Great Read On Sowing And Reaping

Kim Kardashian called ‘selfish’ by ex-publicist: ‘She knew marriage was a bad P.R. move’ 

“Kim used to be the sweetest down-to-earth person, she was the coolest chick around! She has just become this different person who is eager and hungry for fame. She has a mass craving for attention,” he says.
 Kim Kardashian at in-store appearance for KARDASHIAN KONFIDENTIAL Author Event, Barnes and Noble Book Store, New York, NY November 30, 2010. Photo By: Gregorio T. Binuya/Everett Collection Original Filename: 1030N03_XX004_H.jpg


Greek government vows to pass cuts in "fight for existence"


Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos pledged on Friday to pass sweeping austerity measures in parliament next week, declaring that Greece was in a "fight for our existence" and defying union opposition and rebels in the ruling Socialist party's own ranks.

Social Utopia sounds wonderful in politics and entertainment.  Reality always brings us back down...sometimes in 72 days...sometimes over the course of many generations.

Let's decide today to sow seeds of thankfulness, personal responsibility and focus building relationships that last.  It's both good for the economy and our lives. 

We are not entitled to fame and fortune. No amount of government redistribution or press will satisfy that deep longing for us to be loved and valued.

If we sow seeds of entitlement, fairness, excess and a demanding attitude then by golly, that is what we reap. Sad that it's our own government sowing those seeds. 





Miracle Man — Dr.Dr. Feng-Shan Ho — humble and compassionate...


There are wonderful human beings, who are humble and heroic, that few know about until a journalist such as Joe O'Connor of the National Post hears and reads about them, then informs us. I only found out about this humanistic gentleman today.

Many Jews, thousands, were saved in Austria with the assistance of Consul General of China, Feng-Shan Ho, who had many Jewish friends, his granddaughter said on the radio.

Miracle man: How one Chinese diplomat saved thousands of Jews from the death camps _ Joe O'Connor, National Post
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/01/miracle-man-how-one-chinese-diplomat-saved-thousands-of-jews-from-the-death-camps/

Dr. Ho devoted one sentence of a 700-page Chinese language memoir he published in 1990 to the Viennese visa scheme. What he omitted is a Hollywood blockbuster that has never been made.

For two years, he issued visas. Five hundred a month on average, despite being ordered to stop by his superiors and being evicted from the building housing his office by the Germans. Dr. Ho opened a new office, and paid for it out of his own pocket when his Chinese boss in Berlin shut off the money tap. He kept issuing visas until he was transferred out of Austria in 1940. He died in California in 1997, having never met the people he helped save, beyond a fleeting, life-giving encounter in Vienna
.

Humanitarian Diplomat Feng-Shan Ho
http://goldsea.com/Text/index.php?id=137

Feng-Shan Ho _ jewish Virtual Library
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/ho.html

Liberty and equality

A couple of days ago I posted a video that explained why liberty is more important than equality. Yet there are some equalities that are important and not hostile to liberty.

A Rant And An Award...Saying The Same Thing

A commenter shares:

I vote Liberal provincially because I vote for education, health care and social services. I vote for an equal opportunity for all which of course is not the same as equal outcome for all. You may not want to hear that I vote to act on the "immediate need", but it is true. At the same time, I believe that meeting these immediate needs is an investment in people and consequently an investment in the future. "Help them now so they can help themselves". Train, counsel, rehabilitate, educate and in the meantime, fund until they can fend for themselves. Teach those who are not contributing members of society (those who cannot maintain jobs on their own) to become self-sufficient citizens. No one is being snatched here. I voted for a party to protect its citizens. ...  I vote for the programs that enable all citizens to contribute to the economy. In a Utopian world this would not be necessary. I applaud free market companies that contribute to this cause. However it is not enough. If it were, programs would not be necessary. Explain to me how the free market is looking after all citizens of this province? There is too much suffering. Thus, I vote my conscience and I vote for government to step in where the free market fails.

A reader who spoke from their heart in a past blog entry shared why they vote Liberal: thank you. I tried to shorten, yet respect context.

The logic I see is:
1. The free market has failed to make things equal and better for all Ontario citizens
2. Government has means to make things better, more equal...for all Ontarians, therefore they should.
3. Programs/spending is a means by which government can 'pick up the slack' where the free market falls short.
4. Therefore I vote to enable government to work with the free market to end the suffering of it's people. 

Problem with #1: the free market has not failed.  People within the free market have made choices.  The free market is not responsible for ensuring everyone makes good choices.  The free market is responsible for making choice available.  People who make poor choices typically (but not always) find themselves in though spots.  Taking money out via programs hurts the free market (penalizes success and rewards failure...kinda like the GM bailouts).  The forced transfer of wealth does not create incentive for those without...rather, it enables and reinforces entitlement from others within the free market.  This has the opposite affect that well intended liberals desire. 

You don't teach a person to contribute within the free market by forcing those with, to give to those without. You are subconsciously giving a message to those who receive that says, "you can't make it on your own...you need government programs".  It devalues a person to say they are 'entitled to programs that are paid for by force of law'.  Saying, "you get the benefits of this program because those who have are forced to give to you" is actually demoralizing to the individuals value.  That is not the 'structure' of how the free market works.  

I was offered 8 free weeks (paid for by government) if I hired gentleman on welfare.  I told the job lady, "what an insult to that individual...I don't want to communicate to the young man that he needs government handouts to win a job.  Tell the young man we will hire him without subsidy and allow the merits of his performance to carry him through".  The hiring agent called back and said to me, "Ryan, when I passed on what you said, he broke down and cried in my office.  He said in all his life he never felt so valued".  The reality is we were not built to thrive by 'forced giving' but rather giving of free choice.

I desire all the things this commenter wants in terms of results.  I want to see people cared for, chances given and hope restored.  I simply choose to think a superior way to accomplish this is through free will giving/investing in others lives...not forced giving through incompetent and inefficient politicians.

With respect to #2: I argued in past blogs the free market functions best when left alone and that forced transfer of wealth works against the free market.  Just because there are means to make something better for someone does not mean there is a responsibility.  I argued quite extensively that government is responsible for that which is in it's jurisdiction, nothing else.  Seeing a need does not create jurisdiction for government to spend on programs anymore then them 'seeing a need' to appoint 'watchers' over all of Canadian parents to ensure the kids are well looked after.  There has to be a logical argument as to why jurisdiction is created for the endless list of programs...to which, none have been provided by NDP or Liberal.  Should a strong argument be made, I am game to entertain and likely eventually dismantle it.  Yes, that was a challenge to the left.

If 1 and 2 are true, then government having the ability to pick up  slack has no bearing on it's obligation or responsibility to do such.  The free market's job is not to 'care for those who lack'.  The free markets job is to create wealth.  The heart of man seeing a need and responding to that need in compassion (and free will) is what should be the means by which we take care of those who lack.  You can't legislate a man's heart, either on the giving side, or the receiving side.  It's more powerful to give of your free will (time, talents or money), then it is to benefit from forced giving.  Test that theory, it will work almost every time.  Force your kids to colour you a picture, then force them to give it to you.  Note your reaction.  Then, wait, wait and wait for them to do it of their own accord...when they give you a picture they coloured of their free will then note your reaction.  What option won? Forced giving or Free will giving?  When it comes to government, why do we screw this obvious principle up?  Because of entitlement culture and a thankless people expecting because they are owed.  When we realize we are not owed by the world, and became thankful for what we have, perhaps then we will focus on building meaningful relationships where accountability and compassion reign. From this, the free market creates the wealth that the compassionate person gives and invests.  This is a superior way to handle needs of those who lack in any capacity. 

#4.  Therefore I arrive at the opposite conclusion with the same heart as the liberal.  I want people helped.  I just do it differently. 

Sometimes it's easier to 'throw out a concept' then it is to demonstrate it, so I have included a small blurb below regarding a major award my company won.  What I shared works in real life:

A dozen local employers were recognized Wednesday during the annual breakfast by the Employment Facilitation Network of Cambridge and North Dumfries. Employers received one-of-a-kind awards designed by local artists. Local artist Ron Keachie (left) presents an award to Ryan Jantzi, CEO of B&R Custom Machining. The event’s main focus was to recognize employers that have gone above and beyond by providing training and employment opportunities for individuals facing challenges and barriers in the workplace.

The Ultimate Irony: The 99% Have Created the Monster

Capitalism is the ultimate democracy.

Read that again.

No where else do we exercise our free agency more independently that how we choose to spend our pay cheques.

Think about the decision-making process of a consumer.

You deposit your pay cheque and then you make a decision, completely independent of any Wall Street clowns, about what you are going to do with it. 

You decide you are going to buy some groceries.

Where do you go to get them - democratic decision number 1.  Safeway, WallMart, the local farmer's market, the corner store.. it's completely up to you.

Once you arrive, now the democratic process really takes over.  What do you buy?  Doritos?  If so, what flavor?  Nacho Cheese, Buffalo Wing, Ranch, Onion Rings and Ketchup.. the choices abound.  And not so much as a soft hand on your shoulder as you vote for your favorite. 

And so it goes.  Do you buy Kraft dinner, or do you go with the generic brand of mac n' cheese.  Or do you make it from scratch yourself, and buy a bag of elbow macaroni, a block of cheddar, some milk and floor?

Note, again, no one telling you what choice you have to make. 

By the end of the shopping experience, you've made, perhaps, a hundred choices - all by your big boy self - with nary a government employee or evil corporate magnate compelling you to make any of them..

Oh sure - they market and advertise and, to some extent, brainwash you into thinking that this brand or that brand will make you happier, sexier, more fulfilled - but at the end of the day, you are a complete free agent in how you choose to spend your dollar.

And so goes virtually all of our decisions on spending our dollars - the sole exception being income tax.  That is the least democratic expenditure you make..  no control there.  The government tells you to hand over your money - and only in the most oblique way, do you have any impact on how they spend it.

How ironic, then, that the call from the "Occupiers" is for higher tax.

Because what they conveniently forget, is that massive gap between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy, is a product, for the most part, of the democratic process inherent in capitalism.

No one forced any of us to purchase the new iPhone.

And yet we did.  And Apple suddenly earns billions of dollars - and becomes part of the hated "1%".

Likewise with almost all major corporate giants - from Microsoft, to Coca-Cola, to Time-Warner, to Anheiser Busch. 

They earn billions of dollars, not because they are able to force you to buy their products, but because you CHOOSE to buy their products.

This is the great failing of the anti-corporate anarchist types.

Because while they may capture the angst and, yes, envy, of the masses that they don't have what the wealthy have - what they can't do, in any meaningful way, is convince the marchers at OWS to throw away their iPhones.

To NOT shop at WallMart.

To NOT go see the latest piece of garbage from Michael Moore, or Sandra Bullock.

To NOT, effectively, hand over their hard-earned money to Michael Vick and Ben Roethlesberger.

To NOT invest their savings in marginal return, but very safe, GIC's, and Term Deposits.

We want what we want.  And while many of us may feel a certain sense of unfairness in the wealth of corporate giants - we're not prepared to vote against them en mass with our pocket books.

And maybe we should.

And THAT is the message that these Occupy clowns aren't getting out.  Because that would require work and sacrifice. 

If you really want to benefit the small guy, if you really want to turn the tables - stop shopping at WalMart.  Go to your local grocer, to your local produce market.  Stop going out for dinner at Wendy's or McDonald's, and go to your local burger joint, or your local restaurant instead of Chili's and Tony Roma's and Olive Garden.

If you are tired of unheard of profits going to greed-heads at Goldman-Sachs - well, put your money in savings.  Make lump-sum payments on your mortgage.  Or invest in a local business that you can see and touch. 

Will it happen?

Don't hold your breath.

Because while the "99%" like to talk the talk, they aren't ever going to walk the walk. 

Certainly, some people can't afford to make those capitalist distinctions.  The difference between buying $100 worth of groceries which would cost $125.00 locally may be too painful for those at the low end of the income scale.

But WallMart isn't making their billions from low-income families.  They are making the vast majority of their money from the burgeoning middle class - who could choose to spend a little more to help the little guy - but don't.

So.

Want to change the gap between the 99% and the 1%?

Who's stopping you?