The Government is NOT the Problem

[carlfense]

I think this is an excellent OpEd from yesterday's Daily Nebraskan. (Note: I don't agree with everything Meador says in this piece, but I think he makes a very valid and compelling point.)

 

Change starts with the individual, not government

 

By Jake Meador

 

Print this article

Share this article

 

Published: Monday, February 22, 2010

 

In 2008, one word landed Barack Obama in the White House. Strangely enough, that same word may end the Democratic majority in 2010.

 

That word, of course, is “change.” For the last several years of the Bush administration, America was clearly disgusted with its president. Into our culture of malcontents stepped a gifted orator steeped in idealism promising us “change.”

 

One year later, Obama’s change seems to have become the status quo and, to complete the circle, the cause for the renewed cries for more “change.”

 

Yet for all the fluidity the term has demonstrated in the past year, its definitions are alarmingly limited. And if the nation is ever to become healthy again, the definitions of “change” must become larger.

 

In both the Obama campaign and the current Republican attempts to co-opt the term, it refers exclusively to political change of some sort.

 

Last year, it referred to leftist changes – climate change legislation, a public option for health care, a revamped foreign policy, etc. – and this year’s change tends to be more conservative, yet for all its diversity, it still terminates on politics.

 

One can’t help thinking of the madman described in the opening chapter of Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy.” The madman, Chesterton argued, did not suffer from a perverse mind so much as from a small one. Rather than being able to analyze a variety of ideas from a variety of perspectives, as the healthy mind can, the madman’s mind revolves in a frightfully small circle beginning and ending with himself.

 

But our culture’s mind has contracted to a more severe form of madness: We’re not even terminating on our individual selves. At least in that case our thought would involve individual people.

 

Our discussion of change orbits in an even smaller circle that begins and ends with the abstract concept of political reform. It’s never about real, tangible individuals – it’s about policies. People only figure into the equation as a crutch, like Joe the Plumber.

 

Consider: Recently a friend was saying that she’s a Republican because “big government crushes individual liberties.” I responded by pointing out that corporations can crush individual liberties just as easily. As Chesterton put it, “Big business and state socialism are very much alike, especially big business.” As an example of this obvious phenomenon, I cited Wal-Mart.

 

Those present – all, apparently, Republicans – immediately assumed that I must be a socialist who thinks the government should shut down the corporate giant (personally, I think such a fate is far too good for Wally World) and began to talk about the need to get government out of the economy.

 

I then had to clarify that I wasn’t advocating a government invasion of the economy or, necessarily, a government shutdown of Wal-Mart. (Although some laws in the vein of Roosevelt’s trust-busting legislation wouldn’t hurt. Those laws were necessary to end the first era of robber barons, and it’s becoming more and more apparent that such actions will be necessary to end the rebooted equivalent to that troubled era.)

 

Rather, I was advocating a shift in cultural values.

 

Needless to say, the discussion didn’t go far from there.

 

Changing culture falls well outside the realm of our standard conversations about the state of the nation. And yet it is for that precise reason that our nation is not healthy.

 

For all their talk about change, both the GOP and the Dems seem to envision a society in which we continue to drive everywhere we go rather than walk or bike, in which we continue to eat cruelly slaughtered animals and plants grown thousands of miles away rather than buying free-range meats and locally-grown produce, and in which we continue to work obscene schedules that destroy family life and community.

 

Such “change” is like trying to fix a leaky pipe by painting the wall a different color.

 

The primary problem facing the United States is not our politicians, it’s us.

 

The us that, according to CBS News, spends $110 billion on fast food annually and then complains when our health care costs are high.

 

The us that, as I pointed out recently, spend a combined $20 billion on porn and plastic surgery and then complain when our marriages break down and young women grow up with body issues.

 

The us that, on average, spends 100 hours commuting to work annually and then complains that we don’t have time to relax or people to relax with.

 

The us that has accumulated, on average, $8,400 in credit card debt on crap we don’t need and then complains about being “stressed.”

 

So yes, give me change we can believe in. But don’t act as if such change is a simple matter of moving one group of inept politicians out of Washington and replacing them with another.

 

Change doesn’t come on a ballot or in a 2,000-page bill that none of our representatives read before voting on. (And, by the way, if they can’t even accomplish the basics of the job – like writing a concise bill or reading it before voting on it – what makes us think they can fix our country?)

 

Change comes from us. So if you want “change,” don’t waste your time canvassing for a politician. Instead, commit yourself to your local community of friends and build a lifestyle around that. Get ambitious and try walking to work or getting rid of cable TV.

 

If our definition of change does not grow, we’ll suffer the same fate as Chesterton’s madman and end up in an asylum. But in our case, we won’t be committed to Hanwell, the insane asylum of Chesterton’s London. The asylum will come to us, and it’s name will be America.

 

Jake Meador is a senior English and History major. Reach him at jakemeador@dailynebraskan.com.

 

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/meador-change-starts-with-the-individual-not-government-1.2164705

[mmmtodd]

ive felt similarly all along. Everyone expects that someone else is going to fix the problems. "Some genius will come up with a miracle alternative fuel, i can keep spilling gas on the ground." etc. I get the impression that 50-100 years ago in this country it was, "Im going to come up with some way to fix this fossil fuel problem myself, and be rich." etc. Change out any problem (credit crisis) with energy in those examples. I lived in Arizona at the beginning of the last decade and watched in awe as co-workers bought lavish custom houses, way out of their budgets or means. i have one good friend that has lost everything because of it, and the house still cant be sold. His bleeding may not stop for 30 years. Back here in Nebraska, its a shame to say that I still see people doing this. Nothings 'changed.'

[carlfense]

Nailed it mmmtodd. Sigh.

[huskertim]

ive felt similarly all along. Everyone expects that someone else is going to fix the problems. "Some genius will come up with a miracle alternative fuel, i can keep spilling gas on the ground." etc. I get the impression that 50-100 years ago in this country it was, "Im going to come up with some way to fix this fossil fuel problem myself, and be rich." etc. Change out any problem (credit crisis) with energy in those examples. I lived in Arizona at the beginning of the last decade and watched in awe as co-workers bought lavish custom houses, way out of their budgets or means. i have one good friend that has lost everything because of it, and the house still cant be sold. His bleeding may not stop for 30 years. Back here in Nebraska, its a shame to say that I still see people doing this. Nothings 'changed.'

 

 

Look man, I feel ya. Personal responibility is the ideal solution, but it isn't neccessarily human nature. The reason a person 50-100 years ago might be more inclined to "fix this fossil fuel problem..and be rich" is because it was more likely to happen. Our government doesn't need to inspire or subsidise inovation, it just needs to get the hell out of the way and let people benefit from thier success. Right now, much of what we gear our research toward is dependent on what the government is funding. R&D dollars spent on risky ventures while there are safe , government backed ones available don't make sense. Why spend your money reserching uses for adult stem cells (a proven technoligy) when Uncle Sam is willing to give you unlimited funds to study embrionic stem cells that have yet to produce a viable treatment for anything. Better still, researching something that has no likely end means no end of funding.

[sarge87]

Personal responsibility?.........What a novel concept!

 

You mean I can't live in a house that I can't afford, but due to political pressure was able to "qualify" for that mortgage? I shouldn't have kids just because I can, but only until I'm financially stable to support them? When you have a political class that caters to a wants equals needs society, this is what you get.

 

 

Now having said that, I sent an email to the author asking him to clarify this passage "we continue eat cruelly slaughtered animals and plants grown thousands of miles away rather than buying free-range meats and locally-grown produce."

 

Clearly the author has no idea what he is talking about in that blurb. Does he think "free-range meats" magically appear in the butcher's case at your local supermarket? I know he's trying to establish some street cred with the lefties in this article since he's bashing the "hopey - changey" everyone fell for, but at least be a little informed about what he's bashing. It doesn't matter where the animal comes from. They are slaughtered in the same way as feedlot varieties when it comes to beef, chicken, and hogs. The term "free-range" is a misnomer because it gives the public this vision of a chicken roaming around a vast yard somewhere, when in fact that is not the case. There are no guidelines for free-range. You can fill a whole building full of poultry as long as they have a small space around them to move and they're not in cages. It's obvious he hasn't bothered researching the guidelines and handling practices people who transport those animals to the packing houses have to adhere to insure a quality product to the customer. I realize this wasn't the point to his story, but it's things like this in print that hurt those people who feed the world. Also, I take it the author has never heard of Farmer's Markets or those melon purveyors that inhabit about every corner in rural America. Ten years ago, you couldn't find a papaya, kiwi fruit, Vidalia onions, Key limes, or the vast amounts of Mexican chiles which are commonplace in your local produce departments. Personally, I like the varieties of produce that are in today's supermarkets. The means to living healthy are right here, but don't take away the variety.

 

I'll let him slide on the WalMart jab, but one thing he needs to remember. Every corporation started off as a single mom and pop operation. Instead of demonizing success, we should be inspiring the next generation to think outside the box, to be the next Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Henry Ford, or Andrew Carnegie.

[carlfense]

Personal responsibility?.........What a novel concept!

 

You mean I can't live in a house that I can't afford, but due to political pressure was able to "qualify" for that mortgage? I shouldn't have kids just because I can, but only until I'm financially stable to support them? When you have a political class that caters to a wants equals needs society, this is what you get.

 

 

Now having said that, I sent an email to the author asking him to clarify this passage "we continue eat cruelly slaughtered animals and plants grown thousands of miles away rather than buying free-range meats and locally-grown produce."

 

Clearly the author has no idea what he is talking about in that blurb. Does he think "free-range meats" magically appear in the butcher's case at your local supermarket? I know he's trying to establish some street cred with the lefties in this article since he's bashing the "hopey - changey" everyone fell for, but at least be a little informed about what he's bashing. It doesn't matter where the animal comes from. They are slaughtered in the same way as feedlot varieties when it comes to beef, chicken, and hogs. The term "free-range" is a misnomer because it gives the public this vision of a chicken roaming around a vast yard somewhere, when in fact that is not the case. There are no guidelines for free-range. You can fill a whole building full of poultry as long as they have a small space around them to move and they're not in cages. It's obvious he hasn't bothered researching the guidelines and handling practices people who transport those animals to the packing houses have to adhere to insure a quality product to the customer. I realize this wasn't the point to his story, but it's things like this in print that hurt those people who feed the world. Also, I take it the author has never heard of Farmer's Markets or those melon purveyors that inhabit about every corner in rural America. Ten years ago, you couldn't find a papaya, kiwi fruit, Vidalia onions, Key limes, or the vast amounts of Mexican chiles which are commonplace in your local produce departments. Personally, I like the varieties of produce that are in today's supermarkets. The means to living healthy are right here, but don't take away the variety.

 

I'll let him slide on the WalMart jab, but one thing he needs to remember. Every corporation started off as a single mom and pop operation. Instead of demonizing success, we should be inspiring the next generation to think outside the box, to be the next Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Henry Ford, or Andrew Carnegie.

I fully agree with your assessment of the "cruelly slaughtered animals" passage. That was one part I definitely did not agree with.

 

However, I DO agree with his Wal-Mart jab. That company has done some pretty terrible things.

[maxcreigs]

Fossil fuels—including coal, natural gas, and oil—are formed from the fossilized remains of prehistoric plants and animals, and fossil fuels provide about 95% of the world's total energy. Alternative fuels are better for the environment and often better for the economy than fossil fuels.

One of the most promising alternatives to fossil fuels is solar energy. While the basic technology has been in place for decades, the expense of generating and storing solar energy was often cost-prohibitive. That is changing as ways to mass-produce effective solar energy systems for residential and commercial spaces have come into being. Today, some consumers are building homes that at least partially use solar energy for heating and cooling, rather than employing more traditional methods that make use of petroleum based products.

[mmmtodd]

My grandpa is a pretty successful guy, and quite, I dont know, honorable. So when I heard him say the following one day in regards to the recession, I listened quite intently....

 

 

"Everyone's so worried about themselves that their standing around with their own d's in their hand. Problem is, for life to go on, someone has to get f'd. You won't catch me holding onto my d."

[sarge87]

Fossil fuels—including coal, natural gas, and oil—are formed from the fossilized remains of prehistoric plants and animals, and fossil fuels provide about 95% of the world's total energy. Alternative fuels are better for the environment and often better for the economy than fossil fuels.

One of the most promising alternatives to fossil fuels is solar energy. While the basic technology has been in place for decades, the expense of generating and storing solar energy was often cost-prohibitive. That is changing as ways to mass-produce effective solar energy systems for residential and commercial spaces have come into being. Today, some consumers are building homes that at least partially use solar energy for heating and cooling, rather than employing more traditional methods that make use of petroleum based products.

 

A byproduct of the solar industry, a gas called Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3), has 17,000 times the potential of carbon dioxide, in trapping heat inside Earth's atmosphere. The worst part about this is that there are currently no regulations to limit or prevent the use of this gas in solar panel manufacturing processes. With NF3 amounts almost doubling every year, this gas could soon pose a bigger problem for the environment than carbon currently does. Fortunately, there is another gas which could be used in the manufacturing process - Fluorine - however, it is very expensive and cost prohibitive to be a viable fix.

 

Other drawbacks to solar panels: Manufacturing and disposal - Solar panels are currently made with various toxic chemicals including silicon. It is a major component in their construction and hazardous if not handled correctly. There are some communities in Japan that are toxic waste dumps because the bi-products of silicon in their landfills have made the area inhabitable.

 

Fire prevention - The thing to know with solar panels is that they cannot be shut down - they are ALWAYS ENERGIZED. And they are energized with up to 600 volts of DC current. For example, you cannot put an ax through them to open up a roof to vent - your putting the ax through 600 volts. If fire is infringing upon solar panels on the roof it will compromise the integrity of the panels. You then have 600 volts of live electrical energy - and what don't you do when you have live electrical energy? - you don't put water on it. Even if the roof burned through and the panels fell into the structure, unless the panels were destroyed (de-energized) by the fire and/or falling into the structure, they are still have the potential to be live, have to be treated as such and have the potential of 600 volts of DC current. It takes 7-10 days covered by a burlap blanket for a solar panel to de-energize to negligible levels.

 

So what do you do with a house that is equipped with solar panels catches fire? YOU LET IT BURN.