Random Thoughts

A century or so ago, Thomas Huxley suggested it wouldn't be political corruption, that is, dishonest and self-serving politicians, which brought about the end of American democracy. He cited "an entrenched bureaucracy" as the more likely culprit. Perhaps the past two years of Covid protocols have provided a picture of how that might happen. Mark Twain was a very witty guy! One of my favorite observations of his is, "In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards." I came across this one recently. "Get your facts first. Then you can distort them as you please." I wonder if any of the people who steadfastly supported the Covid mandates, shutdowns, masks, etc. because they were "following the science" have had an epiphany. That is, have they realized that "the science is never settled?" The proclamations of that, "following the science" and "the science is settled," has lent a false legitimacy to the government reactions to Covid. It still befuddles me that in a country of 350 million people, American voters are still plagued with choices for President like W. Bush, Obama, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Obama, Clinton, Trump, and Biden. Hundreds of millions of people and these are our choices? Consider this, relative to our candidates today. Seattle, WA and Denver, CO have populations of about 750,000 today. That is what the population of Virginia, the entire state, was in 1790. Yet, what did VA produce then? Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Henry, the Lees, Mason, Randolph, and a guy by the name of Washington. Yep, think about that. I've read that the top ten hedge fund managers in the US (the top ten, not top ten percent) make more money than all of the kindergarten teachers in the country. Hmmm..... I don't begrudge anyone who makes money legally. No doubt these managers provide a desirable service and provide it well. But it seems to me that perahps our priorities need to be reconsidered. While I'm at it, it seems to me that the issue of "income inequality" is a red herring. So what if the top 10% of income earners make 60% of all income in the US? (I'm not sure that is the exact figure since there are so many different data.) There are other statistics perhaps designed to shock people, for instance, that the typical American CEO makes 100 times the typical worker in his/her company. (Again, I don't know if that's the exact figure.) If other, namely, lower income groups are also better off, what's the problem? Today most families, even considered low income, can and do afford luxuries unheard of in other parts of the world and even the US just a few decades ago. Who doesn't have a big screen television, a smart phone (other than me!), video game consoles, NBA-player endorsed sneakers, etc.? Besides, Thomas Sowell has shown that most people who at one time were in the lowest 20% of income earners rise out of that group and, in fact, more end up in the top 20% than stay in the bottom 20%. I suppose it's like the argument involving the most recent federal income tax cut. Some people complain that the "rich guy" received a bigger cut (in actual dollar amount) than they did. They never consider that the same "rich guy" still pays far more in taxes than they do. Perhaps most people should be more concerned that a recent study showed the IRS targets far more lower income groups for audits than upper income groups, up to five times more. I see more and more colleges allowing students to determine their own curricula, courses of study. But as strange as I find that, the move toward an "open curriculum" seems more irresponsible. To assume 18- and 19-year olds know better than their professors and advisers what academic experiences will best serve them in their real world futures outside of their majors is folly. I guess this is where I make my pitch, yet again, for the increasingly unpopular liberal arts education, you know, what many people now call "dead-end degrees." I still maintain that those who refuse to see the advantages of liberal arts graduates as employees are narrow- and even close-minded. I heard another guy say the other day, "I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative." I've heard that from people before. I wonder if they hear that on NPR????? I wanted to ask, "All those social programs you want, who will pay for them?" I didn't ask because I know the answer. I have heard it before. "Other people." Yep, those who want the social programs don't want to finance them; other people should. Gee, how many things are wrong with that line of thinking? Let's just start with selfishness. Why in the world is the Biden Administration trying to buy oil from Venezuela and Iran, but handcuffing US producers? Like so many other things I wonder about, why isn't this on the front pages of every newspaper in the US?