Links in the Fence

Whenever I get the chance, I listen to the Dennis Prager show. There is no better radio show that I know of than his. Last week, they were playing a "best of" show, and they replayed an interview Dennis did with Charles Murray, who had recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal. I was intrigued by the discussion, so I looked up Murray's article on the Internet. It was from March 2009, and it was called the Europe Syndrome.

In it, Murray goes into some ways that the people of America and Europe (and the governments they have instituted) are different. Then he steps back and discusses what he calls "deep satisfactions." Americans still find their deep satisfactions in family, community, vocation, and faith. Because of this, they are more inclined to do things like raise a family, go to church, give to charity, and volunteer their time than the people of Europe. The European mentality, Murray says, goes something like this: "Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate. The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible."

I have a thought that is in the same vein as Murray, but a little bit different. I think one way that conservatives and liberals (or traditionalists and progressives) are different is whether or not they see themselves as one more link in the chain of life, or if they see themselves as the culmination of all that has come before. We can't know the full story of our lives because we will not live to see our progeny's accomplishments long after our chapter of the story has been written. Of course, if you don't believe that there is a story being told, then you could care less about what comes after you are gone.

That is why so many liberals and leftists don't have children. The self-absorbed progressive sees himself as the culmination of the story--the top of the pyramid; there is no reason to spend time raising another generation. The traditionalist, though, sees themselves as a middle page of a long book, playing their part, and then passing on the tale to those who come after. And this doesn't only apply to those who have families--it is true for all who care about the generations that follow. I think a good example of this is the people who have fought in wars for our country. Many of these young men didn't even have families at the time they fought, but they were assured that those who survived and did raise families would pass on the story so that the sacrifice would not be in vain.

Abraham Lincoln touched on this in one of his speeches. He said that we are all heirs of those who fought for our freedoms in the Revolutionary War--even the millions of Americans who could not trace their ancestry back to that conflict. I feel the same way about those who fought in the Civil War and World War II. My family was not yet in the country during the Civil War, but I honor the sacrifice of those men, and I strive to continue the hope of our country and pass it on to the next generation. Likewise, I had no grandparents that stormed the beaches on D-Day, but I hope that I am worthy of the sacrifice made by those men.

So it is not by direct biological descent, but by working to ensure that those who come after us will enjoy the freedoms that we have, which really marks the conservative.

If I Were Editor of the Star Tribune

My wife and I have three children, the older two are biological and the youngest is adopted. Because we have an adopted child, my mom thought I would be interested in an article in the August 2 Star Tribune. The lead article of the Variety section was "Newfound challenges unite adult adoptees."

The article profiles a few adult adoptees who have issues with the fact that they were given up by their birthmothers for adoption. The underlying purpose of the article, though, is to introduce a state agency called Adoptees Have Answers.

This article was instructive in a number of ways.
1. We find out that Adoptees Have Answers "opened last year to offer services for and about adult adoptees, including support groups, public events and webinars." (What this statement really means: This is a nothing agency—it is work-fare for Democrat voters.)
2. Adoptees Have Answers is "apparently the first of its kind in the country." (What this statement really means: No other state in the country is as stupid as Minnesota to waste money in this way.)
3. "The hope is parents, social workers, adoption professionals, therapists and lawmakers will be listening." (What this statement really means: We want more state funds funneled through this agency.)
4. Adoptees Have Answers "is funded with $589,750 from the state Department of Human Services to operate from February 2010 to September 2012." (What this statement really means: Agh! We've just flushed a half a million dollars down the drain!)

Why in the world is the state of Minnesota, which just went through a government shutdown as the legislature and the governor haggled over creating a balanced budget for the next biennium, funding a nothing agency like Adoptees Have Answers? We so often hear of the lack of funds for school districts or public safety officials or the court system, but then we have to read about the absolute waste of almost $600,000. $600,000 could buy a lot of pencils and books for students, or pay for several policemen or public defenders.

I have become convinced that agencies like this exist all throughout the state and federal governments, but they are almost impossible to get rid of. When we are short of taxes, how come programs like this are never up for elimination—it's always cops in city and state budgets and teachers and sports in school budgets.

A sidebar to this article lists several websites where people can go for more information about adoption issues. Most of these organizations, like Children's Home Society, are nonprofits who have been in this game for many, many years. I wonder how they feel about the government coming into their field?

The cherry on the top of this sundae is the letters page on August 7, where we get the obligatory letter-to-the-editor from the manager of Adoptees Have Answers, Kate Maloney. She begins: "Thank you, Katy Read, and the Star Tribune for starting a new conversation on the long-term impact of adoption . . ."

So the circle is almost complete: the press release from the agency, the puff piece from the newspaper reporter, the big kiss of gratitude from the manager of the governmental agency. The final move to complete the circle will be Adoptees Have Answers getting more state funding to continue ad infinitum.

There is a story here, but don't expect to find out what it is from the "reporters" and "editors" of the Star Tribune.

Important Numbers to Keep at Hand

Byron York briefly gives the numbers for deficits during Bush's terms. This is important information to keep close at hand when contrasting Bush era spending with Obama spending.

I Thought There Was No Money

But I guess they've scraped together $120,000 for this fraud: the chief of equity and social justice.

I would guess this is par for the course for most larger school districts. Perhaps the most chilling part of the story is the last paragraph.

Asked to comment on the issue, Supt. Jose Torres pointed out at the start of the meeting the board said the Pledge of Allegiance, which ends with the phrase “justice for all.”

The purposeful inversion of the meaning of the phrase "and justice for all" is par for the course for these ideologues.

To those who say this position is necessary, I say that I can't believe you any more.

Government As Nonprofit

My wife and I give to several charities each year. Sometimes, we give $35 or so to a new charity that we think is for a good cause. Often, that $35 is all we will give because the first gift is followed up with a barrage of mail soliciting more donations and phone calls as well. I guess we are naive enough to think that when you give $35 to a charitable nonprofit, most of that money will actually go to the people helped by the nonprofit and not to the people who work for the nonprofit. United Way is one of the worst offenders: for example, paying their CEO over $1,000,000 a year. Once I found that out, I decided never give another dime to United Way.

I work for a nonprofit, and I know that the salaries of the people who work there are on the low side of the local market rate. And that is as it should be. The money we generate should go to the mission of the nonprofit and not to the people who work there.

I think government should be the same. In a way, taxpayers are like people who donate to a charity—there is an understanding that the money raised through taxes will be spent as conservatively as possible. Government waste is more than poor money management, it is a betrayal of the unspoken contract between the taxpayers and the government.

These thoughts came to me while reading an opinion piece ripping on Matt Damon for the stupid comments he made to a reporter after the "Save Our Teachers" rally.

Government workers (in this case, public school teachers) no longer have the trust of the taxpaying public. They may not start at a great salary, but very soon afterwards, they are making very good money when compared to their neighbors (who are paying their wages through taxes), often with very good benefits.

Like the nonprofit organizations that call night after night, I just want them to use the money for the purpose it was given to them.