These are the things I learned:

• Share everything (including your status as the world’s only super power).
• Play fair (allow your enemies to catch their breath before launching an attack against you or civilians).
• Don’t hit people (even if they are using tanks, snipers and artillery against innocent civilians).
• Put things back where you found them (as they were the end of the Carter administration).
• Clean up your own mess (but blame it on your predecessor.  Constantly).
• Don’t take things that aren’t yours (Not valid for Nobel peace prize, credit for Iraq surge).
• Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody (but be sure to give yourself a solid B+ for effort).
• Wash your hands before you eat (and don’t allow your subjects to eat anything that tastes good).
• Flush (your country’s prestige down the toilet).
• Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you (but only if they are flaxseed and prune cookies and soy milk).
• Live a balanced life – learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some (except on the days that end in y–on those, play golf and talk to Oprah).
• Take a nap every afternoon (just like your air traffic controllers).
• When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together, (and be sure to build a consensus coalition and mobilize the international community before considering the possibility of potentially, in the future, at a later date, considering crossing the street.  Maybe.)
• Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that (Actually, some people know why and how, they’re called “rational, educated people.”  Silence them at all costs).
• Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup – they all die. So do we.  (And it’s all Exxon’s fault.)
• And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned – the biggest word of all – LOOK. (Actually, Dick & Jane start at the first grade, so you never actually read them. Facts are for the bourgeois.)
  

The characters in Atlas Shrugged have lived in our collective conscience for half a century now. Breathing life into them now is no less challenging than making a movie about the Bible–people will argue over who played Ezekiel and the color and texture of the milk and honey. But there are some core moments and character traits that have to be observed. This film’s obvious budget issues betrayed some key points, but there were others that wouldn’t have cost a cent to fix.

Francisco D’Anconia
Francisco is written as a playboy–not a washed up one. In my mind, he was always a Latin James Bond–cool, suave and very much a lady’s man and a man’s man at the same time. He is Antonio Banderas as Zorro, but, and this is crucial, at the end of the Zorro film–not the drunken mess that Anthony Hopkins finds at the beginning. In the film, Francisco is played as a washed up lout. He is not clean shaven, his clothes are disheveled and his hair unkempt. The effortless grace of the character is nowhere to be found, and he comes off as a hateful has been–not someone a James Taggart or Orren Boyle would trust with their fortunes.

James Taggart
James is meant to be an empathetic character. He is often found pleading with Dagny to fix things or to not make waves. In the film, he comes across as too self-assured and conniving. He seems to know he is evil and that he is manipulating the system–an attitude the undercuts the written character’s morality.

Lilian Rearden
Played by Rebecca Wisocky, who is the perfect choice, Lilian should have been a lot colder. Her character is a cold, heartless, sexless bitch. In the film, she comes across as too warm and almost understandable. She is supposed to be patronizing and mocking Rearden, as if his efforts, his work, even his libido are all a waste of time. A perfect example of the lack of emotion in the film is the scene where Dagny trades her necklace for Lilian’s Rearden Metal bracelet. There was no passion, there was no indignation–it barely would have caused a scene in real life.

Emotion
That scene should have been packed with emotion as well as exposition. Dagny is trading value for value–a core concept of the book–with a moocher who has no concept of value. It’s also the beginning of Rearden’s affections for Dagny, and her disdain for her lover’s wife. It’s meant to foreshadow the coming affair–it’s not just the bracelet that holds Lilian’s contempt and Dagny’s affection, it’s Rearden himself. If there is meat in Atlas Shrugged for a Hollywood film, it’s in the love triangle between Hank, Lilian and Dagny. As portrayed in the film, Rearden comes off as just another businessman who shags a coworker on a business trip.

The running of the John Galt Line is also a flat note in the film. This is perhaps where the low budget of the film shows most. A fundamental undercurrent in the book is that “public opinion” is being driven from the top down. That is best shown by the throngs of people standing and cheering for Dagny and Hank at each crossing as the John Galt rushes past. And when the union boss tells Dagny that his men won’t run the train, she asks for volunteers and every last one of them steps forward–ratifying her belief in her fellow man. Neither of these two core elements of “public opinion” are seen in the movie.

The film did fall flat in other places as well. When Hank and Dagny consummate their affair–Hank is wracked with guilt, and apologizes to Dagny for his base desire. Dagny laughs at him to carry the point that sex is not immoral or evil, but a beautiful act of two consenting adults. Her brash sexuality is meant to be a stark contrast against Lilian’s cold, manipulative view of sex as an animal desire to be used as leverage by a woman over a man. The film misses this and jumps to breakfast, where Dagny makes a snide comment about Hank being a “married man.”

Throughout the film, the lack of passion in the characters leaves many scenes too flat. There’s too much exposition and not enough umph. You never get the feeling that each vanished capitalist drains Hank and Dagny more and more. There is no sense of being overwhelmed, but carrying on anyway.

There are places, however, where the emotion is spot on. In the final scene, Taylor Schilling as Dagny lets out a blood curdling scream that still rings in my ears. That, overlaid with John Galt’s speech to Wyatt, is the kind of emotion that the film should build to.

On the whole, it was a good movie, but not fully worthy of Ayn Rand’s work.

Ok then, if I cannot talk you out of moving, here are a few tips to make it a little easier. These tips are the product of 8 moves in a dozen years, five of which occurred in four consecutive years. In Arizona. In the summer. But I digress.

Color code your boxes

Take a minute to think about your new home. How many floors are there? How many rooms will you need boxes placed in? For example, you may want all of the kitchen, living room and dining room stuff put in the living room temporarily. Or you may want all of the bedroom stuff put in the spare bedroom down the hall so you can have room to sleep. Write down a list of the places you want boxes dropped off. We decided to have one color for each floor, so my list was:

1. First floor (kitchen, living room, dining room)
2. Master Bedroom & wife’s office
3. My office and den
4. Basement

For each drop off location, I assigned a color that made some kind on mnemonic:

1. First floor (kitchen, living room, dining room): Green (ground floor)
2. Master Bedroom & wife’s office: Blue (blue for two)
3. My office and den: Red (for danger, it’s a 3rd floor walk-up)
4. Basement (Black for basement)

Calculate roughly how many boxes you will need and then go to FindTape.com and order at least a dozen rolls of colored packing tape (3 of each color, or 2 of some, 4 of others, depending on how many boxes you estimate. Whatever you have for the kitchen, double it). It’s about as cheap as regular packing tape, and it comes in a few days. It’s better to over-order than under–at least you’re saving on shipping, and colored tape will find uses after your move. You should also buy about a dozen rolls of clear packing tape and at least two packing guns ($9 each at Home Depot).

When you start packing, load one tape gun with clear tape and the other with the color of the drop off location you are packing for. Create a box using clear tape (see below). Fill the box and tape it shut using the colored tape. Roll a line of colored tape around all four sides of the top of the box. Write with a permanent marker on the colored tape the room it’s going to and briefly, what’s in it. (If you don’t write on the box, you can resell the boxes or give them to a friend).

On moving day, you will have a color-coded stack of boxes that you or your movers will know instantly what is in them and where they should go.

Hire movers
If you can afford to hire professional movers, you should. If you cannot afford to, wait until you can. Movers, if they are professional, know what they are doing and can move heavy and bulky items in a fraction of the time you can. Moreover, most movers are motivated to get out quickly even if they’re paid by the hour. A few tips on hiring and using movers:

1. Don’t go with bargain basement movers. Get a mover whose cost is in line with the value of your possessions. If you’re still living with mostly IKEA, like I am, you can probably hire mid-range movers for $1200 to $1800 for a 2-3 bedroom move. If you have anything whose name includes reference to a French King, go for the top-end movers.
2. Insurance: if you have homeowners or renters insurance at either location, ask your insurance company if your move is covered. It probably is, as most policies cover your possessions wherever they are on the planet. Provided your move date is within one of your policies’ coverage period, there is no reason to pay for additional insurance from the movers.
3. Treat the movers right. Make sure you have a case of bottled water at the old and new location. If the move starts early, pick up a box of joe and some donuts ahead of time. And talk to the foreman about what they want for lunch and/or dinner. You may spend a $100 or $200 on these niceties, but the respect you show will be returned. No one wants to break the stuff of a guy they like. Cheapy McNoTip, however, somehow always finds a puzzle where his plates were.
4. Don’t forget to tip. Movers generally do not get a lot for the move, and a tip at the end of the job ($50-$100 per guy depending on the work and how well it was done) is more than appropriate.
5. Don’t rely on the estimator. Moving companies like to hire professional liars to conduct estimates. If they say 9:00, and you ask for an “early start,” they will agree, but the guys will show up at 9:00. Same too if you say five guys when they only offered four. Four guys will show up. At 9:00. When making your decision, think about any special treatment you’ve asked for, and see if you would still pick those movers without it.
6. Check the house after the truck is loaded, and check the truck after it is unloaded. Movers are just as honest (and dishonest) as the next guy, but mistakes can be made by anyone. I’m still pining for baking supplies I lost two moves ago.

Get organized about address changes
If you have a few weeks before your move, collect a list of your non-junk mail as it comes in. Add to that all the companies or government agencies that you know will need an address change notification. You will work off of this master list later, when the move is done and you make the address change. My basic list includes:

• DMV of new and old location
• You and your wife’s employers
• Gas, electric and oil companies
• Telephone companies
• Credit cards and banks (remember that your zip has changed, so when you enter it at a gas station or online, you need to use the new zip)
• Professional boards (bar association, medical association)
• Magazines
• Amazon or any other site you order from frequently

Bolster that with a forwarding request online, and you should not miss a package or letter (or bill). Keep in mind, even if you’ve signed up for e-billing, your credit card and bank addresses have changed. The credit card will likely be rejected if the billing address is out of date.

Don’t spend a lot of money on boxes
There is nothing so costly for the time you use it as moving boxes. Okay, maybe aluminum foil, but moving boxes are up there. The best way to get moving boxes is to have a friend who moved recently give you theirs. You can also get decent boxes from a local store (we had a GNC in our neighborhood that threw out more boxes than we could handle).

If you take odd or used boxes, first make sure they are still serviceable. You should not see any of the corrugation, and they should be able to hold their form against gravity (no flopping). It’s mostly the tape that keeps the stuff together, so a little wear and tear won’t hurt (provided you tape properly). Second, try to find boxes that are all the same size; or at least 4-5 of each size. Stacking uneven boxes is dangerous for you and your stuff.

You should also discuss with your mover how many and what type of boxes they will provide. Most movers will include several wardrobe boxes (the most valuable type of moving box) and an assortment of china, linen and book boxes. If you have a lot of heavy things, including books, shift the balance to book boxes. If you have lots of pillows and small appliances, shift towards the larger boxes. Finally, for last minute boxes, try Home Depot or Lowes. U-haul and UPS charge over $2.00 for simple boxes. Home Depot has book boxes for $.67 each. Find the moving section of your local store and stock up.

Learn how to tape a box
Here is my method. It may use some tape, but it won’t let you (or your stuff) down:

1. Turn the box over, push the inner flaps in and align the outer flap seams.
2. Using a tape gun, pull a length of tape from one side of the box, perpendicular to the seam, to the other side. There should be about a hand’s width of tape on both sides of the box. This perpendicular strip will keep the flaps aligned as you tape the seam.
3. Again, starting about a hand’s width from the bottom of the box, pull a length of tape tightly across the seam and cut it so there is another hand’s length on the other side.
4. If the boxes are not going to be stored long and there’s no risk of water getting to them, run two lengths of tape perpendicular to the seam at two spots, both midway between the first perpendicular strip and either end of the box. You should now have three roughly evenly spaced strips of tape going across the seam and one longer strip covering the seam. If you have particularly heavy things, or particularly weak boxes, you can run a long piece of tape along the perimeter of the sides, covering the hand’s width pieces of tape. This will create a tape basket that, even if the box breaks, should keep your stuff from falling out.
5. If the boxes will be stored a while or water (or bugs) might get to them, instead of running the two strips of tape above, run one long strip around the perimeter of the box so that half the tape is on the side and the other half is below the bottom of the box. Once you complete a perimeter around the box, cut the tape and fold it so that the dangling half sticks to the bottom of the box (the turns will become triangles that overlap at the corner). This will seal the box, so that bugs, water and everything else will need to get through cardboard before surprising you in your new house.
6. Flip the box over and fold the top flaps down (outside of the box, not inside). Take two short lengths of tape and join the flaps on diagonal sides. (For example, the right flap and the front flap are taped to each other on the near right corner, and the left flap and rear flap are taped at the far left corner). A small (1-2″) piece of tape will suffice to keep the flaps down while you load the box.
7. After you’ve filled the box, remove the small tape strips and switch to your colored tape gun.
8. Run a length of colored tape tightly across the top seam, sealing the box. If you stand next to the box so that the seam runs towards your stomach, you can pull the box in to insure it is well aligned as you tape it. (The boxes will be a bit wonky if you do not square them as they are taped. You should not see any cardboard overlapping the top flaps.)
9. Run a second length around the perimeter of the sides, so that the color is visible no matter how you stack the boxes.
10. Use a thick permanent marker to briefly note the contents (or at least something that will tell you what’s in it) and the target room in the new location.

Good luck, and congratulations on your new home!

It’s not easy doing a home inspection, mortgage loan and negotiating with sellers on a house in NY when you’re in Europe almost every week. Thanks to my lovely wife, we got it done and are moved in and ready for the next challenge.

Those who follow me on Twitter will have noticed that many of my Broken News posts have been hitting, but they have not been updating on this website. That’s a technical glitch we’re working through. Please bear with us while we work it out.

A lot has happened since my last blog post. Democrats lost the House and most of their lead in the Senate. Dictators have been toppled in the Middle East. The American Federation of Teachers and the SEIU both hired a new spokesperson, Barrack Obama. But some things have not changed enough, including Mr. Obama’s stance on world affairs. Which is akin to saying that unicorn feed has not changed.

In any event, now that the uphill battle has been won (at least in the House), look for more every-day advice and curmudgeonly wisdom on these pages. I’m working on a post about tips for moving, which I plan never to do ever again. Never.

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. . . . We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. . . .Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

The struggle to which Feynman refers is, of course the centuries of dispute between science and religion.  A dispute that often resulted in the excommunication or death of the scientist.  It is not without irony that those now purporting to be on the side of science are screaming heresy at those who actually are on the side of science.

As I noted earlier, calling someone who does not believe in Global Warming™ a Holocaust denier is not just hyperbole, it’s idiotic, narcissistic and thoughtless.  Exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a celebrity.  Of course, there is a major difference between science and history–especially recent history.  We may never know how many Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other innocents the Nazis condemned to death, but we know they did it.  You can speak, even today, to Holocaust survivors.  We know it was done, and it is a black mark on the soul of humanity.  But those who have doubts about Global Warming™ are more like War of the Worlds deniers.

Global Warming™, is a theory.  A theory that started out as a crackpot joke, but was endorsed by politicians, first to gain leverage over coal miners, then to guilt the world into economic starvation.  The science of climate change is vast and complex.  Scientists cannot even agree on a baseline of historic temperatures (unless, of course, they are fabricating them).  Moreover, much of the anecdotal evidence in favor of the theory has fallen apart in recent years.

The massive ice sheets that cleave off of Antarctica were recently found to have been caused by a change in the flow of an Antarctic glacial river after millennia of erosion, not you driving an SUV for the last 5 years.  The Earth has been warming for thousands of years as we emerge from the last ice age.  An honest scientist would tell you that we cannot rule out that this long-term warming is not the cause of any minor variations we see today.  Such a scientist would also tell you that the evidence of a connection between historical CO2 and temperature points to a lagging one–temperatures rise first, then CO2 increases.

Liberals have a problem allowing for the possibility of doubt, or a rationale that cannot be blamed on consumption.  This is because blaming a climate disaster on human consumption gives them access to guilt, taxes and regulation–the favorite tools of liberal governance.  If you can blame humanity for a crisis, you can gain control over human lives.  You cannot tax the sun for its natural variability, nor can you regulate millennia of natural warming.  Rice patties do not respond to guilt.

As challenges to their Global Warming™ religion come closer and closer to debunking their whole belief system, alarmists become more desperate and hyperbolic.  A scientist would consider alternative viewpoints and question their premises.  This is the purpose of peer review in science.  But a religious fanatic will scream “death to my enemies” and slit your throat over a cartoon.  Global Warming alarmists like Paul McCartney have more in common with religious zealots than scientists.  Their fears are irrational, their minds are closed, and their plans will destroy mankind.

Oh, and the Beatles sucked.  Elvis lives, baby.

In case you have missed it a hacker–who shall never go thirsty or hungry if he or she is within range of the Daily Danet’s expense account–hacked into the East Anglia Climate Research Unit email server and found and published some telling gems of Global Warming alarmist fraud.  As a reformed atmospheric scientist, many of my friends and colleagues have asked my opinion on the matter, which I am all too happy to give:

The rigor and challenge of being a scientist is to prevent yourself from cheating to get a result subconsciously.

First, the emails are and should be shocking.  No scientist should be manipulating data, studies or conclusions to achieve results.  The rigor and challenge of being a scientist is to prevent yourself from doing this subconsciously.  To do this openly, and with such childish joy (and in writing) should end careers.  As an aside, when I started my legal career at a very prestigious law firm, I was given one piece of advice by the chairman about email: never put anything in an email that you wouldn’t want printed out of context on the front page of the Wall Street Journal the next day.  (I was also told to “err on the side of not erring.”)

Second, generally, the development of Global Warming and the manipulation of data is understandable (ironically) at a capitalist level.  Scientists survive on grant money, which is far easier to come by if there is a crisis or a problem that needs solving.  If Global Warming is either (a) not occurring or (b) not man-made (caused by the sun, for example), and there is nothing we can do about it, funding will dry up.  (This, by the way, is why it does not matter whether the Earth is warming or cooling–Climate Change® is enough, so long as it is man made.)  This is not to say that integrity should be compromised, but anyone would hesitate before biting that hand that feeds them.

Third, the irony of Global Warming™ as a religion is that it started in the early ’80s as Margaret Thatcher’s way of breaking the coal unions.  She wanted to prove that coal was damaging to the environment and nuclear energy was safer, and so fostered research on a then little known theory called the greenhouse effect.  Of course, today, that theory is being used to oppress entire regions of the globe, keeping most of Africa and Asia in the dark ages by starving them of the one thing that modern civilization needs: fossil fuels.  Secondarily, Global Warming™ is also being used as the liberals’ second pet cause: redistribution of wealth.  Senator Kerry is spearheading (or charging into the jungle like he sees an unarmed Vietnamese teenager) a drive to throw billions of your tax dollars into developing nations in order to “offset” the effects of Global Warming™ legislation.  The greatest wealth transfer in history, all because of a sick joke meant to break a union dispute.

Senator Kerry is spearheading, or, rather, charging into the jungle like he sees an unarmed Vietnamese teenager…

Finally, to go further down the rabbit hole, why would truly smart people (not the scientists, but the businessmen and power brokers) get behind a belief system so obviously built on shaky evidence and doomed to destroy developing nations and burden developed ones?  Put aside liberal guilt as the easy excuse, and you’re left with two reasons: control and protectionism.  Paternalistic liberals like Kerry want to control the purse strings and dole out huge (trillions) amounts of international aide to developing countries, rather than allow them to develop and stand up on their own.  Unions like the SEIU and their backers are terrified of regions like Africa developing into the next Taiwan and China.  Imagine the entire continent of Africa developed into a first world capitalist society competing with the unionized labor forces of Detroit, Chicago and New York for business not just here, but in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

So you have a situation where the scientists, the politicians and the masters all have unified in pushing an agenda where Global Warming™ had to true, and it had to be man-made.   Surprise, surprise, it was.

No amount of Academy Awards make up for drugging and raping a 13 year old.

Let me be clear for anyone who might be uncertain, it is never okay for a 44 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old.  Ever.  Not even if the 44 year old man is a celebrity.  Or French. It is illegal. It is disgusting. It is immoral. And it is and unforgivable breach of trust.  If I were ever in the unlikely position to find Roman Polanski alone in a room with one of my underage cousins, I would not ask questions or give him the benefit of the doubt.  I would find the nearest solid object and beat him to death with it.  He is scum and should be cast out from society like the pariah he is.

As I noted in my prior post, even more disconcerting, however, is how society seems to be becoming either numb or complacent to such horrible breaches of morality and decency.  Have liberals so infested our morality that we cannot even discriminate against an admitted pedophile and rapist? Have we so choked down political correctness that we do not even recoil at a monster who has admitted to prying off the panties of a 13 year old girl with quaaludes and champagne?

Rather than ask forgiveness, Polanski has asked for Academy Award consideration.

Some will say his films somehow redeem his prior acts.  Really?  Redemption begins with remorse, and Polanski has shown none.  He has fled justice for over 30 years and lived in luxury.  Rather than ask forgiveness, he has asked for Academy Award consideration.  Moreover, there is no box you can check that allows you to be judged as a celebrity.  There is one rule of law and one code of morality and they apply to everyone equally.  Those now clamoring for Polanski‘s release on grounds that he is a celebrity are his accomplices in his immorality.  They aid and abet his status as a fugitive and provide him with comfort and shelter when he should be shunned and ostracized.

The same is true for Mackenzie Phillips.  I don’t watch Oprah, but I had to make an exception, and this was disgusting. Mackenzie Philips was not confessing or confiding a dark secret, she was bragging.  She was glad to have had an incestuous relationship with her father–and that is disgusting.  The fact that I have to state that that is disgusting is disgusting.  The fact that Oprah–and the audience–were able to listen without shouting at her “What the hell is wrong with you,” is disgusting.  At one point, Phillips compared her own consensual incest to Oprah’s experience of being (involuntarily) raped by her cousin.  And Oprah merely nodded in agreement!  Excuse me?  A 30 year consensual incest (that only ended–allegedly–upon pregnancy) cannot compare with a rapist from which the victim flees and later seeks treatment, rather than writing a book and trying to revive a failed career.

Then this would have devolved into the shunning, tomato throwing affair that this Oprah episode should have been.

The fact that no one in the audience got up and walked out is a troubling statement of the apathy in our society.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, just one person standing up and pointing out how horribly disgusting Phillips’ story was, would be enough to break the others out of their silence.  Then this would have devolved into the shunning, tomato throwing affair that this Oprah episode should have been.

There is a theory that says that, in an emergency, 10% do the right thing; 10% do the wrong thing and 80% follow.  In a plane crash, for example, 10% of the survivors will lead you to the exit; 10% will panic and lead you into deeper into the wreckage.  The rest will follow instructions; whether from the good leaders or the bad is a matter of chance.  I believe that, especially in times like these, when people’s finances, nerves and souls are stretched, they behave the same way.  The problem though, is that those who would lead us in the right direction are silenced.  Silenced by political correctness; by brain-dead liberals who fling charges of racism like their own feces;  and by the need to keep their heads down and keep food on their own table.

Those who would lead us are silenced by political correctness and by brain-dead liberals who fling charges of racism like feces.

I consider myself more of a libertarian than a conservative.  In most cases, I don’t have a problem with what people choose to do with their own bodies in their own homes.  But there are limits, and incest, rape and pedophilia go well beyond those limits, even if consensual.  The more we let monsters like Roman Polanski and Mackenzie Phillips walk among us as normal people, the more we degrade society.  We each have a solemn duty to protect society from decline by occasionally shouting out “What the hell is wrong with you?!?”  There is nothing wrong with with being judgmental in and of itself.  Where being judgmental means turning your nose up at the garbage man or the questioning someone’s purchasing habits, I agree being judgmental is a bad thing.  But no one should be so nonjudgmental that they cannot tell the difference between a normal human being and these two scumbags.

We each have a solemn duty to protect society from decline by occasionally shouting out “What the hell is wrong with you?!?”

For those who think I’m being too tough on Mackenzie Phillips, think about this: what does her cavalier attitude–and Oprah’s–teach a young girl who may be solicited by her own father?  Does it not make that girl think, “What’s the big idea? Mackenzie Phillip did it and Oprah thought it was okay.”  What about Mackenzie Phillips’ gleeful telling of her “Mick Jagger” story?  A child seeing that would think it’s okay to have sex with your parent’s friends–is that the lesson Oprah wants to teach?  The fact the story went unchallenged by Oprah would mean a child would think such conduct is appropriate.  A child should see Mackenzie Phillips sunned and shamed for what she revealed, not embraced or even discussed without judgment.  (Of course it would be different if Phillips showed the slightest twinge of regret or self-loathing, in which case, compassion should be shown–children and others would see by Phillips’ own contempt that her conduct was wrong.)  Shunning and ostracizing works for two reasons: it isolates the outlier and teachers them that their behavior is unacceptable; but more important, it serves as a warning to others who might have considered engaging in the same conduct.  We should get back to our old ways.  They won’t let me carry a torch a pitchfork, so I’ll have to carry around rotten tomatoes.

Financially, the U.S. economy has been the most competitive, diverse, and agile economy in the world.  Over the years since the end of World War II, the U.S. economy has become more nimble by moving away from the old-world manufacturing economy and into the new-world of global finance, banking and professional services.  In 1950, professionals and related occupations represented 9% of U.S. employees. By 1988, it was 20%.  By 2008, it was over 32%,†  In 1950, manufacturing jobs represented 34% of jobs in the U.S, in 2008, they were less than 7.5%. To put it another way, in half century since 1950 and now, the labor market has flipped: what once was a small portion of our workforce (professional services) is now the engine representing nearly 1/3; and what once was the engine (manufacturing and manual labor) is now only a small portion.

The only concern tyrants have when they challenge the world order is, where are the Marines.

This is not a bad thing for Americans or America.  Americans have become more educated and taken better, higher paying jobs leading a global economy.  Service professions are a high margin businesses–lawyers, doctors and bankers make more money than factory workers.  So the American worker has benefited from this shift, as they have moved to careers and professions, rather than jobs.  The financial sector has lead that revolution, employing not just bankers, but lawyers, accountants, salespeople, brokers, office workers, receptionists, managers, consultants, computer technicians and thousands of other professions that didn’t exist 50 years ago.

America has also benefited.  The U.S. economy has become more nimble.  A highly-educated workforce can more easily adapted and retrain than can a manual labor workforce.  Factory workers cannot take advantage of advances like telecommuting and blackberry.  And professional service skills are more portable than manufacturing skills.  These are all the reasons my father, a truck driver, wanted his sons to become professionals, not laborers like him.

For generations, the U.S. dollar has been the world’s currency. Currency, in the words of Ayn Rand is “a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce.“  And since my grandfather’s generation, more people around the world have had faith in the energy, industry, honor and integrity of the American worker and the American system than any other.

The bravery, skill and professionalism of the young men and women we send abroad to slay the world’s dragons have done more to ensure the liberty and safety of strangers than all of the committee meetings of all of the diplomats on East 42nd Street.

Technologically, too, the United States is exceptional.  Only Japan comes close to competing with the United States on technological ability.  No other country or even consortium of countries has been able compete with the U.S. in the greatest of technological challenges: space.  Only the Unites States has been able to land a human being on another world, and that was 40 years ago.  Although the global economy means parts are manufactured all over the globe (and rightly so), most of the new products that changed the world in the past 50 years have been purely American.  The PC, the cd player, the mobile phone, the internet, the iPhone, the digital camera–these were all devices invented and perfected by Americans and American companies.  These advances were possible because of two things: (i) an educational system that focused on math and science and (ii) a business environment that rewards risk with financial gain.

Medically, the United States is leaps and bounds ahead of every other country in the world.  Liberals will trot out tired old studies and point to the United States falling to 33rd or 50th or 112th on some list.  Fantastic, but what value is ranking high on a list where Cuba is in the top 10?  Those lists are based on farcically blind bureaucratic standards involving the theoretical access to healthcare.  Sure, in the Cuba, Syria or even the United Kingdom, you have a theoretical right to see a doctor or have an MRI, but illnesses aren’t cured in theory.  When it comes to medicine, the only statistic that matters is, when a world leader or a person of means is ill, where do the go for care?  If you think people are boarding a flight to Havana to get have their prostate cancer checked out, you have another think coming.  Everyone outside the U.S. who gets sick comes here for treatment because our medical care is the best in the world.

Militarily, following World War II, the United States built on it’s wartime arsenal and established itself as the world’s only super power following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the death of Communism (except, of course, in the hearts of faculty members in the trendier New England universities).   Our soldiers, sailors and airmen have many advantages: technology, training, the support of those around them at those at home.  But there can be no doubt that the raw bravery, skill and professionalism of the young men and women we send abroad to slay the world’s dragons have done more to ensure the liberty and safety of strangers than all of the committee meetings of all of the diplomats on East 42nd Street.  Dictators, tyrants and rogues never wonder about UN reaction or even NATO or Russia or China.  The only concern tyrants have when they challenge the world order is, where are the Marines.

If President Barack Obama’s goal in becoming President, was to destroy American exceptionalism, it was a goal he never openly admitted.

My point is not to brag, or to incite cross-Atlantic row, drudging up old wounds over World War II.  My point is simply to establish that, at one point in the not so distant past, the United States was, objectively, exceptional.  But that can no longer be claimed without argument.  In the past year, there has been a sea change.  Those who marched on Washington last Sunday felt it, as do millions of other Americans.

If President Barack Obama’s goal in becoming President, was to destroy American exceptionalism, it was a goal he never openly admitted.  But after less than 9 months in office, the task is nearly complete.

The United States is no longer the most competitive economy in the world.  That honor now falls to the Swiss.  The reason is the $787 billion crash course in socialism that Obama thrust down the throat of American economy shortly after his inauguration.  That pill made our economy more reliant on government, and therefore less competitive.  The engine of the new-world economy, the financial sector, reeling from the housing crisis, will be saddled with crushing government regulation designed to discourage risk and drive the entrepreneurial spirit out of the machine.  Obama is also doing his best, in old-school, Chicago patronage style, to repay his union backers.  But no amount of wrong-headed Chinese tire-tariffs and NAFTA-violating roadblocks will turn the tide back towards labor.  Nonetheless, Obama’s actions are destroying the financial sector, the crown jewel of the American economy.  World leaders, our friends and our enemies, are calling for a new global currency.  No longer do they have faith in the efforts of American workers.

Technologically, Obama announced today his plan to destroy the internet with net neutrality.  Like most liberal ideas, net neutrality sounds good at a fifth grade level, but life is lived at the graduate level. By dictating how telecom companies must allocate their bandwith, the government has, in effect, confiscated their property, and taken from them the rationale for their investment–the dreaded “p”-word: profit.  More generally, the housing crisis and the resulting credit crisis, along with the ill-advised government intervention in the markets have destroyed the risk-reward calculus. The balance between risk and reward is what allows entrepreneurs to wander through the dessert of abandoned ideas and find an oasis: that one idea that will change the world.  Obama seems to think that, when he confiscates the oasis, the poor fools will still go out and search again for more.

The United State military, though still the most fearsome fighting force in the world, has at its head a man who cannot be trust by our allies and who can be intimidated by our enemies.  Russia has been able to bully Obama into dropping the land-based missile shields for Poland the the Czech Republic–a cowardly concession for which the Obama administration, almost gleefully, announced it had received nothing in return.  No Russian troops out of Georgia.  No breaks on Russian oil and gas for European allies.  No sanctions on Iran.  Nothing.  Poland and Czech Republic were thrown under the bus as a freebie.  Indeed, today, Russia said that it might nonetheless still move its own offensive missile systems to its border with Poland, even though the U.S. defensive systems are to be withdrawn.

Just today, in what liberals from John Kerry through Barack Obama have called the “good war,” Afghanistan, we learned that the United States is in danger of losing to the very terrorists who began this fight eight years ago.  General McChrystal is patiently waiting to ask for up to 45,000 more troops to enact the same strategy proven to work in Iraq, a strategy he spent his career arguing against.  Obama’s response: not so fast.  Hold on.  Slow down.  Let me think a minute.  Although delay means danger and risks defeat, Obama stops to ponder.

Like most liberal ideas, net neutrality sounds good at a fifth grade level, but life is lived at the graduate level.

Regarding the broader engagement that was once called the global war on terror, Obama has also made it clear that he will rather launch a political investigation of the CIA operatives who keep Americans safe than allow those men and women to focus on the task at hand.   His protests notwithstanding, this investigation is based on 5 year-old facts upon which professional DOJ prosecutors had already refused to prosecute.  Notwithstanding the fact that all of the living directors of the CIA (with the exception of the two who serve in Obama’s cabinet) have signed a letter pleading with Obama not to distract the CIA with the vital task of national security with this pointless political score-settling, Obama blithely dismisses them as biased and claims his hands are tied.  Obama, you see, believes that prosecutors must apply the law to the facts, regardless of the outcome.  Unless, of course, the defendants are the Black Panthers or ACORN.

Obama believes that prosecutors should follow the facts regardless of where they lead, just as long as they do not lead to the Black Panthers or ACORN.

Obama is also doing is best to ensure that the world’s best medical system collapses as quickly as possible.  A recent poll found that 45% of doctors would consider leaving or retiring early if Obama’s healthcare plan were passed.  Think about that, 45 million more patients and almost half the doctors.  If you think rationing and wait times are bad in Canada, wait for Obamacare!  But doctors aren’t the only ones.  Pharmaceutical companies, insurers, medical equipment manufacturers and consumers will all face increased costs, hassles and burdens because Obama wants to cover people who, for the most part, don’t want healthcare.

Although it may not seem like it (although sometimes it seems like eons), a lot of time has passed since Obama became President.  There have been a fair share of controversies, and speeches and flaps and, occasionally, something even conservatives can give him credit for.  At the outset of Obama’s presidency, Rush Limbaugh made a comment that stirred a lot of controversy and debate, when he said he hopes Obama fails.  After nine months, I have a question: Does Obama want us to fail?

†Based on 2008 Census data, including OCC codes 11-0000 through 31-0000.

Professor Cavanagh’s story (too long ago to remember and too good to check) was about a group of executives on a dais at an industry conference. These executives were on a panel to discuss topics relevant to the industry, but during the Q&A, they were led astray and began to discuss price. Future price. One of the executives–and this is the bit a young corporate lawyer remembers–one of the executives stood up, dumped a pitcher of ice water all over the table, and shouted “you people are talking price, it is illegal, and I am leaving.”

That caused one hell of a scene. When the murmuring quieted down, the Q&A discussion continued without that executive. Several years later, however, as the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s case was being made, all of the corporations were named in a price fixing scheme–all but one. There were literally hundreds of witnesses who remembered crazy Charlie, who dumped the pitcher of ice water, shouted about price fixing, and left the room.

Notwithstanding Maureen Dowd’s fantasies, which involve sipping mint juleps on her plantation while bossing around her slaves, Joe Wilson’s outburst was not racist.

For obvious reasons, undignified outbursts have been on my mind lately. Notwithstanding Maureen Dowd’s personal power fantasies (which apparently involve sipping mint juleps on her plantation while bossing around her slaves–Maureen, it’s called projection, see a professional, get help), Joe Wilson’s outburst was not racist.  The Obama administration was lying to the public, and was calling Republicans liars for exposing the lie.  Faced with this hypocrisy, Wilson lost his temper and his composure and shouted in rejection.

Now, I am not suggesting that Wilson was correct or that he need not apologize.  What he did was inappropriate, but not necessarily wrong.  First, he had a duty to his constituents to protect them and their property from what he saw as a threat (the taking of their money to pay for healthcare for illegals).  His outburst was successful in a way no civil discourse was.  The Obama administration was forced to agree to a provision it had previously rejected, mandating that illegal aliens not be covered by ObamaCare.  I am reminded about the French proverb about a small carafe of wine being illogical, immoral, and inadequate.  In some circumstances, doing the impolite thing is the only way to do the right thing.

Not only is this normal, it is healthy and far too infrequent.  In one of my favorite, life-changing books,  The Wisdom of Crowds, James Suroweicki describes conformity and peer pressure experiments first conducted by Solomon Asch.  In the basic experiment, the scientist places between 4 and 20 subjects in a room and shows each subject a note card with a straight line on it.  The scientist then projects an image with three lines, labeled A, B and C of varying lengths, and asks each subject which of the labeled lines is the same length as the one on the note card.  The process is repeated with different note cards and new projected images.

The trick is that only one of the “subjects” is actually a subject.  The others are all actors who are told that after the third or fourth note card, they are all to intentionally and unanimously pick the same wrong line.  The real test is to see whether the actual subject (who always picks last) will go along with the group, who is obviously wrong.  The fascinating conclusion of these experiments is that, to a large degree, people will go along with a group they know to be wrong, simply because no one else will speak up.  The implied (or explicit) consensus of the group acts to silence dissent.

Even more fascinating is that, no matter how many wrongheaded people there are making up the groupthink bubble, that bubble will burst when just one actor speaks up.  In other words, if “A” is the correct answer, and there are 10 “subjects” (9 actors and 1 actual subject), even though 8 actors (wrongly) say the right answer is “B”, but the ninth says “A”, suddenly the subject is liberated.  The peer pressure vanishes and the subject is free to speak their mind.  What is even more fascinating is that, even if the ninth subject says “C”, the other wrong answer, the effect is the same.  The subject is still liberated simply by the bubble bursting–even if it’s by a wrong answer.

Whether for the sake of comity, job security or apathy, we do not speak up when others tell tall tales or plan our or their own downfall.

This is the theory behind the centuries old Catholic practice of the Devil’s Advocate.  When a person is considered for sainthood, the Church will appoint an expert in canon law (yes, there are attorneys who are allowed in church) to argue against canonization.  Although the Devil’s Advocate will of course raise valid points, he will also allow others who have doubts to be free to raise them without feeling peer pressure.  The Church, in 1587, codified an anti-groupthink process that is only now becoming mainstream.  (Sometimes tradition is ahead of the times.)

Too often, in our personal, professional and political lives, we  let things slide.  We hear lies, half truths and hypocrisy and we don’t call each other on it.  Whether for the sake of comity, job security or apathy, we do not speak up when others tell tall tales or plan our or their own downfall.  That failure to speak up–to dump a pitcher of ice water on a table once in a while–happens every day in small, but important ways.  Ordinary Americans are starting to fight against Hope·ocrisy, and we need to do more.

We need to keep speaking up.  At work, at home, and everywhere else, when you hear lies, hypocrisy, and things that just don’t sound right, challenge them openly.  Be that dissenting voice and know that, when you speak, you will be bursting the bubble for millions of others–even if you don’t have all the right answers.  When someone brings up Global Warming™, don’t politely change the subject, challenge them, even if you don’t have an advanced degree in climatology (they don’t either).  Opening a dialogue is the point.  Challenging the “consensus” is all you need to do, someone else may hear you and that alone will be enough to make them question the status quo.

We also need to encourage those who speak out against Obama, Reid and Pelosi, (and, for that matter, Michael Steel, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and everyone else in a position to direct public opinion and policy)–even if we disagree with those who speak up.  Their dissenting voices help to burst the groupthink bubble–even if they don’t have the right answers.  The mere fact that they speak up is enough to burst the bubble.

This weekend, nearly 2 million Americans poured a pitcher of ice water on Washington D.C.  The bubble is already bursting.

It’s simple, it’s elegant and it’s what more than 52% of the American people believe: Barack Obama is outside the Circle of Trust:

Get yours now at store.dailydanet.com.

Tune in tomorrow night for the Daily Danet liveblog of the monthly narcissism conference at 8 p.m. Eastern.