A new poll found that 46% of respondents think everyone should be given a government job. Idiots. Along similar lines, in Finland they were experimenting with giving people a basic income whether they worked or not. Strangely, that failed miserably and Finland is now backing off.
But you know, I think there is promise here. Seriously.
Think about this... do you really want the people who think either of these things is a good idea in the regular economy? Do you want them f*cking up your burgers or standing in the way of some real worker doing an actual task? Do you want them cleaning a toilet you're going to sit on or tightening the bolts on your car or processing your roof damage claim? Hell no! And God forbid, do you want them making decisions? Obviously not. So what do we do with them?
Well, I propose we create an agency: the Independent Department for Income, Occupational and Training Support (I.D.I.O.T.S.). That agency hires these people. What they would do is report to an office every day from 9 to 5. Attendance would be taken. While at “work” their duties would be to write at least one memo to another person in the office. On what topic? I couldn’t care less. I just want one memo. Then at 5, we give them back the keys to their cars and they can go home for the day.
Why do this? Think of the benefits. First, they’re off the roads and out of our hair. They aren’t interfering with worthwhile human beings. They aren't making messes we need to clean up. Scientists can study their memos just like they study apes to see if there's a way to fix them. Comedians can mine the memos too.
What's more, we can even get the money we pay them back by opening a tattoo shop in the basement of each building and stocking vending machines with unfiltered cigarettes, 40 ounce beers and fake VD medicine.
Perfect! Problems solved.
But you know, I think there is promise here. Seriously.
Think about this... do you really want the people who think either of these things is a good idea in the regular economy? Do you want them f*cking up your burgers or standing in the way of some real worker doing an actual task? Do you want them cleaning a toilet you're going to sit on or tightening the bolts on your car or processing your roof damage claim? Hell no! And God forbid, do you want them making decisions? Obviously not. So what do we do with them?
Well, I propose we create an agency: the Independent Department for Income, Occupational and Training Support (I.D.I.O.T.S.). That agency hires these people. What they would do is report to an office every day from 9 to 5. Attendance would be taken. While at “work” their duties would be to write at least one memo to another person in the office. On what topic? I couldn’t care less. I just want one memo. Then at 5, we give them back the keys to their cars and they can go home for the day.
Why do this? Think of the benefits. First, they’re off the roads and out of our hair. They aren’t interfering with worthwhile human beings. They aren't making messes we need to clean up. Scientists can study their memos just like they study apes to see if there's a way to fix them. Comedians can mine the memos too.
What's more, we can even get the money we pay them back by opening a tattoo shop in the basement of each building and stocking vending machines with unfiltered cigarettes, 40 ounce beers and fake VD medicine.
Perfect! Problems solved.
1. The Republicans moved left and picked up Bernie bros, so its no surprise that the Democrats have responded by moving even further left (aka upping the generosity of their promises). Clearly cost is no object for either party. The question is how many trillions can the government borrow before the crunch?
ReplyDelete2) Trump has a new legal team which is now admitting what he previously vehemently denied, that he paid 130K to that porn star last year. I am not a lawyer, but I'm sure Trump's ever changing legal team will result in a continual stream of revelations and renunciations.
3) Hillary is doing her best to drain the financially struggling Democratic party (anti-Trump sentiment hasn't translated into donations) of money. I salute her dedication to herself.
4) As an Eagle Scout, member of the Order of the Arrow and father of two former Girl Scouts I'm not happy about the Boy Scout's decision to admit girls but at least the Girl Scouts aren't following them down that path.
5) Recently saw Netflix's The Defenders (an team up of Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Power Man and Iron Fist). I enjoy all the Marvel tv series, even the oft-reviled Iron Fist (which I think edges out Power Man in terms of villain quality) but The Defenders was really bad for many reasons, among them political correctness. At one point Power Man gives Iron Fist a lecture about white privilege because he is outraged Iron Fist is willing to torture black thugs who dissolve bodies for money for information.
I was wondering if you were going to comment on this, Andrew since I saw a story about Bernie and some Democrats pushing this. Didn't we get the word boondoggle from the last time the government tried something similar? Not surprised Finland's attempt at universal basic income failed like that either. Good idea for a place to keep the slackers, though! I can see the productivity increasing already.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, This is called addition by subtraction.
ReplyDeleteYou know, the whole concept is idiotic. It shows that these people just don't understand human nature. It's the same problem with communism. I remember debating a communist college professor who truly believed that people would keep working in all the same jobs if everyone got paid the same. He just couldn't understand why everyone would quit being garbage men or going to school to be doctors when they could be pretend artists for the same income.
Anthony, I love how bad of a mess Hillary is making of the Democrats, who would be a mess even without her.
ReplyDeleteOn the Boy Scouts, I hear they are now changing their name too. Sad.
The thing I fear about UBI is the same as with communism, every time it fails will be waved away as “not real.” In the case of UBI, I suspect the added claim will be that the payments weren’t enough. Every talk I’ve heard so far about the concept has been gobbledygook about tweaking the equations just right.
ReplyDeleteI have a boy in Cub Scouts right now and my view from the ground is this. I’m not happy, but I’m not miserable and I don’t blame PC culture pressuring BSA—at least not directly. Let me tell you what you won’t hear, for obvious reasons, from any official BSA statement. From what I know, it sounds like a lot of Scouting parents asked for their sons’ sisters to be admitted because they were so disenchanted with Girls Scouts.
ReplyDeleteNow, my girls aren’t in to Scouts, so I can’t compare, but the stories I’ve heard about GS are consistent. There’s organizational rot from the top. The nat’l GS organization doesn’t standards the same way BSA, so it’s a wild guess what any particular troop might be into. Many are primarily focused on cookie sales and may occasionally go outside. There’s also, I think justified, misgiving about how GS associates with organizations that also work with Planned Parenthood.
Meanwhile, the Boy Scouts are still reciting the same oath and Scout Law that would’ve been recited by the boys’ great-grandfathers. They talk about duty including Duty to God. And they actually go camping all the GD time. (Seriously, I can barely get my lawn mowed.)
So, as it appears on the ground, the parents with a foot in each circle saw two completely different, irreconcilable value systems and turned to the BSA for help. BSA responded in a way that was possible for them. It’s sad that boys don’t get a thing of their own, but this instance does not look like a feminist storming of the gates.
It’s also with noting that BSA has allowed girls starting at age 14 to join their Venturing program since 1969. Cub Scouts (K-5) are going co-ed optional and Boy Scouts, to be called Family Scouting, (age 11 - 17) will remain gender segregated. (infographic) Another note, this is actually just an organizational change, as BSA never officially set a gender requirement for membership, an oversight from a time when certain things were just understood.
As far as the name change, I mean, that was obviously inevitable as soon as the announcement was made.
tryanmax, That's an excellent explanation and makes a lot of sense. I think what bothers me though is the future. The pattern for this has always been:
ReplyDelete1. There is a male organization and a female organization. But the female organization isn't as "good" because it doesn't do what the male organization does.
2. Feminists scream bloody murder about males and say that having a separate organization is vital to women's growth. At the same time, they call the male organization sexist and demand to be let in... promising that they just want in, but don't want any changes. After all, they are after what the male organization does which the female organization doesn't.
3. Women are let in. They immediately demand changes which they claim are necessary. Things like more bathrooms and private facilities for women are mentioned, but other hazy changes are mentioned too.
4. The male organization caves in to the first wave of changes. Immediately, the new female members start to demand changes to make it "easier for women to fit in" -- lower standards, limit free speech, add training in how to accommodate the needs of women. This gets combined with complaints that the place is "too male" or suffering from sexist attitudes or "hostile to women" and they demand the elimination of everything male-oriented... no drinking and cigars, no camping, no dirty jokes, change the motto, take down the naked portrait that is the focal point of each club, etc. This is inevitably followed by a series of law suits claiming discrimination and harassment.
In the end, this would be like men demanding that a women's clothing store hire men, install male dressing rooms, stop selling dresses and things only women can wear and start selling jock straps.
In essence, they demand to be let in and then they demand that the entire culture and purpose be changed until the organization is not at all what it was.
So on the Scouts, while I don't doubt you and it sounds like a great thing in principle, I suspect that through various lawsuits and other feminist attacks, the Boy Scouts will eventually be stripped of their interest in rugged "boy" things and will be turned into a Girl-Scout-like organization that pretends to be gender neutral but does not cater to boy interests. Could be wrong, but that's been the pattern.
Tryanmax,
ReplyDeleteGirl Scouts only sell cookies for a season so I don't see how a troop could focus on selling cookies year round though I am sure some would if they could. Cookie sales are a hassle but they fund everything else including stuff that might be out off the reach of parents without a lot of disposable income (including field trips abroad).
Most of the year Girl Scouts focus on volunteering, field trips and arts and crafts. Camping is cabin based rather than tent based and there is no true hiking (read: long walks with backpacks loaded with supplies).
The Girl Scout motto vows allegiance to God and I never saw evidence of a Planned Parenthood connection.
Conservatives and liberals love to credit their pet causes for the declining membership of both organizations but for my money the problem both groups have is the decline of the family, the fixation of kids on screens and the fact many parents are content with that because it is much easier.
That last bit came across harsher than I meant it to. Let me clarify that while the will of single parents may be there, it can be tough for someone working a job or two to also get their kids to and from (that last part is important and often a sticky wicket) places in a timely manner.
Andrew, that is a good chronology of how these things seem to play out. I do see a difference at the front end in that I don't see feminists demanding girls be let into Boy Scouts. In fact, I've come across a number of articles and statements from feminists and their outlets expressing much displeasure at the development, characterizing it as "undermining" to girls and their interests. I can only assume it's because it's not occurring on their terms. So that gives me a glimmer of hope. I guess we can only see how it plays out. I hope my boy can get his Eagle rank before BSA goes to ish.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I work in marketing. We have two huge industry tradeshows every year in Q1. I know firsthand that an organization can absolutely spend 40+ hours a week for an entire year preparing for a single-season push. Girl Scouts probably meet on average an hour every two weeks. I’ve heard stories of troop meetings to rival any boardroom strategy meeting.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the cookies funding activities, no duh! Boy Scouts sell popcorn for the same reason. Did you know that not all of that money goes to the local troop? A good chunk of it goes to the local council. I’m sure it helps pay for cabin maintenance and scholarships and other wonderful things, but what it’s not doing is helping offset the expenses of parents without a lot of disposable income.
If you can spare 33 seconds of your time, here is the past CEO of GSUSA acknowledging a connection to Planned Parenthood: LINK
Just for laughs, here is her successor denying any such connection, past or present: LINK
Furthermore, the GSUSA website has most of a FAQ devoted to downplaying their membership in the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) which is an open and frequent partner of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in many ventures. LINK
Numeric decline of either organization is not what is at issue here. Neither organization enjoys the membership that it did in the mid-20th c. What is at issue is an organizational retreat by GSUSA from the things that it was founded on and parents, wanting an organization to provide what GS has lost, turning to the nearest available option.
Tryanmax,
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to cast aspersions on marketing and if you took offense I apologize my point was merely that Girl Scouts (the girls) do not focus on marketing cookies but on arts and crafts and volunteering (here's another fun fact: they don't meet year round but break for the summer).
I am not denying that there are people within the national leadership of the GUSA who focus on marketing year round.
Most of the marketing scouts engage in is at the booths and consists of a couple friendly girls wearing either girl scout or cookie outfits (and in these dangerous modern times a couple parents).
Also, I never claimed each scout troop held onto all the cookie money. That would be impossible since they don't make the cookies themselves. They buy the cookies from local distribution centers for X, sell them to consumers for Y and pocket the difference.
Of course, parents still often wind up paying a bit (or a lot, depending on how expensive plans are) but the more troops make on cookie sales, the more money they have to do whatever (clay for pottery, money for trips) the rest of the year.
Anthony, I didn’t take your remarks as an aspersion to marketing, nor do I understand how you think that I did. The point of my statement was to illustrate that if you think a GS troop can’t spend all its time year-round planning cookie sales, you are naive. I did know that GS troops don’t meet in the summer. That means they gather for roughly 20 - 25, hours a year, not counting excursions, if any. (I’ve heard consistent reports of troops that don’t camp at all.) That is very little time to fill, making it well within reason to accept accounts of GS troops giving majority of their time to cookie sales.
ReplyDelete