Part of the reality of life in the United States of America
Very interesting!! A MUST READ!!!! Brilliant....!!!
This will take a few minutes to read, but it is worth it. if you have
kids in high school or college....make them read it!
Many commencement speeches are boringly predictable. Neal Boortz a Texan, a lawyer, a Texas AGGIE, and now a nationally syndicated talk show host from Atlanta . His speech is far different from what either the students or the faculty expected. Agree or not, his views are thought provoking. It would have been particularly entertaining to have witnessed the faculty's reaction! Don't stop reading if and when you find things that disturb you, you'll find other stuff that you'll find genuinely part of the reality of life in the United States of America .
His Commencement Address
======================================================
"I am honored by the invitation to address you on this August occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.
This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.
By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun. Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.
Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast... including your own assessment of just how much you really know.
So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay
attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups -- The Blacks, the Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.
Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives and Libertarians, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses. In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.
If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a libertarian or a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.
Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You're going to actually get a full time job!
You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, but in your earnings. Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can't manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.
Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills, but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million- dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and benefit.
That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has. Power that you do not have A power that no individual has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly force to accomplish its goals. You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.
Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there just isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease its share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.
So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes ... a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.
Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.
First is that favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia:
Diversity! You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and status as a member of a group. Yes, it's that liberal group identity thing again. Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the individual's integrity, character or other qualifications.
Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.
We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.
You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.
Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! You
have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another. You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive healthcare unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.
You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person" for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.
The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.
By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.
To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street. If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This "success equals luck" idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as "people who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky. It's not luck, my friends. It's choice.
One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandingo, entitled "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple: "Use wisely your power of choice."
That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S. O. B.! You did this to me!"
The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.
Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.
Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whet her to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich. The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich. Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.
Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it. The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair."
You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor ... there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor. Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor. So, you need to know that under our government's definition of "poor" you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and $1 million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as "living in poverty." Now there's something you haven't seen on the evening news. How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government measures one thing -- just one thing. Income. It doesn't matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are 'living in poverty."
This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy
statistics, is it? Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics show that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.
Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of "poor" is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.
I'm about to be stoned by the faculty here. They've already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get. That's OK, though. I still have my PhD. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you'll be unable to deal with life, or the truth So, get over it.
Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.
* You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again.
* When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.
* Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the
country. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing.
* Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.
* Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone.
* Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.
* Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
* Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,
1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.
2. Use wisely your power of choice.
3. Go the extra mile ... drive home in the dark.
Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can. Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back.
Class dismissed"
- netzorro's blog
- Login or register to post comments














Boortz looked real cozy
sucking Bush's dick (along with other 'conservatives') in the White House.
http://www.nytimes.com/20...
He misses some key points
Economic selfishness is necessary for the capitalist system to be most efficient. However, that does not mean we need to be personally selfish, and refuse to help the poor and the truly unfortunate with charity. Also we need to realize there is a need for morality in society. We have to find virtue within ourselves, rather than relying on government to provide that virtue. That doesn't necessarily mean we should all be religous fanatics, but that we should have standards and principles to live by if we want to create a better society.
The Book of Tao says, “In the beginning
there is the Tao (perfection), when the Tao is lost virtue remains,
when virtue is lost kindness remains, when kindness is lost morality
remains, when morality is lost the law remains.
Forcing people to be virtuous by enacting laws will never work, and will cost us our freedom in the process. The tyranny of the majority is a tyranny no worse than that of a dictator. Liberals assume they know what's best for everyone in society, but they fail to see the inefficiencies, corruption, and tyranny that results from this type of maternal attitude.
Thanks for the transcript.
I made both my kids read it (17&15). Mr. Boortz got a lot of things right in my opinion with what he said.
20 hour work week
Yes, a 20 hour work week is possible when we get back to a sound currency and eliminate empire building overseas. This has already been accomplished by those who populate inner earth, who are also much more technologically advanced than those of us residing on the outer surface, because they, unlike us, have not wasted human and other resources on warfare for thousands of years. Not convinced? Please show me a link to any satellite photos of our polar regions. If they are legitimate, you will see a hole leading to inner earth. Think of earth as an emptied egg shell about 300 miles thick, with holes in the top and bottom, and an inner sun (i.e. northern lights).
I'm sorry, but...
...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
*ahem* Carry on.
Although to be fair, your beliefs are no more ridiculous than the various religious mythologies that billions of people profess to believe in.
----------
The opposite of freedom is slavery; if I am 99% free, then I am part slave, which is like being "a little bit pregnant." Freedom versus slavery is a zero-sum game.
Don't be sorry, just...
be fair. I only asked for photographic evidence to back your belief. You may have to rely on satellite reconnaissance to verify since its against the rules for civilian aircraft to fly the poles. Strange, yeh? Anyway, which site has my answer? Thank you in advance for your help.
Maybe these guys can help
Maybe these guys can help you. ;-P
----------
The opposite of freedom is slavery; if I am 99% free, then I am part slave, which is like being "a little bit pregnant." Freedom versus slavery is a zero-sum game.
Good ol' Boortz
Shooting straight from the hip-- and the last three points are the best!
That article
is going on my wall. So I can read it everyday.
oversimplified and full of labels
Liberals think like ,,,,, and act like ....
Conservatives think like .... and act like...
And oddly diversity is considered grouping, rather than respecting individual differences;
He continues with labeling and grouping, as though he is incapable of holding ambiguities or integrating unique circumstances and individuals, by lumping them together...
Poor people are.....
Rich people are...
Teachers are....
on and on
And he mixes it all with some snappy insights and a few truths; he leaves the audience with a bag of generalizations and only a few gemstones. Life is not so easily put into boxes. Perhaps the students will spend some time sorting out what good points they can take from it, and untangle some of the rest. I hope they do spend time with his words, asking themselves what they think about every point he made. It could prove to be an excellent exercise. His statements about choice were very good. And using one's thoughtful choice in evaluating any words of advice or opinions of another is self-instructive as one traverses through life.
Gwen Kraft
Ignores Ron Paul
I was listening to Boortz on the radio one afternoon and he was talking about education. A caller asked him if any presidential candidate wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, and Boortz said no. It made me so mad that I emailed him on his web page form. I didn't get a reply, of course.
Boortz disagrees with Ron Paul on the war. Therefore he will not accurately represent Paul's domestic policy on his program. Too bad.
Perfect.
As a student, and a libertarian, I often feel alone and ostracized on my campus(The University of Colorado at Boulder if you must know). This man speaks truth, and does in front of a terribly biased group. This man should be applauded, and given a medal for his words.
As a college educator (comp
As a college educator (comp sci if anyone's curious) and profitable small business owner, the comment about those who can't do teach, is quaint at best.
Agree on the "can't do" issue, but college educators are
generally the standard-bearers for liberal ideology and irrationality. In my experience, there's not a more closed-minded group. Of course, there's exceptions, as indicated by some on this forum.
Same here
I educate and I run a small business. Many faculty I know do this as well. The idea that "those who can't teach" is an attempt to smear a group of people.
Theocracy and the center of identity
Mr. Boortz says: "Conservatives and Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual."
But he does not say why this is so. Why do Conservatives and Libertarians center their identity on the individual? And, more significantly, why should they center on and attempt to protect the individuality of individuals other than themselves? Logically, in the absence of theocracy (which he dismisses at this point), there is no reason for anyone to be concerned with anyone else's welfare. We should join up with the most promising power center we can (today that would probably be civil government) and work to promote our own well being regardless of the impact on anyone else.
Ultimately it is only the fear of eventual retribution that restrains the beast that lies within each of us, that keeps us from a totally selfish outlook and makes possible consideration for others and promotes true cooperation. We are considerate of others because we believe (to some degree) that we will eventually be rewarded for doing so. We refrain from exploiting others only because we believe (to some degree) that we will eventually receive retribution for doing so. If you disagree here, you need some more education in the school of hard knocks Boortz advocates.
The freedom we had in this country was established on the basis of "theocratic" Christian theology and it cannot be restored without a return to that faith. Ron Paul's election would be a real step forward but a major paradigm shift, a return to Christian faith, is essential to its ultimate success. Christians should vote for and support Ron Paul but they need to realize that his election is only a first step in a long battle.
Absolute BS. Religion does
Absolute BS. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality or individual rights. Quite the opposite is true. The Abrahamic religions, in particular, are all about prior restraint, violent punishment and group-think. The individual has been in a constant struggle against religion, since its inception. America, as a secular society, has been a giant leap forward for mankind, as it freed us, finally, from those shackles of oppression.
Humanity would be much better off if religion were to fizzle out of existence. Sadly, we are still too primitive to shed our ridiculous belief in fairy tales and the fear of death that inspires them. I believe in a creative force behind the universe, but I loathe all organized religion. It is the most vile, destructive force in history.
And don't tell me I need whatever Boortz is selling if I disagree with you. I guarantee I've been knocked harder than he has.
----------
The opposite of freedom is slavery; if I am 99% free, then I am part slave, which is like being "a little bit pregnant." Freedom versus slavery is a zero-sum game.
Onward to Armageddon!
"We refrain from exploiting others only because we believe (to some degree) that we will eventually receive retribution for doing so."
No, friend I refrain from exploiting others because I'm not an a__hole. Man, I thought Christianity was the religion of love. Peace, brother.
commencement speech-er is a neo-con
He is only telling half the story, blaming all of the ills of the US on liberals and entitlements to the poor, etc.... The bigger problems are the corporate welfare, medical scandals.. big pharma, and the globlist agenda, ie the wars on everything including arab countries and the outsourcing of our manufacturing jobs.
gma
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and ultimately will have neither."...... Benjamin Franklin
"Liberals and entitlements" and the "bigger problems".....
that you mention are inseparable & co-dependent. Liberals and entitlements means "universal plunder", as described by Frederic Bastiat in "The Law" (1850), and universal plunder by its very nature leads to all of the other ills, most importantly domination by special interest groups and perpetual warfare.
Liberals simply can't face the truth about this.
Neal is pro-Iraq war but...
I'm not sure neo-con is accurate. I used to listen to him a ton and I think he has the best syndicated show out there. Although he may have toned down his criticisms a bit, he has repeatedly called out Bush and the Reps for reckless spending. Before 9/11, he used to preach against the idea that a libertarian vote was a wasted vote, and I still think he considers himself one.
Regarding another post, he never ran in '04, but I believe he was being recruited and didn't want to. Actually, I believe his invite to speak at the convention in ATL (his hometown) was pulled because of his war views.
He is also pro-fair tax as an alternative to the income tax, but he would want that % dropped until it was eventually zero. Due to the bipartisan nature of the fairtax proposal, getting into spending disagreements was not possible. The debate could only be structured as another way to gather and had to be revenue neutral.
what is it about this country
that our opinion makers can't proclaim pretty self evident truths without blowing smoke like Moses coming off Mt. Sinai and being as unnecessarily divisive and demonizing as possible? Looks just as important to attack the opposition/straw men as prove your assertions. Nothing better to draw attention to yourself...but a little sense of humor goes a long way.
Some solid advice in there. I might want my son to see this, but I'd hope he'd be able to separate the wisdom (and do the work to validate its meaning for his own life) from the condescending, look at me, blowharditude. In the end, I think his rhetorical style impairs his very worthwhile message, but surely is successful in attracting many loyal adherents more interested in simple, "politically incorrect" answers and entertainment than really thinking things through for themselves.
Surprised he doesn't back Ron Paul...of course, maybe he wants to keep his job ;).
Nice critique. I completely
Nice critique. I completely agree. I always enjoy a certain amount of irreverence but I definitely didn't care for the divisiveness in his speech.
Booortz is an asshole
Apart from an amusing insult to the faculty his speech was the same ol' right wing ubermench bullshit. Being a drug addict doesn't make one a libertarian.
no doubt!
Him, Aaron Russo and Michael Badnarik ran for the Libertarian nomination in '04. Russo UNFORTUNATELY lost out in early voting, endorsed Badnarik, and then NB lost to the virtually unknown 'contitutional teacher' Badnarik. Many have said that Russo had a strong dislike of Bootz. I'm glad that the LP has now been vindicated, since he has shown himself as the warpig he is.
THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost
One problem
One main thing I have a problem with in this article. There are other complaints, but they are minor ones.
"Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark."
This is such a ridiculous statement. Working 40 hours a week does not make you a loser. It doesn't make you highly wealthy, either, but let's understand one thing. You can be highly wealthy, working 70-80 a week and still be a loser. It boils down to one thing. Are you happy? THAT should be the definition of success. How much money you possess or what your status is isn't that important if you're not happy. You can be working 40-hour weeks and be more happy than a CEO. They're hard to find, but they do exist. I was more happy at a 40-hour week job then I am now at a job that tends to work me 50-60 hours in a week. Just because I define happiness differently than Boortz doesn't make me a loser.
A measure of personal success depends on how well your pursuit of happiness has gone. Hours has nothing to do with it.
I missed that...
and no one who has retired says they wish they had spent more time at work. Most wish they had spent more time with their families. Lack of time together is one of the reasons for our high divorce rate, and rebellious children, too. Amen. You are by no means a loser if you are a productive member of society, no matter how many hours you work.
Before returning back as a
Before returning back as a faculty member at a local college, I was VP of IT at another college. I was 28 years old, made amazing money and thought I was living the dream. Let me tell you, those 65-80 hour weeks start to wear on you quickly. The truth was, it was someone else's dream. I thought the real winners were the ones who could work the LEAST amount of hours and still maintain the lifestyle they desire.
I left the college and went back teaching at another college. I taught about 25 hours a week and my life changed in ways that I can't even begin to describe. I was happy, I lived life on my terms. If that's a loser in his eyes, so be it. I eventually started a small business and continue to teach about 20 hours a week.
Agreed!
Happiness is the key. Working more than 40 hours for someone else doesn't make you a winner. What you do for yourself does regardless of the FRNs you accumulate. Ron Paul has the right idea...less taxes, smaller government, more freedom. He has my vote.
Agreed. You get 24 hours in
Agreed. You get 24 hours in a day. Most people sleep 8 and work 8, leaving 8 for themselves -- but part of their "me" time is taken up by errands and commuting. As far as I'm concerned, 8 hours per day is the *maximum* acceptable, not the minimum. I'd rather live my life than spend it accumulating wealth that I can't take with me. I don't care about leaving a "legacy," that's for people who are afraid to die. They hope to pass on a big pile of gold to the next generation, so on their death bed they can imagine that one day their name will be known among the Rockefellers. I see these people as chumps and fools, flushing their one shot at life straight down the toilet. But I'm not like most people, because I care nothing about riches. I used to work my tail off, then one day I woke up smart. Now I earn enough for the necessities of life, and to do the things I enjoy, but I avoid working beyond that. That sometimes puts me at odds with a lot of Paul supporters, who seem to care more about the monetary rather than the other aspects of Paul's message. They seem to just want to get rich under a Paul administration. I support him because I want to become more free, across the board. On my deathbed, I don't want to look back and wish I could have done more, if only I'd have been more free.
----------
The opposite of freedom is slavery; if I am 99% free, then I am part slave, which is like being "a little bit pregnant." Freedom versus slavery is a zero-sum game.
Rich vs. Poor
Very entertaining speech. I would have loved to see the reactions of everyone there during his speech. However, he talks about becoming rich as a result of your choices... it would be nice if it was that easy. He forgets (or doesn't know) that over 95% of the wealth in this country is inherited. Now I'm not saying we should take peoples money when they die... they worked for it and it's theirs to do with as they please. However, it's still something to be considered.
I did agree with most of what he said. Most university professors have no idea what the world is really like. Example: I am a high school social studies teacher. In college, I had one class on how to teach social studies and at least 3 dealing with some aspect of "diversity."
"He forgets (or doesn't
"He forgets (or doesn't know) that over 95% of the wealth in this country is inherited."
I don't believe that "fact". Gotta a link?
According to Forbes the top 8 wealthiest Americans are all self made:
William Gates III
Warren Buffett
Sheldon Adelson
Lawrence Ellison
Sergey Brin
Larry Page
Kirk Kerkorian
Michael Dell
Not that good
I agree with some of the speakers positions, but the notion that the rich get richer from working hard and creating job is on the whole complete BS. What I mean is, many of the ways that the rich are gaining wealth is from stealing from the poor through the Iraq War and the Fed. That is why Ron Paul is against those things. I am strongly for the ability of a person to work hard and generate wealth through the creation of goods or services that people want. Painting the picture that the rich are there though honest work is just propaganda created to make the rich off as being good. Also, I don't agree with the notion that individuals working together in a group is bad, which is what I took away from his speech. I want to be part of the group that works together to allow for me to be as free an individual as possible, hence the Ron Paul Revolution!!!!!
So whats he problem with Dr. Paul?
He makes sense... He has points... why does he lie and twist facts about Dr. Ron Paul?
This Booortz or Boraz or whoever is a double talker... this is all good for the college kid just starting out.. but then he will say folks like Romney or Huck DEFINE conservatism
Reality Check...The Truth is the Truth
The reason why this speech is great, is because it does not set anyone up for failure.
It should be a persons choice to give a hand to a neighbor or a stranger...not the governments gun to our heads demanding that we give 40%.
BTW: Not many people know this...but the National Income Tax only pays the interest of our current debt...it's like making minimum payments on a huge credit card.
Too bad
Excellent Speech but Boortz is fervently against Ron Paul
Boortz - a single issue voter
I used to listen religiously to Boortz until he made his views known about Ron Paul. Now rarely. Still, he has some good points for these new college graduates. Individualism rules.
This Is Why I Used to Like Boortz
I used to be a huge Neal Boortz fan. When I heard Ron Paul was running for president, I just assumed Boortz was going to give him a ton of air time since he's been preaching basically the same message as Ron Paul and doing it for a longer time.
Since I heard him dismiss Ron Paul because of his disagreement with him over the war, I just don't pay attention to him any more. Finally we have a candidate who agrees totally with the concept of a small federal government, a candidate who is gaining a huge, fervent following, and Boortz is willing to just piss it away because of his stance on the war. So he's going to just keep babbling on and on while the opportunity to actually make changes is right in front of us.
His Fair Tax plan is a great idea but it is so easy to be distorted by the media. It's never going to get any where. Whereas Ron Paul's program is much easier to understand and will actually get at the crux of the problem, government spending. Just stop policing the world, make sure our borders are well protected and then cut government spending to where it was ten years ago. This would eliminate the need for income taxes and the IRS. This would sell much easier than a "30% sales tax", what many opponents refer to as the Fair Tax.
I keep hoping that Boortz will finally see the light and take advantage of and help the Ron Paul Revolution.
Same here. That's why I
Same here. That's why I didn't bother reading it. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He is a principled shill, but a shill nonetheless.
----------
The opposite of freedom is slavery; if I am 99% free, then I am part slave, which is like being "a little bit pregnant." Freedom versus slavery is a zero-sum game.
My Take...
Most of the Talk Show Hosts have become Media Whores. They answer to Pimps like Rupert Murdoch.
The so-called Conservatives are Con jobs...we are thus Neo-Conned most of the time. This group behaves like Male Hamsters and eat the young at heart...watch how they gnaw at Ron Pauls knees and ankles.
Every once in awhile, one of these Hamsters has an opportunity of finding him or herself and they use an opportunity to "Get Away" and give a freedom speech...they probably "feel" good for one or two nights and then they go back to the Media Whorehouse and spew out more neoconnism.
Oh, my. This guy will never
Oh, my. This guy will never win over any converts. Guess he never heard of winning people over with honey, huh? He makes good points, but loses them by needlessly attacking the people who invited him. In my mind, he's a world class jackass.
Amazing speech!
Why again is he for the Fair tax instead of NO TAX?
That was entertaining,
That was entertaining, certainly fine for commencement speech, but it's important to point out that we as individuals do have a moral obligation to *voluntarily* be charitable to people who truly are unfortunate due to conditions they have no control over, like mental illness that afflicts a huge portion of the homeless.
Also the whole thing about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer not being a concern would be true if we had what RP calls "honest money". If the fed creates credit and loans it out to favored business, the rich actually are stealing value from the poor and middle class. The gap between rich and poor was decreasing from WWII until the 70's when the trend began to reverse. Guess what happened in the 70's... we eliminated the last tie of the dollar to gold, which was the last check on credit expansion by the fed.
Otherwise excellent.
actually
unlike your introductin to this piece there wasn't much in there that I could disagree with. Too bad Boortz is so hung up on the "War on Terror" and "Islamo-Fascism" that he can't get behind the R3VOLUTION.
Thank You
Freedom is not FREE!!
This will be copied and given to the graduating class at my son's High School.
few minutes!?
few minutes my a**. It was very entertaining though. I didn't necessarily agree with all of his analysis, but enjoyed it.
40 percent that is kind of
40 percent that is kind of low for a tax figure. I am looking at paying 41 percent in taxes and thats not even counting the phone tax for the blind or the gas tax. We are looking at about 50% tax in this country and its sickening. I am tired of spending 9 months a year out of country working sometimes 36 hour shifts to make ends meet while You got idiots on welfare sitting around the house getting drunk. The people in this country keep crying for health care well what about my health care. The sad thing is welfare is a ruse because if the middle class loses its job they have to lose their house and cars to even apply and guess what they take income for two years also to see if You apply. I am so sick of this system because now I am looking at spending more and more time away from my family just to make ends meet. If You figure in the hours me and my wife sacrifice to provide a middle class life style it would = 7845 hours a year. 7845 hours a year is roughly 326 days a year we sacrifice to make a living. Now You might not think thats not alot but 326 days not being at the house at all. I would love to see some person on welfare raise their hands and say they sacrifice as much for their standard of living. The problem is they look at money as the only way to measure wealth instead of standard of living. If the standard of living was the basis of wealth I wouldn't have to pay a damn dime in taxes and all the welfare people would be paying me. So if I am livid and foaming at the mouth like most Ron Paul supporters maybe thats why. Oh btw LIBS this is the real world and I can't wait till you wake up and smell the coffee.
We can't afford to rip at each other
I myself like many of the posters do have a chip on my shoulder about a lot of policy issues and principles of political and economic philosophy.
Enough chips, actually, to build a raft and float down the Mississippi.
But being attached to my family, home, and job, I'll stay where I'm planted and try to fulfill responsibilities and duties that I CHOSE to undertake.
Mr. Boortz obviously has plenty of spleen to splatter against those he dislikes and despises . . . but that may explain why he doesn't appreciate Ron Paul, who knows how to disagree without being disagreeable.
It's Dr. Paul's candidacy that has brought together on this and other sites, and in meet-ups across the country, a very disparate---even motley---group of supporters. It may not fit our personal self-images, but we all do resemble what used to be known as "the rabble."
Amazingly, there is a momentum going. TO keep it going, we need to not just support, but to a large extent we need to emulate, Dr. Paul.
TO me, that means, learning to appreciate other points of view; not expecting unanimity amongst ourselves; trying to express ourselves on behalf of Dr.Paul in a positive and civil manner---it works for him!!! And not fighting with one another. We've got a ways to go to evolve from a rabble to a real revolution.
It can be done, with mutual respect, with a willingness to learn, and with that key which has already been given us, and which we can say without self-conscious embarrassment---LOVE.
Mr. Boortz' attitude needs, IMHO, some re-keying. Now let's get back to work.