The Long Slide into Loserhood

People who advocate self-reliance -- and stick to it even when it might be personally advantageous to change views -- got one thing right: "Don't allow yourself to become a victim."

Bad stuff happens to everybody, but victims allow themselves to be called victims. They jump up and call in when ambulance chasers advertise in hopes of draining some corporate wallet. If they become fat, the sue McDonalds's for making food taste good. If they lose support in the dice game that is the stock market, they occupy Wall Street. If they sign a mortgage that has a low but variable interest rate and it goes up, they complain loudly about the unscrupulous mortgage companies that tricked them. They sign their mortgage papers and then walk away blaming the banks. They lose their jobs, lose their houses and blame the banks, the politicians, the wind in the willows, for their problems. Their attention goes to blaming someone or something, not what they are responsible for causing and what they can do to dig their way out.

Victims are not made by criminals, banks, fast food restaurants or big business. They are made the instant a person decides they have been victimized and then assign blame to someone or something else. The instant they do that, they have declared themselves powerless against the evil this or that responsible for all their problems.

Non-victims expect to have to support themselves, take care of things, earn more than they spend, etc. They can be wealthy or poor, but whatever station they occupy in life, they figure it was themselves that got them there. The United States is the most affluent country in the history of the world per capita, and they figure if they are failing, it's their own damn fault. If they are succeeding, they also take a big share of the credit, while acknowledging the good things about the country that offers abundant opportunity, protections against unfairness etc.

Victims love to talk about their victimization, they focus on it, it becomes their life. It defines them, and their appeals for pity -- overt or cleverly disguised -- is an appeal for support, for others to pitch in and guarantee the survival the victim is unwilling to pursue directly.

It takes a village and lots of tax money to support a self-designated victim. "My wife ran away and I will never recover from it," soon degenerates into appeals for pity, an explanation as to why the house is a mess, the car has flat tires, the victim lost his job, etc. And if the loss was caused by a traffic accident the person goes after the city department of streets, the car manufacturer (remember the Pinto?) the air bag manufacturer, the other driver, the other driver's insurance company, etc. etc. And every win in court is a nail in the coffin of his own self-reliance.

If a non-victim loses his job, he may not like it, but he'll take a look at what he did or didn't do to contribute to the firing or layoff. If the work he did is greater than the income he got, he figures he did more than enough, and the company was either stupid or mismanaged and he's ready to find a job with a better-managed company. The victim will mope around for months or years, blame his former employer, live off unemployment, goof off, blame the economy, blame the dog, etc. and refuse to look for jobs at a lower salary.

We make our children into victims, by drilling into them that they have some learning disability, that they are ADHD and have to take medication because "their little brains are messed up." So the kid learns that to avoid work, escape unpleasant situations, etc. he just brings up his little brain, people feel sorry for him (or beat him up, which makes him even more of a victim) and his parents sue the bullies. The only way a kid can keep bullies at bay is to attack them. It doesn't really matter if he wins or loses. If he shows fear, runs away, shows the bullies his anxiety pills, he's doomed!

Kids do get picked on, abused, used and mistreated and that is not a small thing. But to smother the kid with sympathy, etc. is not useful. Tell him he's OK, he'll recover, rub dirt on it, get busy with other things. And in the meantime, raise hell behind the scenes with child abusers, send the bastards to prison if warranted. if a kid gets picked on, make him or her face it! That's what karate classes are for, work your way out of it, face your bullies and most often they disappear. Show fear and that's the beginning of a long slide into loserhood.

If some company cheats you, sue them and get your money back. But don't go around showing your wounds or suing for a million dollars for "pain and suffering," because the instant you do that, you've elected that company your oppressor. Them: "big strong oppressor." You: "poor weak creature."

There is no more vicious opponent than a victim who has made his victimization into a crusade against those who fail to accord him the respect, deference and pity he feels he deserves. If you fail to move aside, provide half your parking lot in the chance he might dine at your restaurant, have steps instead of a ramp, you'll get sued -- not by just anyone, but by a self-righteous avenger who has come full circle and is ready to attack those who fail to properly defer to the great burden he carries. Self-appointed victims are constantly proving how right they are to be in the situation they are in and how wrong you are to ignore them.

Our society, in its attempt to provide equal opportunity, has legislated certain benefits for the poor, and the disadvantaged, and that's to its credit. However, it has also penalized the "fat cats" as the media calls them.

Let's assume for a minute that the wealthy are rich because they are productive. OK, maybe some of the scions of hotel magnates are an exception, but the magnates have a right to bestow wealth on their children and heirs. So let's assume the rich are rich because they (or one of their predecessors) have been very productive and have provided a benefit to society. They made cars, built hotels, provided groceries, etc. etc. And let's assume that the poor are poor because they haven't been productive and haven't provided much of value to society.

The so-called "progressive income tax" penalizes the productive and rewards the unproductive. You penalize the productive by grabbing a larger percentage of their income than the rest of us. You reward the unproductive by not taking any of their income, and by giving them extra benefits paid for by the wealthy. At a personal level, that seems to make sense. After all, "the wealthy can afford it," and "the poor need help." However, from a larger perspective, all centralized and managed economies that penalize the productive and reward the unproductive eventually fail. The Soviet Union went broke, Cuba is on the ropes, Zimbabwe's productive citizens have fled and the economy is in ruins. China -- to lift its economy -- had to open the doors to capitalism. A Goldman-Sachs executive, interviewed on NPR this morning said that the Chinese Communist Party has become a sort of Chamber of Commerce.

While many good-hearted people voluntarily give to charity, endow non-profits and foundations, the progressive income tax is not voluntary, and any advantage accorded through it is attacked as a "loophole." If Warren Buffet doesn't think he pays enough taxes, that's great! Let him contribute more, but don't mandate it for everyone.

OK, lots of but.. but.. buts.. around these subjects. The poor can't help themselves, should we just let them die in the streets? No we shouldn't. But require something in return. A contribution or some kind of exchange for welfare not only helps the country, it gives those receiving public or private charity some basis for pride. Welfare reform decades ago horrified some -- they said requiring work for welfare would penalize the poor, cripple families, wreak havoc with social stability. It worked, however, and was a great success.

Many poor don't know English -- so do like Sweden does and require all students to learn English. Don't forbid Spanish, but require English, and don't do the "bilingual" classes for Spanish-speaking people that are taught only in Spanish, as Jaime Escalante pointed out in an interview years ago.

If the poor can't find jobs because they are uneducated and illiterate, fix the schools, and help them get a good education. Provide tutors, focus on education instead of on obesity, drugs, psychology and bullying. And stop providing breakfast and lunch for students. That's the parent's responsibility. Teach kids to make sandwiches, and teach them to work as janitors as Newt Gingrich suggested to the outrage of some. I went to a two-room school in a logging camp, and an eighth grade girl was the school janitor. We respected her because if we littered, she whacked us.

Require PE for all students. That handles obesity, increases self-confidence, etc. OK so the obese kids get laughed at, so help them work hard and lose it. Don't put them in special basket weaving classes because they are too fat to stand up. Stop blaming companies for making food that tastes good, provide lists of ingredients so people know what they're eating, but let the parents decide.

People are a lot tougher than we give them credit for. What makes them weak is sympathy, pity, "oh you poor poor child," and so on. The trick is not to be mean-spirited, but to shy away from pity and any hint that the child or the adult is a victim. As one assigns someone else as oppressor, they immediately assign self as victim. The oppressor is the hammer, the victim is the nail. And nails don't do well in any society, no matter how civilized or affluent.

As for the drug dealers? Drug dealers -- whether selling crank on the streets or paying doctors under the table to recommend their dangerous antidepressants -- decided to make people into slaves for their own profit. They create victims of their products, and become wealthy by destroying lives, not contributing to society. Throw them to the wolves.

Death is Good for Social Security

It's a good thing people die, or our Social Security system would be broke. Luckily they all do die, although unfortunately more and more of them are living longer. Used to be they'd retire at 62, sit around reading the paper for a year or two and then die, leaving lots of dollars in the system. Now, they think they have a right to live into their 80s, play golf, go fishing, start a small business or worse yet, go back to work and get a paycheck as well as their Social Security check.

Then there's those who are almost dead, but refuse to go. The numbers of people collecting Social Security Disability are growing almost as fast as those getting prescriptions for medical marijuana.

And then the government makes it worse, by requiring pictures of smokers on cigarette packs -- faces caved in, all wrinkley and saggy, holes in their necks, etc. So if they keep on discouraging smoking, people are just going to live longer, making the financial situation even worse. This anti-smoking deal really has backfired in my opinion. When I was a kid, all the adults and most of the kids smoked, and every year a few would start coughing up nasty stuff into a handkerchief and then they'd disappear with a little notice in the paper.

And then the government, in its infinite wisdom, starts going after fat people. We used to make fun of them in school, but that wasn't to make them lose weight, it was to make them feel bad, which is a whole different thing entirely. So now restaurants have to say how many calories each menu item has, so the eater can eat less, lose weight, feel better, start exercising -- you see where this is going -- and add years to their lives and suck millions more dollars out of the Social Security fund.

It seems to me that the government is fighting itself on this one. Keep people safe on one hand, and worry about Social Security going broke on the other. Clean air, clean water, no pesticides, no smoking, seat belts, air bags, helmets, drivers have to be sober and be old enough to see over the dashboard to drive, etc.

So my idea to solve this problem is upside down insurance. The longer you live, the more you have to pay the government. Pretty soon you got no money and you're eating Chinese dog food with melamine in it, kidneys give out, problem solved. Or you could allow electric wheelchairs onto the interstates.

The Smart Grid is a Stupid Idea

During a war, one doesn't expose vulnerable assets like an electrical grid. We're in a war of sorts between people trying to get things done with technology -- both good and bad -- and people trying to stop things with technology -- both good and bad. WikiLeaks is a wonderful example of some of the stupidities and vulnerabilities we face. A USA Today article outlines the mess. One guy, evidently, had access to millions of secret documents and sent them electronically to WikiLeaks, who began publishing them, and threatening to publish more unless demands were met. Then, the organizations that were hosting the site backed off, and credit card firms cut their ties. Then, a counterattack began against anyone who dared raise a mouse against WikiLeaks. Denial of service attacks conducted via Twitter, and a threat against Twitter when rumors surfaced saying Twitter was blocking the organizing messages.

So how does this relate to the so-called smart grid? When you can cripple or shut down mature technologies like computers, websites and Internet connectivity, what does that say about new and evolving technologies such as the smart grid? A recent article on smart-grid security -- if there is such a thing -- exposed the many vulnerabilities and the difficulty in bolting the door.

Currently we have a largely analog dispersed collection of electrical grids managed by different groups under different rules. Their very clunkyness make them a lousy target. The very fractured nature of the nation's electrical grid is perhaps its best defense. A lightning strike in 1977, for example, began a chain of events through systems that were connected, that eventually blacked out most of New York City. Stores were looted, cars stolen, airports shut down.

While there appear to be many advantages to a smart-grid system -- households could contribute to the electrical grid with solar panels or wind generation and "turn the electric meter backwards" among other things -- the rollout of such systems should be stopped and the actual return on investment weighed against the many vulnerabilities that would be exposed to hackers, foreign governments, or any nut with an axe to grind and an Internet connection.

If smart grid projects rush forward as planned without such an analysis, I for one will be buying a gasoline-powered generator and stocking up on firewood.

Don't Settle for Less

The key to sustainability is not settling for less. Some spartan types think putting a home together from used wooden pallets or metal shipping containers is cool because -- well, we have lots of them around and this counts as green recycling in the great carbon ledger in the sky. Settling for less -- like a nine-square-foot house is just wrong. A few architects and designers have managed to come up with attractive shipping container and other homes from recycled materials, but they must overcome an inherent design problem: shipping containers are long narrow metal boxes, a lot like family-sized coffins.

The Toyota hybrid is another example. A practical car that seems durable enough, but it's just kind of ugly -- one wag said it resembled an "orthopedic shoe." Nevertheless, lots of people bought them. The VW beetle was an ugly car too, but marketing changed its "ugly" to "cute" and they sold by the millions. That they were small, underpowered, and unsafe at highway speeds were overlooked, because they were -- well, cute.

The New York Times recently looked at the idea of smaller homes for the economic downturn. During the recent good times, said the Times, colonnades, cathedral ceilings and observation towers -- embedded in thousands of square feet -- were all the rage. But now, let's get sensible and buy what one builder calles a "Home for the New Economy." meaning tiny, cramped and cheap to build. The Japanese have taken their homes down to sardine-can proportions, building in what would be considered a parking space here in the U.S.

Some people -- I call them the "think small" people -- just don't like anybody to have things, and have given sustainability a bad name touting the pollution of cars, the wasted space of large homes, the greed of the capitalist and the humble lifestyle of the homeless bum who recycles water bottles, urinates in the doorways of the affluent and gets plenty of exercise and sunshine.

So here's an idea: Let's have it all. Take energy, for example. The sun shines a lot everywhere except Oregon, the wind blows a lot, especially in Wyoming, water always runs downhill and the earth has a lot of heat that's not doing anything.

Instead of burning wood -- which is, by the way, renewable because it grows on trees -- and putting wood smoke into the air, let's get some geothermal action going. The idea is that the center of the earth is molten, and even just a few hundred feet under the soil, the temperature is a consistent 70 degrees or so. The Chilean miners were working in free geothermal heat. Drill a hole into the ground, pipe water down into it, run it around a bit so it gets warm, then up to the surface, to run through a heat exchanger and warm up a house. When it is 10 degrees F outside you get 60 degrees of heating courtesy of the earth. Or, when it's 100 degrees outside, pipe that 70 degree water through the heat exchanger and get 30 degrees of cooling. You need a little electricity to run the pump and a fan or two and there's the initial expense of setting it up. Otherwise you have it all: Cheap heating and cooling, no carbon footprint and the earth's heat should last a few million years at least. Plus, nobody charges for it. The rest is just common sense: install good insulation, keep the doors shut and the flies out.

There are some very "have it all" types running around innovating because they are smart, and also want a big house, and nice car, money for their kids college, etc. etc. Some of these HIA people are building electric cars that anybody would want. Like the Tesla, the Fisker and even the big automakers like Chevrolet and its Volt.

The "think small people" want you to have less, so if you hate people and love weeds, then follow them. It's not sustainable -- sustainability and survival require abundance. If however, you want it all, then follow the innovators, the capitalists, the bright idea people who will help us have it all -- beautiful cars, aesthetic homes, clean air and water, flourishing plant and animal life, and abundant opportunities for anyone with a bright idea to keep the game going and keep the game getting better and better.

Something's Rotten

A popular bathroom deodorant advertises "kills bacteria that cause odors." So using it will kill some bacteria that cause odors -- the weak ones. The few strong ones that survive will multiply and will become the dominant bacteria. Over time, we have bacteria that are invulnerable to all the sprays, antiseptics, antibiotics etc.

And as for bad odors -- our noses are sensitive to bad odors, they were designed that way to keep us from eating rotting stuff and dying. Sensitivity to bad odors saves a lot of refrigerator browsers from trips to the hospital. Smell the milk to see if it's sour before taking a big lumpy swig. Smell the eggs when you break them to see if they've rotted. Smell that packaged chicken that's been in the refrigerator for a week or so and you can tell if it's "beginning to turn."

What's wrong with this deodorant picture? The bathroom deodorant that "kills bacteria that causes odors" is like a boot camp for bacteria. The weak ones die and what emerges are stronger more resistant bacteria and they reproduce, or whatever it is that bacteria do, building back in a few minutes new generations of newly resistant strains. Filling the house with perfume covers a multitude of stinks. Run a bathroom fan instead. Wash the bacteria down the drain. Keep bacteria weak. if something stinks, clean it up.

Bacteria are organisms that are trying to survive. They've been around a long time, are very adaptable, and their numbers are staggering. So nobody's ever successfully committed bacterial genocide. Some of the really deadly ones -- like polio and the black death -- have been attacked relentlessly and have retreated to swamps or jungles to bide their time and pick on stupider hosts. Like people spraying around mildly antiseptic perfume bombs to kill bacteria.

Female Viagra Depressing

According to HealthDay News, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Friday was considering whether to approve flibanserin, also known as "female Viagra." The drug started out as an anti-depressant but didn't work. In fact one of its side effects was depression. The dopes who concocted flibanserin -- Boehringer Ingelheim -- are now trying to get FDA approval for the drug. Since it doesn't work as an anti-depressant, somebody must have had the bright idea "hey, we can say it makes women interested in sex, that should boost our stock" and a marketing campaign was born.

The Purpose of Sex

A new report from the Pew Research Center says that of children born in 2008, 41 percent were to unmarried women -- a record high. Nearly half the mothers said that the children "just happened."

By comparison, in 1990, 28 percent of births were to unmarried women. While the report carried some good news as well -- fewer teens are becoming mothers, and many more mothers have some college education -- the unavoidable fact is that the American family -- as the foundation of a free and prosperous society -- is broken.

The purpose of sex, according to most sources, is to ensure the future of human beings. To make sure it wasn't ignored or neglected, nature, or God, made it fun. Things that improve survival for the individual, the race and mankind often have pleasure as a vital component. But pleasure and sex have through history been hijacked to sell products, make money and provide an alternative to effort and accomplishment. And the old restrictions -- many of which fell in the rebellion of the 1960s -- are absent.

In the past, sex was seen as dangerous to society and was repressed. Heavy penalties were levied against promiscuity, "illegitimacy," nudity, etc., and nature chimed in with a blizzard of sexually transmitted diseases that punished those who dared to offend against the morals of society. People still offended, but society didn't approve.

But since the 1950s things changed in the United States and elsewhere. Promiscuity is said to be common, and revelations of celebrities, even presidents, having affairs are now almost ordinary. We've solved some of the complications of promiscuity with condoms, vaccinations, antibiotics, the pill, divorce and abortions. In the 1960s the attitude was "anything goes," and in our liberal enlightenment, it still does. Now television programs bring mom and her three or four boyfriends on stage and have them fight it out -- then DNA testing reveals the actual father. And now we have female Viagra and legalized prostitution in at least one state. "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" says the advertising -- possibly the most jaded campaign in recent memory.

But while sex was "invented" to procreate the human race, marriage was invented to protect it. Sex and family were a team, and the family unit was responsible for the products of procreation. Food, clothing, shelter and support are necessary, and a human child is vulnerable for nearly two decades.

But as better-educated women have children that "just happen" and as the men who father them evaporate, the family as a fundamental unit of society is as endangered as the white rhinoceros under the guns of aphrodisiac peddlers.

The experiment of the 1960s succeeded. Drugs and promiscuity are endemic in our cities and towns. In an ironic twist, several states may soon legalize marijuana to benefit from billions of new tax dollars, the bulk of which go to social services, education, law enforcement and other programs made necessary by the disappearing family. Schools now bypass families in matters of discipline, nutrition, health and well-being. They are "a mile wide and an inch deep" in their attempts to prop up a society in the absence of families, and are -- perhaps not surprisingly -- failing to educate children whose morals are learned on the streets, where father is absent and whose default role models include movie assassins, drug dealers and criminals.

It's time to recreate the family. It takes at least two people to care for children while earning a living and maintaining a household. Let's make choice the rule: If you are pregnant and weren't raped, you made your choice. Your family and the father's family are legally responsible for the child's health, well-being and support. If you fathered a child and won't help, you go to a work farm or prison industries, and your earnings go to help support the child. That's just for starters.

Schools concentrate on education not trans fats, dietary sugar, mental health screenings and abortions. In Jewish families, children who turn 13 are invited to join the adult world. That's a wonderful tradition that our society in general should embrace. We have 35-year-old "children" still living at home who have never grown up, and have never been given -- or accepted -- responsibility. It's time to focus on independence and competence, and make men and women who take responsibility for their actions, their lives and their children.