Hungry For A Better Game--a book review

Okay, I don’t normally do book reviews as both of you who follow this already know.  Yet I feel compelled to depart from the normal political bitching to share a few words about a recent perusing.  At the request of a local teacher, I read “Hunger Games” by Suzanne Collins.  For those of you who haven’t read it, I won’t ruin the book but I must provide some sort of context for the article.  Imagine the children violence of “Lord of the Flies” combined with the political essence of “Animal Farm” or “Fahrenheit 451”, then mix them with the context of the movie “Running Man” and you’ll have the general idea.  Ah, I was incomplete.  You must also add a healthy dash of a love story as challenged as in “The Fountainhead”.   So I’m guessing you are either confused as hell or right where I was trying to put you.  Either way I can’t change it so I’ll go on.

     The only other sort of review I will offer is of style and story.  I found the characters well developed, the story line engaging, the ending satisfying (if a little predictable) and the fact that I read it cover to cover in a day must say something good as well.  Certainly I became emotionally attached to the main character, a positive trait in any book.  After reading the novel, I spoke to my teacher friend quite quickly and offered her my thoughts on the age-appropriateness of the story, as requested.  Yet it was later, during a conversation with another dear friend, that I discovered the crux of my opinion towards the first book of this trilogy.   It was the choice.  It always comes down to choice.

     I must admit some of my favorite books maintain a common thread of social or political commentary, some which must be found and some overt.  The titles listed at the outset provide a perfect imparting of the tone to which I refer.  (Just for the record I also enjoy “brain candy” from the likes of Dan Brown, Clive Cussler and Steven Brust, to name a few.)  My point is when I read a book which obviously makes political and moral statements; I judge my reading experience a bit more critically than with other types of novels.  So while I enjoyed the story and characters and thought the book was well written it is on a perhaps more persnickety point I wish to offer my observations.

     Why tell the story in the first place? I’m struck by this most basic question.  One could easily read “1984” and derive a much more vivid context of the “Big Brother” message.   You could read “The Giver” and find a more original world with the same themes.  “Animal Farm” would present the dangers of an authoritarian’s unbridled control with more clarity.  So, why write the book in the first place?  Ostensibly, the prose purports to provide a new generation or new audience with the lessons provided by the other books in the past.  While I understand and even find this goal both admirable and desirable,  I must protest in this instance.

     Don’t we have enough violence in the world?  Don’t we have enough drabness in the country?  Don’t we offer an alarming amount of violent fantasies through video games, movies and television?  So why choose an arena of violence to display a timeless message?  While I acknowledged that “Lord of the Flies” was among my favorite books in the educational fiction genre, the fact that the lessons and storyline both rely on violence being committed by children offer a formidable defense against a comparable protest.  In a time where the departure from traditional values focused on individual liberty is alarming, I welcome any medium bringing a warning of the abuse of power by a government.  Yet I am troubled that we are choosing to encourage a book which wraps the pure message in a cloak of darkness and violence.  Don’t get me wrong here, I enjoyed the book and would even suggest it to other adults.  You must remember, the context of my experience began and ended with a teacher and the implied students.  Why are we encouraging children around 14 to read such a book in our schools?  Couldn’t they read one of the classics I have mentioned and learn the same lessons within a more positive environment of a reading experience?  If you don’t like that idea, I would suggest watching BookTV for a myriad of ideas.  While I think our nation (and indeed world) would benefit from authors providing more uplifting themes for their books,  I am  a dark person by nature and can appreciate the experience from an adult point of view.  We have plenty of chances to present our children with the darker side of humanity and society.  Why don’t we teach a more complete and accurate history of our country for instance?  Perhaps we could teach them economics without assuming a fiat currency must be involved and let them see the truth?  We could teach them about the freedoms our government has taken away over the last 200+ years and offer them a true chance to question which decisions were wise and which were not.  That might scare the hell of them, right?  At least it would produce a generation with the tools to think for themselves and better society for future generations, tools we don’t currently utilize or focus upon in our schools.  Within this society, with the problems we SHOULD be talking about with our students, we instead to choose to promote a depressing story line to developing minds gaining nothing extra from the violent theater.  If we are to teach violence in school, wouldn’t it be better to use it to teach about the lessons of violence?  “The Hunger Games” offered no remarkable lesson concerning violence.   Perhaps the time for lessons containing violence should be found in the history classes which could provide more applicable lessons and better stories than almost any piece of fiction could strive for.  

Deficit Committee's 1st hearing

A clear choice must be made in order to watch the first hearing held by the deficit super committee.  In her opening remarks Ms. Murray, Co-Chair, stated the topic of this initial hearing to be the history and drivers of our deficit and debt.  It is within this statement where we find the choice we must make.  Are we to believe the crux of the habitually repeated financial failures in our past remains elusive to those in Washington? Or shall we accept the hearing is an act and that her statement merely exists within the playbook of good Washington politics?  To be honest, I winced inside as I felt the stab of pain resulting from the impression of a hand being placed upon my cheek.  How can the American public withstand treatment more suited for 3 year olds?  Our government blatantly acts stupid in order to appear working steadfast towards a grand solution to our problems.  ---I should pause momentarily to make mention of the nearly half-trillion spending bill Obama just handed to Congress.  More wasteful spending and you haven’t even spent the first 800 billion yet? No politics allowed huh? Then what are you doing?  The point is I shouldn’t expect more from Congress days after Obama plays such idiot politics with more stimulus money we don’t have in order to get the taxes on the rich he wants. Typical Washington, nothing ever changes. --- How many people outside of Washington already know the major contributors?  I would think a great majority.  I bet if you ask non-economist adults nationwide you would get some pretty smart answers, mixed in with ideological spending priorities of course.  Let us consider: they spend too much, they try to do too many things, they write laws in order to gain or reward campaign donors and they claim to have moral authority over us (and the world) when our Constitution was provided in order to establish a people free from coercion and force.   They ignore established laws in the first place in order to create unneeded regulations and their bureaucracies in the second!  So while I admit my culpability in falling for it once again; I only pray the hearing gets better from here.

                Damn! Well, that hope was dashed with haste.  For the next few minutes Xavier Becerra (D-CA) lashed out at those with money both business and citizen.  He blamed the tax cuts for the debt (which as often as that is said, you wonder if Bush didn’t plan it this way….) and asked if it was the young or the poor who benefited unfairly from the tax cuts.  While this argument ends up supporting a flat tax or consumption tax ultimately we’ll leave that for another time.  To blame the tax cuts is to blame Washington.  The companies and individuals are now set up to get fleeced in order to justify more spending when we can’t afford the spending we already have and borrow 60% of our funds.  You can take all the money from the corporations, billionaires and millionaires and I mean ALL of it and it won’t make a dent in our problem.  (Google it if you don’t believe me!) We should be worried about all companies paying the same percentage in order to remove corporatism instead of trying to pick out some for financial punishment (which ironically seems to happen to those our government helps the most).  To blame the wealthy in any way is to demagogue the very financial success which most aspire to.  How is this palatable to anyone with common sense?  Blame those who wrote the tax code! Blame the relationship between them!  Blame yourself for not voting with this most essential priority.  Raising taxes on the rich in order to fund a new program is treating the people as moronic.  How can we raise the debt ceiling, form a committee to cut 1.2 trillion off of our automatically increasing spending in the FUTURE, and propose more spending supposedly funded by new taxes on the rich and spending cuts which will never pass Congress?  If this is the beginning of something new it must have been planted in the manure of the old because it stinks in here and suddenly I need some tall boots.

Darren Hutchinson, you are relieved…part 1

Darren Hutchinson, you are relieved…

Please make sure to read this article before reading mine, otherwise it won’t make sense!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darren-hutchinson/five-reasons-why-ron-paul_b_947004.html

When writing a critical piece against someone in politics it is easy to become confused about ethics. For instance, the trend in campaigns for the last couple of hundred years tells us that if we merely attack someone enough then the veracity of the accusation need not be upheld in order to have the desired effect. I've written many opinions and I’m sure some were plainly wrong. No one is perfect, but Darren my friend; here are the reasons you shouldn't write such things:

“Paul is charismatic. He also comes across as a straight shooter. Some of his ideas -- like his opposition to militarism and the War on Drugs -- appeal to many voters, including liberals. His arguments about lower government spending and taxation sound good to folks who worry about budget deficits.”

Counterpoints.

Having a charismatic President is a good thing. We agree here.

Perhaps he is a straight shooter as his record indicates…..perhaps you will provide an example of where he isn’t instead of just suggesting it wrecklessly?

So his policies bring left and right together on issues such as national defense and the millions wasted on the war on drugs. Those seem like more good things. (even if you disagree with legalizing any drugs, the money was still wasted because we are losing worse than ever….at least we can agree the money could be better spent I’d say.)

So far so good….although the tone of the writing indicates he isn’t a fan of Dr. Paul’s he has been fair in representing him at least.

“Paul's arguments, however, often lack an empirical basis. History has already demonstrated that many of Paul's proposed solutions will never work. Thus, while some of Paul's ideas sound solid in the abstract, they crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.”

I’m not sure where this paragraph is going. It ignores that Dr. Paul readily admits that he is not proposing anything new. The principles, priorities and philosophies that he represents are those that allowed us to become the most powerful nation on earth. The first 150 years of our nation were founded on the teachings of smaller government, individual responsibility, self-reliance, low taxes, thoughtful use of military force and above all liberty and those are the same lessons you will hear if you listen to Dr. Paul. 

Where did history demonstrate that these ideas wouldn’t work? America is a unique country with a unique founding document. Name one place that history has shown it doesn’t work, because it sure as hell isn’t America. We feed over half the world. Even nations that hate us come to study within our borders before going home to plot against us. Such a statement ought to at least give reference to some point in history which proves his accusation. Saying it doesn’t make it so. 

Ahhh the best part for last….. So his ideas “crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.” So these principles Dr. Paul professes provided us with America and its constitution, yet they don’t stand up to the accepted THEORIES about gov’t and society. What the hell does that mean? The principles of those who support the status quo are the same as those that have brought this crisis in morals and economy to our doorstep. Ron Paul doesn’t want to give you more of the same crap, he wants to give you your freedom back and return our government to its lawful role in our country. The historical founding of our nation upon individual liberty and small government is fact. These “theories” that supposedly debunk Dr. Paul are just that; the accepted theories of a failed philosophy struggling to remain in power.

“ Paul would restrict abortion based on anecdotal "evidence," rather than science.”

Counterpoints:

I don’t even have to copy any more of this paragraph to prove my point. You can still read it at the link, I’m certainly not hiding it. 

Ron Paul has never said he wanted to restrict abortion in anyway. He is prolife and personally believes that is the right choice. However, any fair examination of his comments on abortion always point to his belief in State’s rights and the unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. 

If anyone took your rights to abortion away from you under Ron Paul’s Presidency it would be your neighbors voting against it. If your state outlaws it and you don’t agree, you are free to move to a state more to your liking and yet still be an American; kind of a cool system right? I can’t force you into complying with my opinion, you can’t force me to comply with yours and the governmental structure supports both our opinions as valuable. Now we can still be Americans and yet disagree. Damn, what a country!

“Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights”

Since you couldn’t find anything else to pick on him about, I guess you had to throw abortion back at him twice, Darren? Yes, we get it, Ron Paul opposes abortion. That in no way means he opposes your right to it within the confines of the law. Why don’t you quote him to prove your point? (oh, you can’t?)

Anyway:

The entire point of being a Republic is to have control as decentralized as possible. If Utah allows polygamy and New York doesn’t so be it. 

This section is typical fear-mongering. Statements such as “Undoubtedly, many state courts would sharply curtail liberties currently recognized by the Supreme Court.” come out of nowhere in order to frighten us away from the reality that the States would actually only remove those liberties we voted against. Once again, if the people don’t support it, you won’t get it. When you pay attention to the big picture, which includes removing the relationship between business and government, Ron Paul allows for more equality and liberty than anyone else and it isn’t even close. 

Darren, you act as though rights are handed out by our courts and politicians. They are not. America was founded upon the belief that we are born free and our government takes our rights away little by little. To act as though the centralized power we now allow in Washington is historically American is to rely upon the uneducated masses following you like the sheep beckoning your dreams. 

I’ll finish this tomorrow I can’t take it anymore for the moment.

Phlegm

The Forgotten America

It seems to me that somewhere along the way the American population forgot what America stands for.  We forgot what made America different and have replaced those differences with an assumed arrogance without being able to support such a claim (not to mention without continuing the traditions that actually made us “better”).  Why?  How? Was it merely the removal of a strong family unit within the priorities of our nation?  Is it evil capitalism?  Is it education?  Is it inevitable? 

Education is perhaps the easiest culprit to find.  Rarely do schools produce critical thinkers rooted in an unrevised history of their country anymore.  We teach based on how to feel good about yourself instead of how to actually accomplish goals in life WHICH WILL IN RETURN MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD! I’d love to spout off about the infiltration of collectivism, Marxism, and socialism into our system; yet in the interest of time and space I would merely offer a book titled “None dare care it treason-25 years later”  for you to read if you are open to a well sited and eye-opening read.  Education used to be the responsibility of the parents and LOCAL school authorities.  We have allowed politicians to convince us that we are not able to educate our children anymore.  They have stolen the right of self-determination away from the rearing of our children.  How can it be that in a “free” society we are forced to pay taxes for our schools when we might not have children, or perhaps we want to send them to a private school?  Lord forbid that we want to send them to a religious school; for then we are told we have to pay the taxes for schools we don’t use because of the separation of church and state.  This is ridiculous.  The separation of church and state was put into place to prevent the state from forcing religion upon us.  It was written in order to ALLOW, in fact, everyone to worship in their own way.  What about the GI bill being used at a religious college (which it can be)? How is that any different?  The real question shouldn’t be about religion, or test scores, or budget levels, or the frigging teachers’ union (who represent themselves more than any teacher and certainly more than any child).  The real question should be: why are we letting Washington take our money in order to build a system of bureaucrats who justify their jobs and growing budgets with their own failures?  If we believe that one party, or one President truly changes much we are falling for the systems’ primary defense.  It is the existence of the system that we need to fight, in other words, the bureaucrats.  Those people rarely change and they are the ones left to interpret and, more importantly, implement the supposed coming “changes”.  No child left behind failed just as the next promised “solution”.  They will have a few success stories to tempt us with, but overall the system will continue to waste our money and line the pockets of the bureaucrats, unions and politicians while leaving the schools, parents and teachers to take the blame. How is that logical?  Looked at in another light, what if they truly solved the problems?  Our grades shot up, international competitiveness improved, colleges were filled to the brim…..what then?  How do they justify growing their budget and continuing most of the jobs they have “created” ?  How much longer would they need the infrastructure they have built up?  Is it truly in their best interest to solve the problem in the first place?  My father once told me that it is the nature of a bureaucracy to always grow.  I have thought about that a lot since he said it decades ago.  Look at our government.  How much money have we spent trying to solve social issues in the past 50 years only to see the problems get worse every decade?  Education is at the heart of these issues and must therefore be the first we solve.

      It is enough to point out that all learned values, behaviors, ethics and knowledge are either positively or negatively affected by the parents and family.    I don’t care who works in a family.  I don’t care if you both work.  I don’t want to tell you what to do or how to do it.  I’m merely saying that choices have consequences and when we stopped producing a strong family unit (which happened for many more reasons than just dual working parents).  When we left behind the HUMAN (not American) tradition of a strong family unit we stopped creating not only the best children but the best environments in which to produce those children.  We have become the selfish consumers our government has been pushing us to be.  This attitude of “me first” supported by our government’s policies of tax exceptions, welfare and bailouts has encouraged us to ask the wrong question again.   If we truly valued the liberty our country was founded upon we would place our efforts to the task of continuing that tradition through the production of well taught, well raised, respectful children and not more cars, bigger houses and better vacations.   Perhaps if the value and history of the liberty our country provided was taught better (not to mention if it was still there) then we wouldn’t have the amount of single parent families either.  Perhaps you wouldn’t have some people refusing to have kids in “this world” as well. 

     The “me first” mode of living is not going to allow freedom to continue.  By allowing our federal government to take as much money as they want (which they can due to the IRS) we have in turn become a nation fighting against each other for what we are allowed to keep.  We have let immorality creep into our lives and the absence of morals has assisted us in finding justifications for abhorrent behavior.   Whether it is men fathering children for whom they do not care, women murdering fetuses in lieu of responsible sexual behavior, domestic violence, drug addictions, gambling problems, narcissism or whatever other issue you care to name; these problems will always exist but the proliferation of these situations is inexcusable.  We allow the inevitability of a few problems to justify the immoral behavior of the majority.  We relinquish control over our lives to a federal government while we can blame them for our failure and troubles.  Meanwhile the government gives us reasons to segregate ourselves from both each other and the unifying principle of liberty.  We fall for it every time.   Perhaps instead of this “me first” culture, it ought to be a “we” first culture.  That is what produced America and what can save it from itself.

     Finally, a quick work about capitalism.  Don’t blame it because we don’t have it.  We have a partially socialistic and partially corporatist state.  When industry and government get together (lobbyists) to write laws benefitting each other (profits or campaign donations/support) then there is no capitalism.  I will close with an example I love to use.  If we had capitalism we wouldn’t have issues with oil and its pollution such as we do.  If our government were protecting the people through enforcing the laws on personal property and harming others then the free market would have been held accountable decades ago with the resulting price of oil forcing industry to take another path from the oil dependent one on which we find ourselves. 

I hope that in 2012 people vote for their nation’s health and for their grandkids’ liberty.  Look at their records of accomplishments and CONSISTENCY.  Look at who pays for the campaigns of our candidates.  Look at who runs the negative ads.  Then realize that there is one person who runs on principles.  There is one person who runs on a record that never varies.  There is a Republican who wins in a Democrat district with common sense and logic.  There is one person that runs for the people and just because the media and establishment hate him ought to get you to at least take a look at him.

RON PAUL 2012