A PORTRAIT OF PUCKEYHUDDLE

Walking through the kitchen, I swipe a section of the newspaper and head out the back door.   On my patio deck, I pour a liberal amount of charcoal into the chimney starter, place the now crumpled newspaper pages inside, and then strike a match to set the paper ablaze.  I take a moment to ensure that I have done my part to totally immolate the newspaper.  Not once do I wonder what important stories I may be destroying.  In Sainte Genevieve, the important stories are lived, not written.

Billed as “the Oldest Town West of the Mississippi”, Sainte Genevieve (pop. 4572) can often feel like it.  The town exists somewhere in time between the long ago and yesterday.  Civic leaders have come and gone, but no viable path to the present has yet to be found.  While the President of the United States may be discussing how to ‘Win the Future’, we have no time for that.  Here, the battles of the past are still being waged.

On DOMA, Obama Seeks A Stalemate From His Zugzwang

In declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional,  President Obama is not declaring war on the executive branch's constitutional role as envisioned by the founders.  While his move is definitely an unusual gambit as he seeks a stalemate between his previous position on gay marriage and what many suspect his real position may be, the real crime is his contradictory actions following his decision.  As a result, he has backed himself in a corner and gave conservatives an open door to ending judicial activism.

In chess, a zugzwang refers to a position where one is forced to make an undesirable move.  A stalemate occurs when one player's King is not in check but he has no available move to make that would not put his King in check.  When a player finds that he has been maneuvered into a zugzwang, his best move will often be to play for a stalemate in order to obtain a draw.  One danger in this maneuver is that the player must be aware of all possibilities, otherwise he further place himself into the zugzwang.  President Obama has chosen to play for the stalemate. 

In running for President, candidate Obama stated his opposition to legalizing gay marriage.  Despite his repeated statements supporting this position, it has endlessly been speculated that it did not reflect his true feelings on the matter.  If, and I will say if, in fact President Obama has always been a closet gay marriage supporter, he must find a path that enables him to fess up.  But he must do so without seeming like the liar so many hoped he was.  If this seems troubling, read my last statement again.  His supporters hoped that the President of the United States was lying to them; and many assumed it.  This is his zugzwang. 

Judicial Activism...I'll Know It When I See It - UPDATED

Anytime I hear anyone toss out the term "judicial activism" in conversation, I have a nearly unstoppable urge to yell "time-out" and have the person give a detailed explanation of the term.  I don't, but inevitably I will begin to hear the word "inconceivable" in my mind every time someone says "judicial activism".  Fans of the movie,  "The Princess Bride" know where I'm going with this.  In the movie, Vizzini persistently interjects the word "inconceivable".  Finally, Inigo Montoya says to him, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

Let's be clear what isn't judicial activism.

• Declaring a law invalid alone, is not.
• Declaring a law valid alone, is not.
• Overturning judicial precedent alone, is not.

So what would be judicial activism?

• Declaring a law invalid despite a historical and constitutional basis for the law, by finding an interpretation of the pertinent textual language heretofore unknown.
• Declaring a law valid despite a historical and constitutional basis for the law, by finding an interpretation of the pertinent textual language heretofore unknown.
• Overturning precedent despite a historical and constitutional basis for the precedent, by finding an interpretation of the pertinent textual language heretofore unknown.

In between, there is a gray area, which is why the court will often render 5-4 decisions rather than 7-1 or 8-0.  But in plain speak, judicial activism is when the court shapes the law to fit their predetermined decision.  Often the supporters of a decision will seek to avoid any discussion of the merits of the case because the courts interpretation is laughable.  Consider the dissenting opinions of Justices White and Rehnquist for Roe v Wade. 

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers..."(White)

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion."(Rehnquist)

Abortion supporters often speak of the importance of this decision, but they avoid any discussion of its judicial merits.  Even his supporters were bewildered by Justice Blackmum's decision.  Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe’s author like a grandfather" wrote:

"it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.

As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

Where the court fails to find constitutional standing that an action by the state is a usurpation of the people's rights, those matters should be left to the people and the political process.  It does not matter whether the action is good or evil, fair or unfair; it only matters whether it is a prohibited action of the state.  The constitution specifies the powers and duties of each branch of government and in the 10th amendment says all other powers are to remain with the states and the people.  This does not mean the court should remain silent.  In fact the court is the last stand protector of the people.

It also must be remembered that the constitution is the truest exhibit of democracy.  It's origin and all amendments must pass as a referendum, a vote from the people, not simply from their representatives in Washington DC.  Where it conflicts directly with the laws of Congress, the constitution should prevail.  As Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist no. 78 has stated,

this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Rather than the whims of our elected officials, the constitution stands as the truest reflection of the will of the people and the standard by which the laws should be judged.  Since Congress receives its authority from the constitution, its laws cannot stand above the constitution.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal....that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. (Hamilton)

At the time of its writing, it was feared that there would be no hindrance, no lever to keep unelected judges from superseding their authority and placing their judgement above the constitution.  While their independence allows them to act as a safeguard against society; to protect the rights of classes of people, they must serve the constitution and not their own will.

To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them. (Hamilton)

The will of the people is expressed in the written words of the constitution.  When those words are twisted in order to give life to rights and powers never granted by the people, for service to the will of the court, judicial activism is thrust upon us.  When the court uses its power to alter the constitution's meaning, a shifting standard is created that renders its authority unknowable to the people


The structural remedies to such behavior has now lain dormant over the centuries as the other "stronger" branches have abdicated their duty.  The political penalty for such an exercise today as impeachment or withholding funds would be too great for our elected leaders.  So we are left with the only tool we have in fighting judicial activism - enlightenment.


The people must be made aware of the crimes being perpetuated on them as judges overstep their constitutional authority.  Only by being enlightened to what the constitution says, can they judge for themselves whether the court has acted appropriately.  When they can see with their own eyes that elections have consequences for the court, elections will tend toward substance and away from the frivolous.  With that I offer a case to examine.


Citizens United v FEC - overturned limits on corporate spending.  It held that money spent in support of candidates is a form of free speech.  The constitution is clear on free speech rights.  Under this decision individuals, labor unions and corporations will be treated equally.  To deny corporations this right, would be to say that a group of employees (unions) would be granted rights that a group of business owners (corporations) would be denied.  The ruling maintained a ban on foreign donations.

• Are political donations an element of free speech? Yes
• Can the government abridge the free speech of a group of citizens?  No

Most court decisions, after all the lawyer speak, can be summed up very briefly.  The case making its way through the courts at present is the constitutionality of Obama's Health Care Reform.  It's question is very simple.  Does the constitution provide the Federal government the authority to compel an individual to purchase a product?  Is the individual mandate portion of the HCR law constitutional?


The state governments, as the 10th amendment espouses, hold greater power over the individual than the federal government and many of them compel a purchase of auto insurance.  But, only those who wish to drive on the public roadways are so obligated, so the state is not truly compelling the free right of individuals to refrain from this activity.


The most recent decision by a Federal judge has found a constitutional authority to regulate such inactivity.  Here is federal Judge Gladys Kessler own words in her ruling.

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power....However....Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality. 

Cornell law professor William Jacobsen's take,

Our thoughts are now actions.  There literally is nothing the federal government cannot regulate provided there is even a hypothetical connection to the economy, even if the connection at most is in the future.

Our thoughts are now actions.  Whoops, I already said that.  I just can't get over it.  The following sentence has now become a justification for regulating decision-making even where the decision is just to do nothing:

The Congress shall have power.... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

I think I'm going to be ill.  Which of course, is now subject to regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Justice Stewart in speaking of pornography, said, "I shall not today attempt further to define it ...But I know it when I see it".  Many try to make the same claim of judicial activism.  Outrage may follow even the most sensible of court decisions, often reflecting the high emotions of the opposition.  Yet the most insidious usurpations have met little resistance.  But while the mood of the people will ebb and flow through the generations, the constitution must not.  The constitution must be our rock - our anchor.  Where the court inserts itself, we drift further away from the very words that have made America great.

UPDATED: Bruce McQuain has more at HOTAIR
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/23/obamacare-ruling-more-commerce-clause-idiocy/trackback/

UPDATED:  Citizen's United v FEC is not a case of judicial activism, in case you weren't sure.  Political spending is an aspect to political speech, and free speech rights naturally include political speech.  Overturning precedent when precedent is so clearly incorrect returns the law to that which the constitution intended.  For those who disagree, I would ask for a discussion into the court-protected free speech rights of flag-burning and pornography be included in that discussion.

Ruminations from the Void

Not a teacher

First, I would just like to apologize to anyone who was offended by my post wherein I may have compared teachers to Jason Vorhees.  The comparison was not meant literally, with the exception of one teacher in particular, and she knows who she is (right, Mrs. Applebaum?).  It was only a metaphor.  Still, I would not tempt fate by taking a school field trip to Camp Crystal Lake anytime soon.

Two issues that won't help the public unions.  McIver Institute estimates that the protests have cost the state $9 million.  Also a scandal is developing because several doctors were writing fake sick excuse slips for protestors.  These slips enable workers to be paid while not working.  Where does my union sign up for the benefit where management pays us to strike against management? (h/t Gateway Pundit)

I'm thoroughly enjoying "Omar's Krazy Komedy Show".  If anyone needed it, Colonel Qaddafi is showing us how the term "crazy third world dictator" came into being.  FDR had his Fireside Chats, Qaddafi has his Umbrella Talks.  I can only imagine what other youtube videos exist that involve an umbrella and the front seat of a van, but something tells me they are will not often be made by heads of state.  Although, Qaddafi may not be the head of state since he concluded that he had no position from which to resign.  Check out Allahpundit at HotAir for more.  Real question is why is he still just a Colonel?  I think if I was going to live in a militant dictatorship I would want a General leading it.  Now all I can think of is Woody Allen in Bananas.

Did anyone watch Chuck last night?  I think Peggy was killed in the first scene.  You know..."Hello, this is Peggy with Prime Credit" but it's a bearded Russian man.  It's good to see his successful transition from a 30 second commercial to a 45 second TV appearance where he's killed off immediately.  It's like making it onto Star Trek's Enterprise crew, but you have no name and are immediately volunteered to shuttle down to a strange unknown planet.  "Come in, Enterprise, Crewman #2 is down...I repeat...Crewman #2 is down."

Running away from your problems is never the answer.  It solves nothing and simply makes the problem worse while those you left behind are forced to act.  So, no matter the issue, if you are an elected official who belongs to the minority party, please call for help.  Don't run out on your constituents, because the truth is, you need them more than they need you.  Just listen to this recent Wisconsin based runaway Tim Cullen, "I didn't run for Senate to spend the rest of my life in Illinois."  We're here to help.  Please call today.

Going in to work at 3pm as everyone else is leaving, the sun is shining and spring is in the air, is the absolute worst part of my job. 

For my fellow Cardinal fans out there, don't rush to judgement on Albert Pujols yet.  While he may have chosen not to sign an offer from the Cards, he is still under contract and has expressed a desire to remain in St. Louis.  The chance of him resigning after the season is high.  Over the past 10 years, no player in baseball has been more underpaid that Albert, so is it wrong for him to expect this contract to compensate him for those years as well?  As long as he ultimately signs a 10 yr contract for less than $300 million and he continuews to produce consistently, at the end of the contract he will underpaid again.  That said, the Cards will not go broke with him or without him and Albert will be well paid no matter where he signs.  With Albert, the Cards are happy.  Without Albert, $30 million a year opens up a lot of cash for some new pitching.  Win - Win.

Yesterday was, of course, President's Day.  I will save my usual diatribe on the washing out of our history by celebrating one day for all rather than just the birthdays of notable Presidents. Suffice it to say that today is Washington's birthday which was what we celebrated when I was a child.  A new Gallup poll rates Ronald Reagan as the greatest president in history.  My favorite MSNBC psychopath, Chris Matthews was visibly angered by this.  Newsbusters has the video.  Naturally, I have no problem with the poll, but if we didn't persist in trying to erase the past, these polls may come out differently.  C'mon, would celebrating Washington's birthday really be unfair to Jimmy Carter?

The Return of the Taxpayer

For reasons, both good and bad, I have chosen to go for the trilogy.  I will write one more lengthy post concerning the public unions.  There are great challenges to the third segment in a trilogy.  Often the source material has been nearly exhausted and with the loss of beloved characters in the second act, bitter feelings remain.  Additionally, as the story arc leads to its ultimate climax, all story threads must be woven together to create something larger than their individual parts.  “The visual fabric [must be] maintained while the metaphor plays on different levels.”^*  Not only must there be a conclusion, but one must feel that the journey has been worth the effort.

* Bonus points if you recognize the quote

As we learned from Randy in Scream 3, a true trilogy is all about going back to the beginning and learning something that wasn’t true at the get-go.  Also, there are certain rules for the concluding chapter of a trilogy.  One, the [villain] is a super human.  Two, anyone, including the main character, can die. Number three, the past will come back to bite us in the [posterior]. Whatever we think we know about the past, forget it.  The past is not at rest.  The sins of the past are about to break out and destroy us.  The rules say, some of us ain’t gonna make it.
 

During the Great Depression, business owners found that the high unemployment gave them a lever that could be used on their workforce.  It was this unfair imbalance that drove the labor movement as well as the governments need to stimulate the economy that resulted in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.  It was passed, but not without controversy.

In the 1920’s, the movement to organize had run afoul of anti-trust laws.  The mood changed following the economic troubles of the 1930’s.  During times of high employment and high earnings, workers had leverage.  But when employment falls below a certain point, the balance of power would shift to the employer.  The NLRA was created to establish a balance between the worker and the owner allowing for the workplace relationship to stabilize.  Further legislation has cemented some of the labor movement’s agenda in covering even the non-union workforce in America.

The slow decrease in the membership of private-sector unions is a direct result of the success of the unions in establishing certain standards to the employee/employer relationship.  Workers no longer needs to join a union to enjoy a standard 40 hour work week, overtime pay, paid holidays and vacation time and enjoy other benefits such as healthcare and a retirement fund.  As long as the threat of unionization is present, employers will usually seek to treat workers fairly.

I am a member of the negotiating committee for my local.  Our contract ends this year.  My fellow members and I understand that without a viable company, the contract is meaningless.  But with a fair agreement, we know that when the company prospers, we will prosper too.  It’s a win-win for both the workers and ownership.

But today’s crisis is putting that relationship into jeopardy.  Even now, our state has legislation pending that would make it a Right-to-Work state.  Management at our company is opposed to this, seeing that it would  put them at an economic disadvantage to newer competitors.  Not everyone will agree but the voters will decide the matter since our collective bargaining rights are statutory in nature.

Unfortunately, the public unions in Wisconsin have failed to understand this.  The anti-democracy forces have spent the past week forming mass protests in Madison.  The elected Democrats in their Senate have left the state.  Whatever my opinion of it, the will of the voters should not be blocked by force or cowardice.  As many have pointed out, the protests in the mid-east seek democracy, while the protest in the mid-west seek to block democracy.  This is shameful.

Like the Trilogy rules state, anyone can be killed.  Any look at the long-term finances of the federal, state and local governments can tell you a change is coming.  Whether we make the choices now or wait till the last dollar has been spent, a day of reckoning is coming.  There is no way to avoid the truth, but it doesn’t mean it has to end in this Mexican Standoff that currently exists in Wisconsin.  If the public unions, both there and other states, wish to make their last stand moment, so be it.  But as long as the private unions are there to hold their hand, we will be caught in the cross-fire. 

Governor Walker, far from wanting to bust the unions, has offered a middle ground.  The response has been an offer to give up the money, but not the bargaining rights.  What they have yet to see is that the money isn’t the problem, it’s just a symptom.  Kill the monster, take the money, but the beast will rise again.  Walker’s goal is to kill any future resurrection of what is wrong today.

In light of our last Trilogy rule, we now go back to the beginning of our story – the balance of power in the employee/employer relationship - to discover something that wasn't true from the get-go.  The NLRA gave workers the right to fight their exploitation at the hands of ownership.  But government workers cannot be exploited since they are also part of ownership.

Collective bargaining depends on an adverserial relationship between employee/employer. As David Denholm put it,

Unions view the employer-employee relationship as an adversarial one. Unions believe, or at least want their members to think, that employers are by their nature exploitative and that without the collective power of the union, the unorganized individual employee is helpless against the various forms of capital formation which employers represent.

While this may be true in the private sector, there is no reason to believe that it would be true in the public sector. The private sector is governed by an economic incentive – the profit motive. This system of economics has provided Americans with more goods and services, and a higher standard of living, than any other economic system in the world. But it is not applicable to many areas of the public sector of our economy.

Competition and the profit motive are at the heart of the union contention that employers are exploitative. That viewpoint leads the unions to an adversarial relationship. The absence of competition and profit motive from the public sector should cause us to then ask whether an adversarial relationship is necessary or desirable in public sector employer-employee relations.

The government by its very nature is monoplistic in providing society essential services.  Any services not essential, should of course not be offered by the state.  Unfortunately, some are.  The necessity for those services are now being used as the lever against their fellow citizens for whom they serve, while politicians, without a profit motive and dependant on votes from these citizens, have an incentive to keep these workers happy.

Since Wisconsin gave government workers collective bargaining rights,  total compensation (pay and benefits) and employment has risen faster than the private sector and is now higher.  Some of this is due to the often inverted supply/demand in the public sector.  In an economic downturn, tax receipts will fall, but demand for government services rise.  A more recent effect has also been the stimulus spending in which the Democrats in Washington sought to repay the support of the public unions. 

What we currently have is a system that is unsustainable.  All workers have the ability to make their voice heard individually and as a group.  Federations and associations have a long history in speaking for public workers.  But the right to collectively bargain is illegitimate outside the free market.  In the absence of a profit motive, that right becomes political rather than economic.  Denholm again, 

In the private sector the strike is an economic weapon. The employer faces economic losses through a lack of business, and the employee faces economic losses through a loss of wages. If there is a strike at one provider of a good or service, consumers – the public – can shift to another provider or not purchase at all.

In the public sector the strike is a political weapon. The employer does not suffer an economic loss, and in many cases (e.g., particularly in education where most public sector strikes occur) neither does the employee.

Because of its political impact, the public sector strike is disruptive of the normal political process. Under normal circumstances, various interest groups within society, all of whom have a legitimate interest in public policy questions, exert pressure from various directions on elected representatives. Of these groups, a union of public workers is the only one that has the power, if not the legal right, to unilaterally deprive the rest of society of an essential service. Once this occurs, divergent political forces show a strong tendency to coalesce into a unified voice demanding a restoration of service.

The only way to restore the service, in most instances, is to give in to the union's demands. Thus, by using a strike or the threat of a strike, the union can dominate the decision-making process and control the size, cost, and quality of government service.

If my employer negotiates a poor contract with us, the company may lose market share, may lose money, which may cause me to lose my job.  There is a moral hazard inherent to our negotiations.  But when the government negotiates a poor contract with their workers, the state's spending increases can cause deficits which can lead to tax increases hampering job growth affecting private businesses leaving me with either higher taxes or no job.  Without a moral hazard, it's heads you win, tails I lose.

When we gave government workers the right to collectively bargain, we breathed life into the monster that we sought to kill when we gave private workers the same right.  The private-sector employees were given a tool to bring balance between workers and owners.  The public employees have been given an axe and a mask with which to run roughshod over the taxpayers.  Even when the taxpayers revolt, the past pension & other benefits rise again, bringing the unstoppable monster back from the dead.  It's clear we’re not all going to make it out of this alive.  

In a Trilogy, the sins of the past will come back to destroy us.  But now, the taxpayers have returned and this time it's personal.  They seek to restore balance to the [work] force.  We are our only hope.

New Poll Thingy

We have added a weekly poll feature to Sam's Taste of Chaos.  I cannot swear that each poll will cover such important topics as our very first one.  I mean, it's easy to find relevant and vital questions in the beginning, but surely we will soon be picking topics at random with little thought as to their significance.  While we know the worst is to come, let us address this week's poll with the utmost seriousness.

If we were to begin providing quotes on this page, would you rather read a quote from Darth Vader, Mr. T, myself or none of the above?  Please be sure to give the matter your prompt consideration.  Do not take it lightly as much will ride on this decision. 

I promise in the future to offer some lighter topics in the poll, but today is not that day.  Please give this matter the full due diligence that it deserves.  As we await the results, be sure to keep your eye out for those public union flash mobs.  From what I've seen on youtube, their singing seems off-pitch and the choreography is simply terrible.

FDR & AFL-CIO Opposed Public Unions Before I Did

Yesterday's blog post has been highly controversial given my position as a Union Officer.  Today's post may help support my take on the conflict over public unions in  Wisconsin.

In the 1930's, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act laying a framework for federal regulation of private-sector labor-management relations.  As this was being debated, consideration was given on whether to include government workers, but it did not and for good reason.  Some of those reasons were stated in my post from yesterday.  Specifically, I wrote

The public sector unions...have a very different relationship with management...because the employers are elected officials who ultimately must answer to the voters, among which will be their workers.  As a collective, the union forms a voting bloc which creates the opportunity for illegitimate, though not illegal, quid pro quo activity.  The union can offer tangible benefits (campaign funds and votes) to elected officials  at little or no cost to the individual workers and the elected official can offer tangible benefits (compensation and work rules) to the workers at little or no cost to the official.

Because a profit motive is absent, worker productivity and job security now flow inversely. If worker productivity should lag, it has no perceived negative effect on the state’s vitality.  Far from adversely affecting the job security of the current workers, it has the added benefit of increasing their security as more workers are needed to maintain production levels.  As their numbers increase, this organized voting bloc will often supersede the rightful owners (taxpayers) at the bargaining table.

I concluded with,

The public sector workers, so far removed from the mechanisms of the market, have ceased to be a true labor union and are simply just one more aggrieved group seeking favors from our elected officials.  As a political action committee they are welcome to lobby their cause, but teachers on strike have forfeited the right to call their work a sacrifice.

For the benefit of my detractors, I wish to make it clear that I am not alone in my view regarding collective bargaining right for public-sector employees.  If, in spite of my position as an elected agent representing my union members at the collective bargaining table, you feel that I must be anti-union and opposed to worker rights in order to hold this view, let me enlighten you to what other labor supporters have said on this issue.

In 1937, Franklin Delano Roosevelt who had signed the NLRA into law, in a letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees, wrote

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service....The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. (emphasis mine)

Hey Gov. Walker! This Union Man is Right Behind You.

As a Union Officer for a local in the Laborers' International Union of North America, the events in Wisconsin have me very concerned.  But contrary to what you might think, I am not on the side of the public unions.  In fact, I believe what is happening now will ultimately hurt not only the public unions, but also the private sector unions.  If my fellow brothers in the private sector wish to preserve our unions, we should support Wisconsin’s governor Scott Walker.  Unfortunately, our union leadership has lost sight of the issues and is instead focused on the money.  It’s not hard to see why.  While union membership has been on a steady decline in the private sector, the public unions and their membership will continue to rise without end until our governments are bankrupt and the voters take their revenge on the unions.  The union coffers will overflow and empower new drives to organize the private sector.  But in their search for relevancy, the unions have pushed themselves to the brink of extinction.

Labor unions have existed primarily to balance the rights of the business owner with the rights of the individual workers.  Apart, each individual worker holds very little leverage in dealing with ownership.  But collectively, a group of workers possess a great deal more.  Just as the business owner’s first duty is to achieve profit, the workers seek to be compensated properly and treated well for their efforts.  This creates a synergetic relationship between employer/employee.  When the workers are productive, the business will prosper.  As the business prospers, the workers will be rewarded for their productivity.  If the workers’ productivity declines, the business will falter and this will lead to a loss of pay and jobs for the workers.  Production=Profit=Compensation=Jobs

There are three elements that are fundamental for a healthy union-management relationship:

1. Power Balance
2. Profit Motive
3. Moral Hazards

But what happens if workers are allowed to collectively bargain in the absence of these necessary elements?

The Only Thing We Have to Fear...

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

My wife's cousin Brian Kaller, in his cover story for American Conservative magazine, Wreck of the Irish, presents a grim picture of Ireland following the financial crisis of 2008.  He laments the wasted opportunities where their government failed to capitalize on economy, booming thanks to the tech and housing industries.  The chance to spend those tax dollars on roads and libraries is now gone, along with the good times.  But Kaller, who moved to Ireland a few years ago, relates how the Irish are coping with their crash.

...our Irish neighbors have an advantage, even if they don’t realize it. People here grew their own food, made and fixed their own belongings, and scraped by recently enough that older people remember how to do such things. Families are closer, literally and figuratively, and many of them include farmers. Some people here still know how to garden, forage, dig peat out of the bog for fuel, and handle animals—enough of a critical mass to teach others quickly. The lives of people here might stand up to more punishment than Americans can handle, in the same way that the stone bridges near our house still take daily traffic after 250 years and will continue to do so long after today’s shopping-mall infrastructure has crumbled. Transition to a post-crash life will not be pleasant, but here, more so than in America, it will be possible.

As Kaller recounts the resilience of his neighbors, who like a mourner leaving the gravesite vows to push on, an American fatalism surfaces.  He senses that the same fate of the Irish awaits us.

Serious crashes can happen, of course, and our technology does not make us immune to them. There is a reason Ireland has so much open country and so many ruins; in an earlier age of railroads and mass communications, one crop failed, and a third of the island’s eight million people died or fled. We Americans have lived for decades at the other extreme of prosperity. Most nations live somewhere in-between—which is where the U.S. is likely to find itself sooner rather than later.

While we can learn from the Irish experience, attempting to draw definitive answers for us will be difficult, just as the captain of a large Ocean vessel can only use so much information derived from the sinking of a sailboat.  This isn't to belittle Ireland, but the analogy adds perspective.  Americans do view this nation much like the Titanic - as an unsinkable ship; a very apt view.  Unlike Ireland and every other nation, America is uniquely positioned to handle whatever may come.

Ruminations From the Void

First things first, I hope that the GOP will not let that aardvark bully them around.  Arthur and his muppet buddies at Sesame Street are big time stars who can demand Pujols money from the private sector.  Big Bird and Kermit should realize that as big movie stars, what they're making in the public realm is peanuts compared to what's waiting for them on the outside.  Oscar has known about this, but never had any luck making the move.  That's why he's so grouchy.  Morgan Freeman and Spiderman got out years ago and never looked back.  I think I even saw Fraggle Rock hanging out with Cee-Lo on Sunday.  Fly Big Bird, fly and be free...

Apparently President Obama likes his new budget, which takes a $13 trillion deficit and manages to turn that into $26 trillion, so much that he can't wait to begin the lies.  As he contends that the government has to put away the credit card just like families, he states that his budget stops spending more than it takes in.  Well, with one minor exception - he's forgetting to count the interest on the debt.  If only we families could ignore interest payments in order to balance our budget.  Unfortunately, deficits never go under $600 billion for any year in the budget.  Maybe we should place an asterick over his shoulder permanently, so we know to look at the fine print to see what he really means.  Ace has a Fletch approved take on this.

While we are talking about the budget, thanks go out to Florida's Governor Scott.  The Fed came down with some $$ for a high-speed rail line and he politely said, "No thanks".  The more governors who decline to spend our tax dollars foolishly the better.  But there will come a tipping point when the states with good conservative governors are funding all these stupid projects in the other states that will gladly accept the money.  Perhaps, then we can repeal the 17th amendment and allow the states some say in what happens in Washington.  For many, it's just too hard to walk away when someone is shoving the Benjamins into your pockets.

Black-eyed Peas at the Super Bowl two weeks ago, the Grammy Awards this past Sunday, the Justin Bieber Experience on Glee this week - what's coming for us this weekend?  I did buy my wife tickets to see Bon Jovi for Valentine's Day.  I was close to buying the $1400 VIP package, but I was afraid that life with me would begin to pale in comparison.  Cheaps seats it is.

Speaking of the beautiful Dawn, she and I finally watched the new Robin Hood movie from Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett.  It had its moments, it was a little slow at times and the re-imagining of the plot was not a casual change.  But it was nice to see the boys of Mystery, Alaska all together one more time, although I kept waiting to see Burt Reynolds pop out during the big fight scene to yell at his son one more time.

Just Dance 2 on the WII is very addictive.  Don't start - you won't stop.

The temperature hit 70 degrees yesterday...well, at least that is what I heard.  Unfortunately, I was lost in the IRS Matrix, doing my best to avoid any potential agents.  Perhaps my time might have been more productive if I hadn't spent 6 hours as a taxslayer, wielding my mighty sword online.  Surely a tax-code overhaul would yield some measure of stimulation to the economy.  Paul Ryan - Mr. President.  Mr. President - Paul Ryan.  Introductions over, now let's get to work.

Chris Matthews' Improper Use of Stimulants

Recently Chris Matthews on his show HARDBALL continued to argue that direct payments were a far more effective stimulus than tax cuts for our economy.  He said, 

It seems to be that all those who studied economics in school understood what stimulus is. When the government spends money, people are getting their paycheck, they go to the corner store, they spend the money, they got to the corner store, the woman there, she spends the money. The money gets multiplied, and gets the money moving. And especially among poor people who live right up to the edge, in fact, beyond the edge in terms of economics. It’s vastly stimulative.

Rich people on the other hand, when they get a tax break, put it away. They don’t need the money a lot of cases. They put it -- they sock it away in whatever accounts they’ve got. They might try to find something to invest in, but it’s not going to stimulate the economy right away.

As I explained in my blog post Surreal is this Blindman’s Budget, this is historically untrue based on the results of previous spending increases.  The stimulus act of 2009 has been widely panned as ineffective.  This followed a previous attempt by President Bush to stimulate the economy by sending direct payments to taxpayers in 2008.  These futile efforts should have ended the hope for a miracle from Keynesian spending.  Despite the Reagan model, for Obama and other liberals the fallacy continues to be the truth.

Surreal is this Blindman's Budget

Yesterday I attempted to explain the basics of budgeting.  As I'm sure you know, the Federal Budget process is far removed from those basics.  In order to show you just how far off we are, here is a little chart from budget data found on the White House website (Office of Management & Budget).

Only a blind-man could look at this chart and fail to see that something must be done.  But Obama's new budget fails to notice reality.  Instead his proposed budget is a surreal venture that seeks to march onward listening to the beat of a drum that only the President can hear.  Talk of any higher spending needed to fix the economy now falls on deaf ears (Krugman), yet on he marches.

Budgeting 101

Often in politics, we hear references made about the dinner table of average homes.  My dinner table is currently awash in bills, receipts and tax forms as I attempt to finish out 2010.  This past year we closed down my wife's floral shop, so the paperwork is a bit heavy.  As I close out one year, my mind looks ahead to the challenges to come financially for us in the next.  We need to buy a new stove, our eldest daughter will be graduating from high school in a few months and will be moving on to college in the fall, dental bills are due to arrive soon and of course the unexpected emergency has yet to announce itself.

President Obama presented his budget today.  By his numbers, he will lower the deficit by 1.1 trillion over 10 years from the current baseline.  Two thirds of that is spending cuts with the other third from tax increases.  I wish I could be excited.  On the other side, House Republicans have found 100 billion to cut from next year's budget.  That's a good start, but still far short of what is needed.

I was taught budgeting at an early age.  It was simple.  Make 3 columns; in the first is what you have to spend.  In the second is what you need & in the third is what you want.  Prioritize each item in the second and third column.  Start paying off the second column.  If you have any money left, then you can move to the third column.  If you don't have enough money for the second column, you need to either find a way to increase the first column, whether by getting a second job or working some overtime or find a way to change your needs.


To avoid arguments over economic theory, we will allow that for our nation, to increase the first column will involve tax increases.  What to tax and how much to tax may affect how much additional revenue, if any might be brought in, but that is an argument for another day.  Increasing the first column though, isn't necessarily a must if you are spending well into the third column.   Our real national problem is that we have no idea which spending belongs in column 2 and which belongs in column 3.  I'm fine with sacrificing more of my money that I was going to spend on my wants, if I could feel like the government would spend it on what was really needed.  But we have no way of knowing that today.

The Federal government's ability to levy and collect taxes is tied to its ability to do what is necessary for it to carry out the tasks assigned to it by the Constitution and by Congress.  But do we even consider this anymore.  Instead today, our own wants and desires are being put on hold so that the government can fund the wants and desires of someone else.  My children might feel oppressed if we shut off the cable TV so we can pay our bills, but they're really not.  Yet is it fair to them, if our money (taxes) goes to others who then use it to buy cable TV.

The Federal Budget can seem very complex when we lose sight of the basics.  As both sides, Democrat and Republican work together to assemble a budget, I wish they could do it at the dinner table just like myself and countless others; with stacks of envelopes, receipts and unpaid bills cluttering the table.  Even better though, think of us and who the money belongs to before spending it foolishly for us.  Sure we might spend it foolishly, too.  But sometimes we just need to buy a new stove so we can cook for our own dinner table.

Ruminations From the Grammy Awards

After watching the Grammy Awards last night, I have several thoughts.  First, congratulations to Album of the Year winners 'The Suburbs' for their album Arcade Fire.  They beat out efforts from Lady Gaga, Eminem & Katy Perry.  After winning, 'The Suburbs'...what's that...the band is called 'Arcade Fire' & the album was The Suburbs.  Are you sure?  Well, okay...so as I was saying, after one of my longtime favorite bands 'Arcade Fire' won the night's final Grammy, they performed an encore to end the show right - with yet one more "huh?!?" moment.

Immediately after the show it became clear (at least from the buzz on Twitter & Facebook) that most of America had never heard of the winners of two of the more high profile categories - Album of the Year and Best New Artist.  The social networks were up in arms (atwitter?) over the wins by 'Arcade Fire' and Esperanza Spaulding.  The only comment I heard as often was from those who wanted to know who were 'The Suburbs'.  When Album of the Year is announced and most of America can't identify the band name vs the album name, it's a good time to announce that Top 40 radio has officially jumped the shark.  

I know many of you think this is the fault of the Grammy Awards, but it's not.  Arcade Fire was very deserving of the win.  I will acknowledge a certain like for Mademoiselle Gaga's album and even certain songs by Ms. Perry and new Corporate Shill Eminem.  But on the whole, The Suburbs was better than The Fame Monster.  Top 40 radio has degenerated into a very narrow format.  Artists such as Ozzie Osbourne, Huey Lewis & the News, Tom Petty, Real Big Fish & even Metallica could be found in rotation on Top 40 next to the pop and hip-hop, but they wouldn't have a place in it today.  Radio programmers need to sit back and reevaluate their jobs.

As for the rest of the night, it seemed like a lot of fireworks to hide what is missing from today's music; namely music.  I may seem like an old fogey, but I remember sitting in front of the TV to see my favorite bands play either the Grammy's or the American Music Awards.  It was great seeing Bon Jovi, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band, REM, The Pretenders & Duran Duran among others play live.  Madonna or Whitney may have played on every award show, but these bands didn't.

Like Madonna, we've seen Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Eminem & Rhianna perform countless times on these shows, so the spectacle must top their last performance, since the music rarely does.  I can only assume that the Black-eyed Peas were still wore out from last week's drudgery at the Super Bowl.  These artists spend so much time keeping your eyes busy in an attempt to distract us from the reality that the performance is utterly normal.

I remember watching the electricity of one man performing on stage alone, with nothing to offer but himself, a glove and a hat.  In just under 5 minutes, Michael Jackson's Billie Jean performance at the Motown 25th anniversary in  1983 gave us more spectacle than 3+ hours gave us last night.  They used to call it a command performance, but it failed to command my teens' attention as they drifted in and out.  It was all so utterly normal. (Yawn...)

The Great Gooey Butter Cake Challenge

Several weeks ago, my wife & I watched a show on Food Network that featured two local St. Louis cake shoppes battling for supremacy as maker of the best gooey butter cake(GBC). While taking some time off with the family, we decided to head off to each store, grab some cakes & do our own judging.  As an additional feature, we would also be comparing their cakes against my wife, who makes an excellent GBC.

We purchased full-sized cakes from each store featuring chocolate chips & a single sized red velvet offering also. We did not explore some of the more exotic flavors such as maple bacon. In the TV showdown, Gooey Louie used a maple bacon against Park Avenue Coffee's Pumpkin, which I thought may have swayed that competition to Park Ave. I wanted to use similar products for comparison to eliminate any preference for a particular flavor.

Each store definitely was different in their approach. Park Ave Coffee was thinner, less gooey with a firmer crust. Gooey Louie had a much gooier filling & a much lighter cake with that natural sunken middle normally found as the goo blends with the cake. In my opinion, GL had a more traditional St Louis style GBC, but the full-sized cake seemed undercooked in a way that the smaller single size didn't. Park Ave seemed to be a more original approach, but left me wanting more goo. In fact, the red velvet from PAC, while a fine cake, almost seemed wrong to classify as a proper GBC.

I must say that while both were great cakes, they seemed to be lacking a bit compared to my wife, Dawn's. She makes her's gooey to a fault, with the cake bottom just right (FTR, Dawn uses a cake mix for the cake bottom). Often in our house, homemade will be better than a store, so there is no surprise there.

Because I have a feeling that the cake from GL may have been an aberration, I will definitely buy again to see if it is normally cooked a bit more. The single was delicious, even reminding me of Momofuku's Crack Pie, which has been a big hit in New York City.

While Park Ave Coffee may have won the TV contest, our choice is Gooey Louie.  The non-local judge probably didn't know that in St. Louie, the gooey is what it's all about.   But we won't often have reason to buy as long as the beautiful Dawn enjoys baking at home.

Ruminations from the Void

From time to time here at Sam’s Taste of Chaos, I will post my current thinking on anything and everything.  It will simply be a collection of whatever random, often trivial thoughts are flying through my head.  Imagine it as cutting my skull open, turning it upside down and shaking it to see what falls out.  I can’t think of any particular reason why this should be interesting for anyone, but to paraphrase my favorite poet, mine not to reason why; mine but to do and to write.  So into the void we ride.

Minute to Win It - I was exposed to this show last night and now I fear for our nation’s ability to Win the Future™.  It was two hours of watching two girls compete in the type of backyard/church basement activities we would do when I was a kid.  That’s two hours of a national TV audience on a big three network watching two girls carry an egg on a tray, blowing ping pong balls off a pizza pan and trying to roll quarters into the tines of a fork.  (In my defense, we were at the neighbors for dinner.  At home we had the ABC and FOX lineups recording to the DVR.) (No, I still don’t know if that’s good, but it definitely makes me feel better.)

My alarm did not function properly this morning, so I went off to work without my coffee.  Keep this in mind as you read.

Children are off school today again (Note: be sure to read my post from yesterday – I Give Up, Al Gore! Now Make it Stop Snowing).   Cabin fever has set in at our home, so we are leaving town for a couple of days.  No real agenda; just tired of kids sitting in the same room for hours on end. (Indoor pool and hot tub are beckoning)

I’m a union officer with the Laborers. I represent workers at a mining/manufacturing plant.  Teamsters’ President, Jimmy Hoffa has a piece today defending public unions.  But even I am put off by the public unions.  My job is to leverage our workers’ rights with the private owner’s rights; even there, our stake is disproportionate.  But the public union workers as voters are part of the electorate and have de facto authority over ‘ownership’; in effect placing them on both sides of the bargaining table.

On the same topic, Right to Work is being debated in the Missouri legislature.  In my opinion, until we can enforce our borders against illegal immigration, this is a discussion to be put off to another day.  States have been flooded by illegals following RTW implementation.  In addition, the state should try to attract new businesses in ways that do not punish Missouri's current businesses which RTW would do.  Let’s evaluate our tax structure first.  Illinois has opened the flood gates by raising taxes.  Missouri can do its part to reap the rewards by lowering the cost for all businesses through lower taxes.  Several versions of a bill to eliminate the income tax through revision of the sales tax are on the table.  We should act now.

I’ll try to finish off my (starting to seem a bit creepy) obsession with Reagan on a lighter note.  If you have read the graphic novel Watchmen you know that in extending Nixon’s presidency into the 80’s, Reagan’s disappears from history.  The author Alan Moore, a terrific writer, wanted to write an anti-Reaganism story.  But he unknowingly, did the opposite.  Without Reagan, the only hope for averting a nuclear holocaust was having the smartest man on earth manufacture a perceived alien attack, with mass destruction and wide-scale death, in order to bring foes together against this unified threat.  Would I prefer that a hero might never be needed? Sure.  Unfortunately, events had degraded America to the point that finding one was imperative.  President Reagan was that hero.  The story was written in 1986, so Moore can be forgiven for being on the wrong side of history.  But why are so many still under the misconception that this Watchmen’s truth is still validated?

As to the underlying basis for it's title, the Watchmen rings true today.  We can give the government control over our healthcare, our businesses, our economy, our education, even our lives; but who watches the watchmen?  The beauty of America is that we, the people; each of us hold the keys to our own fate.  We write our own story and follow our own path.  The miracle of America is that we rise above our mortal failings as a people because no one is indispensable, yet none are unimportant.  As Dr. Manhattan found,

"But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget... I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from the another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away."

McCaskill Says, Yeah, That's the Ticket! I'm Against the Law I Refuse to Vote Against

After the undressing Claire McCaskill took with my recent blog post, Really, Claire!!!,  wherein I vented my angst at her refusal to side with the people of Missouri, ObamaClaire herself, took to the Saturday Night Live vault to make her retort.  While I went off with a Weekend Update/Seth Meyer rant, McCaskill reached back a bit further to pull out the Jon Lovitz/liar bit, "Yeah, that's the ticket."

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has the story.  In it, he notes that the media is helping Claire attempt to convince the Missouri voters that she is against the mandate, (which is so central to the new law that Judge Roger Vinson, in calling the mandate unconstitutional was compelled to toss out the entire act) but refused to vote to repeal the law.  In fact, Hoft points out,

When McCaskill had the opportunity to remove the mandate during Senate negotiations in 2010, she refused. Instead, she voted to keep the mandate in the bill by killing a Republican amendment (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #101: Motion agreed to 58-40: R 0-40; D 56-0; I 2-0, 3/25/10, McCaskill Voted Yea).

As she tries to pivot away from the Health Care Reform law, her Liar's "That's the Ticket!" gambit is an attempt to reposition herself for her relection campaign in 2012.  Just as we never bought what Jon Lovitz was selling us, we're not about to be taken in by ObamaClaire.  McCaskill doesn't represent Missouri.  It's time for her to go.  We need someone in the Senate who will actually represent the voters.  Repeal Claire.  Now, THAT's the ticket!

I Give Up, Al Gore! Now Make It Stop Snowing.

As I sit at work and watch it snow yet again, I had a thought.  Can we Anthropogenic Global Warming “deniers” declare defeat, proclaim Al Gore the winner, congratulate him on his overwhelming success in defeating AGW, give him a prize for his work in restoring ‘balance’ to the earth and then shuttle him and his merry little band of do-gooders off to the next global crisis?  Could that work?

Unfortunately, I don’t put too much hope in my plan.  The Goracle, being able to see the writing on the wall, has dropped the ‘warming’ verbiage and now preaches against the scourge of Climate Change.  This of course means that as long as the seasons change, the green mafia will be with us.  I just wish it was as funny as it sounds.

The Green cures for our world are many – Cap & Trade, investments in green energy (perhaps we should look into that blue energy on “V”), higher oil prices, higher CAFÉ standards, high-speed rail and even allowing the EPA to regulate the air we breathe.  In attempting to do something, even anything that might work, they fail to see that the cure is worse than the sickness.  In fact, the patient may just be a hypochondriac.

New & updated look

Sam's Taste of Chaos now has a new look and feel.  When we originally went live a week ago, we could not have expected the huge amount of interest it would generate.  We were more focused on the content and felt the look would be adjusted as readership dictated.  But thanks to all of you, the amount of traffic has taken us by surprise.  Because of that, we were forced to turn our focus to the design and we hope that you like what we have for you.

On the new page, you will find links to my Twitter & Facebook profiles as well as the ability to subscribe to the Sam's Taste of Chaos RSS Feed.  More posts will be available on the home page and you will also find a list of blogs that I think you will find worth reading.  You will also begin to see some internet ads.  Just like you, we need to pay the bills.  They're not spam or viruses.  Feel free to click on any that might interest you (I promise they are safe).

As before, there is still a box to share any of our posts on Twitter & Facebook, you can email a post or link directly to it from your own website. 

We will continue trying to improve your experience with us, but we need your feedback.  Please feel free to say anything and everything.  I will always try to respond as well as I can.

The Soft Tyranny of Parenthood

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines Tyranny in part as:

: oppressive power

: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force

: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act: a tyrannical act

I never grew up wishing to become a tyrant.  It’s not in my nature.  But I am proud to declare that when it comes to my children, I’m an unqualified tyrant.  I see no need to hide from this label.  In fact, I wish more parents would embrace it.  I believe our nation is worse off because too many parents have run from it.

On January 8^th, the Wall Street Journal published an essay from author Amy Chua entitled, Why Chinese Mothers are Superior, which is excerpted from her book “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”.  There are, as of this morning, over 7500 comments to this essay on the WSJ website.  It has caused a bit of an outcry in some circles, with many accusing her of child abuse and brutal mental torment.  Others, who may not approve of her methods or the extent to which she pushes her children, felt that there was much truth to what she said and we should raise the expectations for our children.  In the essay, she says

Chinese parents can get away with things that Western parents can't. Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me "garbage" in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn't damage my self-esteem or anything like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me. I didn't actually think I was worthless or feel like a piece of garbage.

………………….

The fact is that Chinese parents can do things that would seem unimaginable—even legally actionable—to Westerners. Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, "Hey fatty—lose some weight." By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of "health" and never ever mentioning the f-word, and their kids still end up in therapy for eating disorders and negative self-image. (I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her "beautiful and incredibly competent." She later told me that made her feel like garbage.)

In another passage, she describes at  length, her efforts to teach a very difficult piece of music to her 7 year old daughter.  It was a very involved, weeks long process filled with a good quantity of physical and mental jousting with the child.  Ultimately, the child was able to play the piece and the author felt vindicated.

….parents worry a lot about their children's self-esteem. But as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child's self-esteem is to let them give up. On the flip side, there's nothing better for building confidence than learning you can do something you thought you couldn't.

I am not a tyrant on the level of an Amy Chua (nor am I a Chinese mother), but I don’t disagree with her conclusions. 

Key to parenting is to having a goal.  If the only goal is for you and your child to survive, then you are probably happy with whatever social delinquent you may produce.  If your goal is to raise a perfect child who will become the greatest person who ever lived, you plan on being disappointed.  Somewhere in the middle is where the rest of us reside.