Graduation vs. Innovation

If I were asked to speak to graduates (yeah right) I would give them one idea to take away; our economic society rewards innovation, not graduation. Now I’m not down on education. I’m not down on graduation from high school or college or professional school. Good education is a good thing. It gives you a basic core of general knowledge which is useful in life and it can teach you to think. There is no doubt that the more graduation you have under your belt the more probable it is that you will earn a bit more in the job market than people without some education. But don’t construe that to mean that higher education will automatically lead to wealth, freedom of time, happiness and satisfaction and the creation of a life legacy. Education may give you a marginal advantage at the starting line but by no means guarantees a top finish at the tape. If you don’t take what you have learned and then innovate you will probably settle for a mediocre job with a mediocre income and a mediocre life. You will trade the great life for the good life, which is OK if that’s all you want. Sadly many graduates think that their diploma guarantees them an exceptional income, a big new house, racy cars, fancy clothes and jewelry and glamorous vacations. And it all comes immediately upon graduation. That is a fantasy, sheer nonsense. What is more scary is that easy credit attacks kids right out of school and sucks them in with the ‘you deserve it, you deserve it now and you can have it now,’ mentality. All for easy monthly payments. Forever. These youngsters start living the good life on credit right out of school and think they have the world by the tail. For a while. Then reality sets in. The bills start coming and the payments get bigger and bigger every month. All of a sudden those houses and cars aren’t nearly as glamorous as they originally looked. Maybe our grandparents did know something after all. When they got out of school they rented a small house or apartment, bought a small used car for cash and then worked hard and SAVED their money, living well below their means for many years. And mostly the women didn’t work; they stayed home and took care of the kids. And yet with modest jobs they finished life owning their homes and cars outright with no personal debt and hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank. Ah, the magic of compounding. Many had boats and summer cabins that they owned free and clear. There were no credit cards when they started their adult lives and when they did arrive on the scene they thought that such things were from the devil. Their philosophy was if you can’t afford it with cash don’t buy it! Save up for a while if you want it and pay cash or forget it, but don’t buy things on credit. Hmmm, wish they could run for public office!

So if you really want to succeed then what is this innovation thing all about? Well, if you look at people that really seem to have succeeded in life (and I’m talking primarily economically right now) most of them have done so by creating a product or service or business that meets a need in society. The more unique and innovative and widely needed it is then generally the more successful that individual will be. You can look at big examples like Henry Ford, Sam Walton, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, but there are untold thousands who succeed quite handsomely that you never hear about. You don’t have to succeed to the level of one of the giants to live an exceptional life. But you do have to go beyond mere graduation and a mediocre job. And you need to stay out of personal debt. It’s hard to innovate when you can’t pay your bills. So, to be trite; to innovate you are going to have to think outside of the box. Maybe design a new box. And most likely the answer is something outside of your current job if you are employed somewhere. You will probably have to launch out on your own. This is where you will probably be surprised to find that many successful people who own their own businesses may not have much formal education. The old saw that B students wind up working for C students and A students teach is pretty accurate. Many times the C students are more motivated to innovate and launch out on their own because they can’t get a ‘well-paying’ job and if they want to really succeed they have to start their own businesses. With a bit of innovation and long hours of hard work they develop a successful business. They hire B students to work in and run their businesses, but pay them a lot less than they, the entrepreneurial business owner earns. The tables are turned. The A students become tenured professors making a modest income teaching about how to start and run businesses out of textbook theory since they have never really done it. Now of course this is a generalization, but there is a lot of truth in it. Just go out and talk to a lot of business owners. The A and B students can avoid falling into this trap if they understand the concept of innovation. Take what they have learned and go beyond merely looking for a ‘good’ job and innovate and launch a business of their own. Invent something! Then work hard. But remember, hard work alone is not enough. If it was, every maid in every hotel in town would be a millionaire. Hard work must be smart work. It’s not just doing the task right, but doing the right task. Innovate or stagnate!

So, congratulations on graduating. But remember, the world doesn’t owe you anything. You haven’t contributed anything to the world yet. You can’t make a withdrawal until you make a lot of deposits. You may know something now, but you haven’t done anything. And if you don’t you won’t get anything. And you wouldn’t deserve to. Now get out of here and think hard and work hard and innovate; and hopefully you will enjoy the great life!

Class is in Session

When conservatives talk about the federal judiciary and the importance of who appoints those judges I believe that we are shooting way over most people's heads. We talk about judicial activism, legislating from the bench, original intent and strict constructionists. Most folks hear our candidates talking like that and say, 'huh?' The liberals' candidates come out and talk about appointing judges who will use the law with compassion in order to help out the little guy and make things more fair for the average working stiff. Hurrah!, scream the masses. We are technically right and they win the election. Brilliant. Our discourse must be based upon an understanding that education has failed our people in the last 40 years. Most people voting today do not have a good grounding in their understanding of our history, heritage and workings of government. They just don't know how the courts work and why. They don't understand the constitution and how our freedoms, liberties and rights are established and protected and even why that is and should be so important to them. The concept of a large intrusive federal government simply does not frighten them. They see it as better able to give them more and do more for them. They don't understand why the Framers were so skittish about a strong central government and enamored with the idea of the States holding more power and authority. This is why so many people are confused about the role of the Electoral College and clamor for its abolition. I fear that far too many people believe that our rights come from the federal government. They don't realize that our founding documents clearly point out that the Founders believed that our rights come from God and the government is charged with the duty of protecting those rights. If rights come from government they can also be taken away by government. Rights conferred by God cannot be taken away by government. If government attempts to usurp our God-given rights it is then the right of the people to alter or abolish such a government. That's what the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were all about. We conservatives must assume the role of educating the American populace about these fundamental principles and functions of the federal government and courts. We must do this in an engaging fashion, meeting people on their level and explaining these things in ways that people can understand simply and apply directly to their daily lives. Only then can we make the case to the American people in elections that our candidates really do have the common man's best interests at heart. Ring the school bell!

Broken Promises

The Constitution is the document which created our federal government and supposedly empowers and constrains it. It is a covenant between the Government and the People. A fixed point of reference. Changes occur through the intentionally slow, difficult process of amendment. That is the only evolutionary process permitted. There are no penumbras or emanations. Announcements of the Supreme Court or legislation do not alter its fundamental fabric. Or at least, they are not supposed to. These bodies are creations of the Constitution and subordinate to it. That which is created is never greater than the creator. Everything the federal government does is supposed to be directly traceable to specific empowering language in Article 2, Section 8, or one of the amendments. Not some vague, ambiguous Supreme Court interpretation of the infamous Commerce Clause. Without a fixed point of reference we the People have no guarantee of our freedoms and liberties. If the federal government is not constrained by the Constitution then it is really constrained by nothing other than the capricious whims of maniacal politicians. That makes one shudder. Anarchy and tyranny by any other name would smell just as foul. I contend that the federal government has broken its covenant with the American People. It has jettisoned the Constitution and much of what it now engages in is de facto extra-constitutional; thus unauthorized and illegal. Sadly, anyone who points this out is laughed at and dismissed as a throw-back hick. I doubt the Framers what have appreciated such a label.
For example, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings was recently interviewed by Human Events reporter Terence Jeffrey, as reported in the November, 2007 edition of Imprimis. “ Mr. Jeffrey asked her is she could ‘point to language in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to have a Department of Education.’ Her reply shows that she knew the bearing of the inquiry: ‘I think we had come to an understanding, at least, of the reality of Washington and the flat world, if you will, that the Department of Education was not going to be abolished, and we were going to invest in our nation’s neediest students.’ Mr. Jeffrey persisted: ‘It is one thing to say that the political reality is we are not going to abolish the federal Department of Education, but can you seriously point to where the Framers actually intended the Constitution to authorize a Department of Education?’ The Secretary replied: ‘I can’t point to it one way or the other. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I’ll look into it for you, Terry.’ Mr. Jeffrey reports that he did not get his answer. This is the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, sworn to uphold the Constitution in the exercise of her office.”
Well, I’m no constitutional scholar either, but I can read it. The beauty of the document is that it is written so that nearly anyone can read and understand it. It means exactly what it says. Let me help you Madam Secretary, there is no authorizing language in the Constitution for a federal Department of Education, and thus your department is truly illegal, short of an amendment. And yes, it may some day be abolished, as it should. Education is truly a local function.
So, if the federal government is not required to abide by the letter of the Constitution are we the people required to abide by laws of the federal government when they exceed its constitutional authority? What power do we have to enforce the Constitution upon the federal government? All three branches are in it together. We can’t elect enough good people fast enough to make any substantive changes.
One if by land, two if by sea.