), understand that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither? Or that fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair? Or that liberty means equality of opportunity, not equality of results?

    We may be headed in the wrong direction, but in the words of Zig Ziglar, “There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” So whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or none of the above, let history be our guide, and liberty light our path. In the words of Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” And that goes for the 1 out of 3 that still thinks we’re headed in the right direction. We should probably make them a copy of our map.

  • Warning Labels

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    We’ve all seen those seemingly ridiculous warning labels, on so many products these days, that you wonder what’s more embarrassing: That such warning labels are necessary at all, because of the sheer half-wittedness of some folks, or that the folks writing those warning labels are just plain pretentious and pompous towards everyone else?

    For example, you know the cardboard sunshield that folks use, to keep the sun off the dashboard in the car? It has a warning label: “Do not drive with sunshield in place.” Really? Or how about on a toner cartridge for a laser printer: “Do Not Eat Toner.” Is that really necessary to point out? Then there’s the warning label on most hair dryers that says, “Do not use in shower.” Or, one of my favorites, “If you do not understand, or cannot read all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product.”

    And just last month, you may have seen a Doritos commercial that aired during the Superbowl, featuring a spry grandma launching a baby, through the air and into a tree house, to snatch a bag of Doritos, using a slingshot contraption. As this baby is being hurled through the air, the good folks at Frito-Lay thought we needed reminding not to try this ourselves (despite our obvious inclination). So, they added the fine print, “Do Not Attempt.”

    Of course, this got me thinking about other activities, especially ones that seem obviously dangerous and insidious, that ought to have a warning label also, but presently do not. Take socialism for example. Atop each piece of government legislation, that expands wasteful government spending, there ought to be the disclaimer or warning label: “The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”

    Such a disclaimer or warning would be sufficient for those who have figured out that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. Or that governments will always find a need for the money they take (or borrow, from future generations).

    Such a disclaimer or warning is satisfactory for those who appreciate the notion that taking money from some people, in order to “do good” for another group of people, is the most inefficient form of spending money that exists, and may not “do good” at all.

    These are the same people who understand that you generally cannot achieve good ends through bad means. They understand the unconscionable incompetence of evaluating government policies and programs by their intentions, rather than by their results.

    These are the folks that understand that fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair, and that liberty means equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

    And yet, despite these folks, our country finds itself subjected to the aftermath of a Democrat Party, and a President, that recklessly and repeatedly ignored the “warning labels”; doggedly doubling-down on policies and programs, that are rooted in socialism, and that empirically have failed, time after time, throughout history.

    After all, deficit spending during the Obama administration has been nearly $5.17 trillion, including $787 billion in “stimulus” spending to “save” jobs. The results have been record unemployment, staying above eight percent for the longest period since the end of World War II. But if you count those that have not searched for a job in the past four weeks, or those working part-time, but would prefer full-time work, the unemployment rate is almost 15%. The long-term employed—those unemployed who have been looking for a job for more than six months—make up 40% of the unemployed now (which is the highest level since 1948, when such data began to be collected).

    Despite the intentions of this deficit spending, and despite Obama’s 2011 budget to increase spending on welfare programs to $953 billion (up by 42% since he took office), we still have record levels of poverty— 46 million are classified as living in poverty— the highest number since 1959 when the census began tracking this number in 1959.
    The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines socialism as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.” This is the precipice at which we find our nation in 2012, amidst policies and programs which redistributes goods and pay through the expansion of government spending, and all promoted by an administration that requires those that work the hardest to be satisfied with the rewards equivalent to those who don’t work hard at all. The difference, in the words of Winston Churchill, is that “(t)he inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
    Just ask Spain about misery. Their unemployment is at 22.9%. Ask Greece too, whose joblessness is at 19.2%. Yet this president is following their template for the same, failed policies that even Japan has used unsuccessfully for the last decade: Printing money, raising taxes, increasing regulations, adding to the debt and deficit, and providing endless bailouts.

    This is serious business. No, we don’t need a government sponsored advertising campaign to explain the fallacies of socialism to our children; we can handle that fine as parents (although a warning label for those promoting socialism would sometimes help). Just remember this, in the words of Ronald Reagan: “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.”

  • Repeating History

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    The Berlin Wall was constructed in 1961 to provide a physical barrier between East and West Berlin. That’s the textbook explanation, but there was a greater, underlying purpose. The eventual fall of the Berlin Wall seems to foreshadow the predictable failure of government policies that, despite their stated and noble intentions, trample upon the innate dignity of human liberty.

    Let me explain: As you may know, before 1961 (and after World War II), Berlin had been divided into a Soviet occupational zone and a joint U.S., France, and Great Britain occupational zone. In fact, during the 1950s, nearly 3.5 million people from East Berlin escaped communist repression into West Berlin, where they could travel into West Germany and other Western European countries. West Germans, by contrast to East Germans, were being led by a chancellor committed to a broad vision of democracy, capitalism, and anti-Communism. Understandably, West Germans enjoyed higher living standards and freedoms, in a growing economy, compared to their East German neighbors who were chained to a stagnating economy and deteriorating living standards – ruled by a socialist-led government, controlled by the Soviet Union.

    Along with its other controlled communist states of Eastern and Central Europe, the Soviet Union claimed that the Berlin Wall was necessary to protect East Germans from those who seek to prevent the “will of the people” in building a socialist state in East Germany. This was hogwash, obviously, as even before the Berlin Wall was erected, 3.5 million East Germans crossed the border from East Berlin into West Berlin.

    Nonetheless, the East Germans started with 96 miles of barbed wire fence in 1961. Then, the next year, a second fence was built, parallel to the first, but about 100 yards further in. Despite this formidable discouragement, more East Germans continued escaping into West Berlin. So, to stem the continuing tide of defectors, the East German government chose to add a concrete wall in 1965, and yet another one in 1975, complete with reinforced mesh fencing, signal fencing, anti-vehicle trenches, barbed wire, over 300 watchtowers, and thirty bunkers.

    And still yet, after all that, almost 30 years later, the Berlin Wall fell. Despite the formidable, and often fatal, man-made obstacles at the Wall, those yearning for liberty simply concluded that the consequences of failing to escape were greatly outweighed by the consequences of failing to try. This is why communist states fail: They underestimate the basic human craving for individual freedom.

    So, are there any parallels to be drawn between our nation’s current political and economic environment? You bet there are, and as it is often said, if we do not heed the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat it. You and I cannot let that happen.

    Consider the official explanation provided by the communists in 1961, for justifying the Berlin Wall: It was to protect the “will of the people” in building a socialist state in East Germany. Again, this was hogwash. In fact, the only “will of the people” here was to escape socialism altogether.

    But think about our own nation, for a moment: Some people might say that the seemingly complicit cooperation, between our mainstream media and those promoting socialist ideology, is intended to do exactly in our nation, what the communists’ stated purpose was for building the Wall begin with: Protect the “will of the people” in building a socialist state.

    Trouble is, like in East Germany, it’s not the “will of people” in the U.S. to build a socialist state. And yet, our government continues to build walls to separate us from those certain, unalienable rights for which we have been endowed by our Creator.

    These rights are under attack from those who support government policies that promote the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes, or restrictions on the freedom of religion, through the imposition on churches to provide contraception. Or by supporting socialized medicine and allowing the government to ration your healthcare, or continuing the expansion of government by mortgaging our country to foreign nations, for generations of Americans to come.

    Those in power in our nation today are gradually and silently building a “wall” between our fellow citizens and our unalienable rights. In fact, it’s the only way to give Socialism a chance.

    But there’s no need for that. No need for experimentation. The outcome is certain…as history has taught us over and over and over: Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union; Pol Pot in Kmehr Rouge; Adolph Hitler in Germany; Leonid Brezhnev in the Soviet Union; Fidel Castro in Cuba; Mao Zedong in China; Kim Il Sung in North Korea; Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam…the list can go on and on.

    The Berlin Wall was built because the socialist system in East Germany discouraged the more productive members of their society. This is because socialism values equality over freedom and the best and brightest fled East Germany, taking their skills, their capital, and future generations with them.

    Are we building the Berlin Wall in America, in order to give Socialism a chance? If we are, and if Germany was any indication, where then, will our best and brightest flee, in the meantime? “Tear down this wall, Mr. Obama,” ought to be the refrain. If you and those who share your beliefs won’t tear it down, rest assured, if history is any indication, that the indomitable human yearning for individual freedom will eventually do it for you.

  • Likeability

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Will Rogers is reported to have said, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” While this is a most admirable quality, and healthy expectation in our relationships with one another, what priority do we place on “likability” when voting for a president?

    Turns out, it’s almost at the top of the list. Historically, voters don’t elect presidents they don’t find very “likable”, despite a candidate’s obvious qualities of competency for the job, such as honesty, leadership, management skills, and moral integrity. For example, when you hear someone say that a particular candidate “looks presidential,” it’s most likely because of that candidate’s “likability” (and not because of their competency to be president).

    In fact, the late political consultant Lee Atwater pointed out that Americans insist on a minimum level of likability in their president. Despite a U.S. economy that continues to stagnate, declining consumer spending, plummeting home prices, record unemployment, and declining wages, not to mention the unraveling of national security resulting from illegal immigration to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, it seems that “likability” may still be the full measure of a candidate, in today’s modern political arena.

    Not sure about that? Well, let’s look at history: In 1984, Ronald Reagan overwhelmed Walter Mondale in likability, 42% to 26%. Reagan won 49 states, in that election. In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated Bush 41 as president, and guess what? Clinton’s likability was 49% to Bush’s 32%. Four years later, Clinton trounced Bob Dole, for all intents and purposes. Here again, the winner’s likability is more than coincidental: Clinton’s likability was 62% to Dole’s 27%.

    In 2000, Bush 43 narrowly won the election, but in terms of likability, the competition wasn’t really close: Bush’s likability was 50%, compared to Al Gore’s 43%. Predictably, in 2004, Bush bested John Kerry in likability, 44% to 36%.

    Then, in 2008, Obama walloped John McCain in likability, 65% to 28%.

    This brings us full circle to 2012. Even if only 25% of Americans strongly approve of Obama’s job performance, as recent tracking polls indicate, his likability still remains high: as much as 80 percent in an Associated Press poll last fall.

    Contrast this with a CNN poll, from last month, where Romney was considered likable by only 30% of Republican voters, compared to 15% for Gingrich, 10% for Ron Paul and 5% for Rick Santorum. And this was a poll of Republicans only!

    Consider, more importantly, that Romney’s likability among all adults, regardless of party affiliation, is at all-time low: 25%, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll in January. Worse yet, a recent Fox News poll, taken last month, reflects Gingrich’s unfavorability at 56%.

    And even though this “likability” discussion sounds like we’re merely stating the obvious, I don’t think everyone gets it. And most surprisingly, it’s Gingrich that may be in denial.
    For example, in a CNN interview recently, Gingrich commented on Obama, saying, “He’s likeable. I would never beat Obama in a personality contest…but the presidency is not about likeability. The presidency is about are you capable of doing the job?”

    Speaker Gingrich, I’m not so sure about that. Yes, the presidency should be about one’s competency to do the job, but selecting a president is also one of the most personal choices we make in our democracy. As a result, it’s also an emotional one, not purely logical, but a blend of both.

    Yes, we want to “like” our president. Which candidate would I like to have over most for dinner with my family? Who would I most like to have a beer with? For better or worse, America’s answers to those questions, which are questions of likability, may likely foretell the future, regarding the November election, if history is any indication.

    I mean, as Americans, we watch an average of 4.5 hours of television each day, not to mention the time spent watching online videos, and videos on mobile devices. Could it be that most Americans are, subconsciously, evaluating a candidate’s likability based on how they might appear in high definition, or being streamed over the Internet to our iPhones and iPads for the next four years?

    Do most Americans prefer to watch Obama sing Al Green’s, “Let’s Stay to Together”, or Romney’s a-capella singing of “The National Anthem”? Having heard both, I’m inclined to go with Al Green on this one.

    But while “liking” our president is important, and hearing him sing “Let’s Stay Together”, or watching him walk around Hawaii in shorts and a t-shirt helps us identify with him, “liking” him must not be most important. This election, in particular, is too important to mess around with the psychology of a candidate’s likability. Instead, we should focus on “liking” their abilities, their accomplishments, and their potential to perform the job needed, so desperately now, for our nation.

    In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “if you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.” If the cost of likability in our president is the achievement of nothing, then what are we doing pretending to elect a leader in the first place?

  • Fashion Police

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    A FASHION POLICE STATE

    You’ve heard about this, right? Caddo Parish District 3 Commissioner Michael Williams wants to pass an ordinance in Caddo Parish to prohibit the wearing of pajama pants in public. Apparently, he was offended during a recent shopping trip to his neighborhood grocery store, wherein a group of young men, wearing pajama pants and house shoes, but apparently not any undergarments, were revealing more of themselves than Commissioner Williams, and several elderly patrons, cared to see.

    And even though Caddo Parish Sherriff Steve Prator commented that such an ordinance would be “difficult to enforce as it’s described”, and despite the ordinance being blatantly unconstitutional, I’m with Commissioner Williams in saying that we ought to preserve a minimum amount of decorum in our community. From baggy pants, to wearing pants below the waist, too many folks just aren’t willing to put forth the amount of effort, or time, that is required to dress appropriately.

    Some might say what Commissioner Williams is touching upon is the concept of a negative halo effect: when you look sloppy, you therefore think sloppy, feel sloppy, and act sloppy. This decline, or lowering of standards, simply makes it easier to no longer find the need to look nice, act nice, or be nice. It becomes more comfortable then, and acceptable, to simply ascribe to the lowest common denominator.

    Indeed, what are folks aspiring to become when their clothing style is inspired by the beltless pants worn by prison inmates? I mean, there are countless prison inmates who would scarcely identify entering prison as one of life’s goals, or whom they themselves would not make different choices if they had the opportunity to do it all over again.

    And yes, it’s disrespectful too, and in some cases, it’s indecent. It’s unconscionable that some folks are so unconcerned – so disconnected from reality – that they don’t realize how their “freedom of expression” might affect the most impressionable and vulnerable in our society – our children. As Bill Cosby commented several years ago, “Are you not paying attention people, with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack…people putting their clothes on backwards…isn’t that a sign of something going on wrong?”

    But can we legislate politeness? Or respectfulness? How about style, or manners? No, we cannot legislate the lessons that should be taught in the home – first and foremost – around a dinner table. It’s inappropriate for government, and just plain unconstitutional as well. Proposed ordinances like the pajamas prohibition are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. There are countless U.S. Supreme Court cases that support this conclusion.

    Still, there are many communities, including Shreveport, who continue to pass unconstitutional ordinances, such as prohibiting the wearing of pants below the waist (which expose the skin or undergarments). So, why pass these ordinances if they are unconstitutional?

    Well, too often politicians pass laws that they know are unconstitutional (they’ll leave it up to the courts to decide). Sometimes this is done to pander to the demands of voters, or to help themselves or their cronies, or all of the above.

    Sometimes their intentions are sincere, and less insidious. Nevertheless, the result is often the same: Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent defending unconstitutional laws, not to mention the enforcement cost by local law officials. Worst of all, many of these bad laws are never challenged in the courts because of the deep financial resources needed by the citizens in order to do so.

    The bottom line is that the arguable decline of standards in society is merely symptomatic of decades of liberal political pandering to the virtue of tolerance. It portrays conservatives as closed-minded and judgmental, on a variety of social issues, when we ought to be having a “come to Jesus” dialogue about what’s right and working, and what’s not and broken, in our communities.

    You see, maybe tolerance isn’t all what it’s cracked up to be. Here’s what I mean: John F. Kennedy said that, “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs.” Others have written that, “Tolerance is another word for indifference.” Even Ghandi said that, “Tolerance implies a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one’s own”.

    Is it tolerant to ban prayer in the school, or protect abortion as a fundamental right? Of course not. You see, liberals view tolerance as less about respect, or letting people do whatever they want, and more about political correctness and control, all at the expense of common sense and liberty.

    Now, we may have a generation of Americans who believe that merely having the “right” to do “something” is somehow the moral equivalent of having permission to do it. That’s just not the case.

    In fact, our modern-day society is tolerant of some behavior when we should actually be condemning it. Too many take the view that no singular point of view on moral and religious issues is objectively correct for every person. That may be fair to say, but society cannot abandon its tried and true standards altogether, just for the sake of “tolerance” and nothing more.

    And this bring us back to why Commissioner Williams wants to propose an ordinance to establish the very standards that parenting should have established to begin with. He agrees that the “real power is parenting power”, and that starts at home.

    That’s where we’ll begin our journey, to restore the responsible society Commissioner Williams is longing for. So, let’s get dressed, packed, and get going. Just pull up your pants first, please.

  • New Outlook

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Before we start, let me wish you and yours a Happy New Year! You know, there is hardly a “Happy New Year’s” greeting, in some form or fashion, that doesn’t include a wish for good health, great wealth, and much happiness (but not necessarily in that order, of course).

    And even though folks have been extending such well wishes to one another on January 1, stretching back to Julius Caesar in 46 B.C., there seems to be a somewhat nefarious, or otherwise detestable quality – this year, in particular – in wishing others “great wealth” in the coming new year.

    After all, considering the Obama administration’s sustained condemnation of those with “great wealth,” it seems then that wishing “great wealth” upon others is wholly incompatible with well wishes of “good health” and “much happiness” in the coming new year.

    Why? Well, according to Obama (and the Democrats in Washington), those with “great wealth” are greedy and selfish. With their chauffeured limousines, mansions, and private jets, Obama believes those with “great wealth” don’t contribute their fair share. After all, he alleges, this is because those with “great wealth” often pay an effective tax rate that is less than even their domestic help pay. For example, Obama says, “A teacher or a nurse or a construction worker making $50,000 a year shouldn’t pay higher tax rates than somebody making $50 million.”

    Okay. We all get that. But of course, this is a dishonest debate because the majority of those with “great wealth” are not those with chauffeured limousines, mansions, and private jets…nor are they making $50 million a year. Instead, they are small business owners, struggling to make payroll, complying with increasing government regulations, higher income taxes, and working longer and longer hours to make ends meet.

    Obama knows that. He also knows that the top 50 percent of American income earners pay almost 97 percent of all federal income taxes collected. Obama also knows that, generally speaking, raising income taxes does not necessarily affect those with “great wealth” because often they can make money through other means, such as from dividends and capital gains, which are not considered “income” and not subject to the higher income taxes he touts, as part of his populist, almost seething class-envy campaign being waged in our nation today.

    To put this in perspective, I propose that we steer clear of unwittingly contributing towards this class-envy campaign by substituting the word “productive” (or some variation of it) whenever liberals use the words “wealth” or “wealthy,” or “rich,” in a sentence…and then letting all of our friends know to do the same.

    When Obama proposes that the “the rich” should “pay their fair share” in higher taxes, just translate those words into, “the productive” should “pay their fair share.”
    When Obama asks, “(D)o we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?” Translate that into “…tax breaks for the most productive Americans in our country.” When he says, “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before,” translate that into, “Those at the very top grew more productive from their incomes and their investments – more productive than ever before.” I mean, if we referred to the “rich” as “productive”, it puts “great wealth” into a different perspective…and this is more accurate, by and large, don’t you think?

    Some readers may be asking, “What’s my point?” What’s with all the translating? My point is simply this:
    The men and women who earn a paycheck, or those who own businesses and earn a profit…these are the great majority of productive members of our society. They should not be vilified because they may have more than others. Some of these same folks may acquire “great wealth,” but these are the folks that build a nation; who often have failed more than they succeeded; who understand, in the words of Vince Lombardi, that “it’s not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get back up.”

    And these are the folks who would earn a paycheck, or make a profit, or gain “great wealth” no matter where they started, or how many times they failed and started over. They embody the unassailable American spirit…and yet Obama (and liberals alike) are suffocating that spirit today by demonizing the end result of their productivity – wealth.
    People like Henry Ford who failed and went broke five times before he succeeded. Or Thomas Edison whose teachers said he was “too stupid to learn anything” and who was fired from his first two jobs for being “non-productive.” Or Walt Disney who was fired by a newspaper editor because “he lacked imagination and had no good ideas” and later even went bankrupt.

    These folks acquired “great wealth”, but this was only in some proportion to their “great productivity”. Is America not better as a result of Ford’s, Edison’s, and Disney’s “great productivity”?

    So you see, Obama’s 2012 campaign for re-election is more about the “productive” versus the “non-productive” in our nation (and not the trite, populist struggle of “rich” versus the “poor”). He won’t couch it that way, but I will.

    This is why I believe we need to do some translating of our own – and putting into perspective that you often cannot separate “great wealth” from “great productivity”…the very productivity that been a source of great blessings for our nation over 200 years now.

    So, with all of that said, again, I wish you good health, great “productivity”, and much happiness in 2012. Sounds better that way maybe…what do you think?