Spending Other-People's Money

Tom Price, Secretary for Health and Human Services is gone, long live the Secretary.  His fall from grace was quick and awkward, much like a diver who attempts a swan dive, but ends up doing a belly flop.  His sin?  Spending other-people’s money unwisely and getting caught.  I expect he is not alone in his spending priorities among the Cabinet Secretaries, he just had a wife that needed to show off on Instagram and flag the abuse.  “Arrogance is, as it were, a solicitation on the part of one seeking honor for followers, whom he thinks he is entitled to treat with contempt.”  - Immanuel Kant

But it does detail a long-standing problem with our government.  Not one elected or appointed to government leadership seems to realize we, the tax payers, seek a return on our forced investment.  That return should be in the form of credible defense, sustainable infrastructure, advancements in medicine and science, or the myriad of social safety nets we’ve erected over the past 75-years.  Traveling first class, even for the most senior officials and sightseeing with your wife and kids while on official travel does not seem to fit on what I would like to see as a viable return on my investment, but it is fairly common place for those who feel entitled to it. “When we replace a sense of service and gratitude with a sense of entitlement and expectation, we quickly see the demise of our relationships, society, and economy.” – Steve Marabol

I remember when Representative Pelosi became Speaker of the House.  She demanded the Department of Defense provide her and a few of her entourage their own Boeing 737 to travel home to California on the weekends.  “Life is good when you’re the king!”  - Mel Brooks

I believe Donald Trump was elected for two reasons, both completely simple and understandable, but denied by every career politician alive today.

First, the Democrats made the calculated choice to nominate a candidate with such political and personal flaws that even those who hated the Republican choice could not vote for her with any kind of clear conscience.  They pushed their “it’s my turn” agenda through the rigging of the primary systems and the support of the major media outlets.  Unfortunately for them, their candidate and her advisors assumed historically Democratic safe havens like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania did not need to be convinced that any Democrat was better than any Republican.

The second reason Trump won is he ran a populist campaign that resonated with all the voters the Democratic Party no longer wanted and had cast aside.  His primary campaign spent a pittance when compared to the PAC funded efforts of his opponents, yet his message resonated with almost everyone that doesn’t call a major city or the west coast home.  The best the Democrats could do was vilify him for his language, and centrist views on the great social issues the Democrats have chosen to embrace.

It is that populist group who embraces the idea of limits on spending other-people’s money.  President Trump seems to understand that, and that is why Tom Price is now the former Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Choosing the Elite

We seem to cultivate elitism.  Separating those who have special qualities, through heritage, education, intelligence, artistic talent, athletic ability, or wealth.  They become models for us to look up to, to emulate, to follow.  But, what really happens when we establish a process that identifies a child or a twenty-something as elite and then build a special world around them to ensure she or he rises to the positions we expect?

Looking at Europe we see the continuation of royalties and monarchs, but the real governing is left to the political elites.  Each of these classes have their own selection process.  Here at home, we have a number of paths into the world of elites, starting with our educational institutions where there are the Ivy League schools and then everyone else.  Within the military there are the service academies as the first door to that pathway within the small segment of the society that chooses to serve as defenders of the nation.

We see in the world of athletics the problems that come to so many who have been sheltered from the reality of life due to their world-class physical ability.  Look at the problems with drugs, sexual predation, or physical violence routinely reported when talking about football athletes here in the U.S.

During my career, I saw the corporate decisions shaping a leadership structure of the Air Force designed to reach down and pick the Lieutenants whose destiny would be guided to the stars.  From those early candidates, some would naturally fall away either through personal choice, or failure.  Those who remained would be the candidates for promotion to the general officer ranks, and the most senior military positions.  The possibility that someone could enter this group while in his or her thirties was never a serious possibility.  It was true those “late bloomers” could rise to credible and important positions but almost certainly not the most senior ranks.

Once, when discussing changes in the officer performance system that obscured the evaluator's ability to clearly rank subordinate readiness for the next grade, I foolishly asked how the promotion boards would know who was best qualified.  The response did not surprise me, only the candor with which it was given.  A candor, which when recognized was quickly corrected.  But what happens when the candidates for these highest positions are chosen so early and sheltered throughout their careers until they arrive at the most important position of Commander/Senior Leader?

The US Army seems to be trying to sort that out now, after a number of scandals among their Pantheon of the Stars.  See: Army looks for new ways to address misbehaving generals.  While I wish them good luck, I don’t expect they will alter their process for deciding who should be elevated to the Pantheon in the first place, for at the end of the day the reason the Army is considering this program has less to do with the individual than with the institution.

“We have tolerated people doing things they shouldn't be doing because we say all of them are extremely competent and really good at what they do. And that's not good enough now because you're not only damaging yourself, you're damaging the institution,” Cardon said. “We have great trust with the American people, every time one of these things happens, you're putting a nick in that.”

Are Political Protests an American Right?

-->

There is a resurgence of protests in the nation these days, similar to what I saw as a young man in the 1960s and early 70s.  Then, as now, the protesters were condemned by their opponents, just as the protesters themselves condemned the establishment.  In the 60s, we had the civil rights movement seeking equality for blacks in the nation, led by Dr. King’s group protesting in the South.  They were supported by young liberals traveling from the north to show support.  Opposing them were the various state, county and local governments as well as the white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan that continued to thrive through the political acquiescence of sympathetic whites in power.

Then, of course, we had the anti-Vietnam war movement, led by student political groups in the major urban campuses claiming a variety of righteous reasons to oppose the war.  They claimed to be protesting Americas involvement in an internal Vietnamese struggle, or rallying against the oppression of American Imperialism.  Perhaps I am being cynical, but I think the biggest reason the student elites protested was the potential they could be drafted and forced to fight. In the course of those protests; the young men and women who answered their nation’s call were cast aside, and their lives forever affected.  Some through exposure to herbicide known as Agent Orange, others through the exposure to the stress of combat, and others through the rejection or apathy of the American public.

Each of these movements had both moderate and extreme participants, for that is the way we humans are.  Take for example, the Black Panthers in comparison to the NAACP or the Southern Christian Leadership Conference led by Dr. King Jr.  The 1968 Olympics is remembered for the “Black Power” salute offered by Tommie Smith and John Carlos during their medal presentation.  For the anti-war movement, we saw actions range from marches the major cities to bombings. For example, the Sterling Hall bombing at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, or the weather underground bombings of NYC police buildings and the Pentagon.  Bill Ayers, as a member of the weather underground, still defends the bombings as a legitimate form of protest. 

We come now to the present.  We see a resurgence of racial protest either in the streets or now the sporting events.  At the same time, we see a counter protest movement from a significant number of sports fans, and politicians.  Including now, the President.

When Colin Kaepernick first took a knee, a friend thought the Commissioner of Football would quickly put a stop to the whole affair.  I was not so sure, for his business model has about 85% of the organization made up of African-American athletes.  If he had – perhaps the protests would have stopped, but he didn’t and we can speculate all day over what might have been.  With the President’s engagement through that wonderful medium of “Twitter®” we can now expect a greatly expanded group of protests.  Whether they have a legitimate beef or not is irrelevant at this point.  They will be supported by the political opposition to the President, including both politicians and media personalities.

What I find almost amusing is how those who are upset with these actions seem to be equally upset when the protesters shut down the speech of people like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, or some other conservative speaker.
ADDED:  I find the left's position equally non-nonsensical (or hypocritical if you prefer), all on-board with protesting the symbols of our country,  while deeply offended by those who view freedom differently than they  do.

If we think political speech is to be protected, like the Constitution requires – then it should be an all or nothing approach.  If you don’t like the speech, don’t watch or listen to it, but just let it flow without comment.  Unfortunately, with “Twitter®” and student indoctrination, that seems an impossibility.

Everyone has their own opinion on what is acceptable for free speech, but if you think only one form of protest is acceptable, and not another, then why is any protest acceptable?  If universal healthcare is now a right, why isn’t free speech?

-->

One last point, free speech is not the same thing as speech without consequences.  There are always consequences to our choices.  That is an entirely different conversation.

So you decide, should we allow political protest or not?

Life in a Tone-Deaf World

We have replaced journalists with opinion(ists), and we only tune into the opinion(ist) we like, as a result I expect to see the continuing rise in what Scott Adams refers to as Cognitive Dissonance, where the world does not match your expectations, so you create illusions.  Little that I say here will be new, but I’ve nothing better to do so let's recap.

For better or worse we have been set on a path where identity politics is the fashion of the day.  We’ve forsaken even the most meager attempts for balance in our discussion of the issues.  The ideas of compromise and persuasion have been replaced by blunt force use of the media and its celebrities to shove ideas forward without concern or consideration for opposing views.   

To illustrate, we can look at the idea of universal health care as a right guaranteed by the government.  The Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act in 2008, with nary a Republican supporter.  In the years since its implementation individual costs have sky rocketed, insurance exchanges have faltered, and court cases have risen to the Supreme Court where they found this was really a legal tax scheme.

After 8-years of complaints and condemnations from the Republicans, when it came time to do something they failed miserably because they never had a real vision to move to.  Of course, there is the usual finger pointing and condemnation, for it appears that is all they are capable of.

It is much the same these days with the Democratic leadership and the vilification of the President.  Rather than concentrate on the positives, finding places they can persuade the President towards their views, the voices we hear from them are shrill and self-serving. 

Morning Musings (Inspired from the annals of Facebook)

1.     I wonder where they store the money for social security?  People tell me there are trillions of dollars in the account, so there is no problem with the diminishing labor force paying in, and the account will last forever.

2.    Why is the national debt limit such a big deal?  Our representatives in the Congress have no problem raising it based on political whim or will, so at what point do we declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy and just start over.

3.    A friend pointed out that many of today’s senior college professors went into the business of college during the Vietnam war as a way to avoid the draft.  When the war ended, they were all tenured and became anti-government indoctrinators of the young.  I wonder how true this is?

4.    If we believe the judicial system is rigged, who defines what justice is?  Should we return to earlier versions like trial by combat, or binding hands and feet, and casting into the moat, where if you drown you are innocent?

5.     There seems a great deal of confusion over the word “Free” as in Free Speech.  Many on the left seem to think the words “safe” and “without consequences” are somehow linked to the concept, while many on the right think it only applies to confederate statues and not political protest or bad art.  (Since I don’t live in the big cities where all the protestors like to gather for good TV coverage, or watch that good TV coverage, I remain pretty neutral in my support or condemnation of political protest, with the exception of noting most of the violence I read about seems to come from one side.)

6.    The calls for and against a “single-payer” healthcare system seem divided along income lines.  Those who don’t have a great deal of income want one, those who do, don’t.  (the exception would be our elected representatives who have a great deal of income, but would exempt themselves if they approved one).

7.     Shouldn’t bank executives who drive their bank into bankruptcy be tried by a jury of their depositors? (see points 2 and 4 for cross reference)

8.    All the people who think churches should be taxed should reread the 1^st Amendment and explain how they would do that and keep the church and state separate.  Remember, when we started out we didn’t have income tax.

9.    It is easy to appear a hero to your followers when you know the President would veto anything you did, much tougher to be one when your vote counts.

10.  Where have all the cat videos gone?

Race Relationships and the Evolution of Freedom?

Image from Inquisitr.com

Tonight (9/13/17), while watching the Oakland Athletics play the Boston Red Sox on ESPN, they reported fans were removed from Fenway Park for hanging a sign on the Green Monster that read “Racism is as American as Baseball.”  In watching the video of the sign being displayed, it appeared the sign holders were young and urbane, so I am guessing they were protesting against racism, not in support of, but in today’s world it is increasingly hard to tell.

Over the past ten years we have seen an amazing transformation in the state of race relations in America.  Perhaps it is necessary and should be expected.  You cannot solve a problem unless you are willing to confront it, but the problem of racism will not go away as long as everyone chooses to make it the central issue of every aspect of our lives.  We now hyphenate our Americanism to show pride in our heritage.  Yet for some reason we set aside specific months to celebrate the culture and heritage of only select minorities like the Hispanics and Africans, casting aside the Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Russians, or Polish.

In 2008, this country elected a mixed-race President who identified as an African-American and had rejected his childhood name for his formal name, Barrack.  It appeared to many the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. were finally coming to fulfillment.  Granted, there would always be the hate-filled groups that would not surrender the racists views that bound them together, but for the average middle-class American, we as a nation thought we had achieved a maturity in our attempt to reach equality.

Unfortunately, President Obama and his party chose to make race the central focus of his administration.  Choosing not to bring reasonable people together, but using it for its political advantages.  Anyone and everyone who disagreed with any position the President or the left put forward was automatically given a label, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, the list goes on.  The question I can’t answer with certainty was did this occur because of his active political decision, or was he merely floating along with the reactionary forces within his political sphere?  I tend to believe the latter because he rose so quickly on the national stage that I suspect there must be a “king-maker” in the background, and I saw very little true leadership coming directly from the President.  He was a gifted speaker when his teleprompter was working, but I sense he looked to others to make the hard choices as we see in the timing of his public positions on marriage, and sexual identity.

President Trump, who clearly breaks with the approach of the traditional parties, has been under continuous attack from the left, and regular condemnation from the moderate right since his election.  This war of identity politics has clearly escalated as those who don’t like the President now resort to physical violence to achieve their political goal.  Again, maybe this is the natural evolution of the identity politics we have used for the past 20-years?

If so, then what will be the next stage in the evolution of individual freedoms I grew up understanding, and spent my life protecting?  We see, in our young, an intolerance of opposing views, of only one right answer, coming from one source.  It seems to the casual observer that our schools have moved from education to indoctrination.  We have, under the guise of entertainment, gone to selecting nameless people and highlighting them as foolish or stupid to make the point one side or the other is clueless regarding some fresh political issue.  With each showing we erode the middle and encourage political attack, not on solid reason, but on the visceral emotions of the viewer.

Sadly, this is encouraged by the broadcast media.  As commercial enterprises, they are more interested in seeking profit, even if it comes at the sake of a common good.  We see it as well from the personalities we enrich with our viewing who have chosen their political positions and push those opinions forward as the only right answer.

Then we come to the next stage of information flow, the internet.  With the creation of social networking with billions of members on a few sites, what kind of control will go to those who guide what is and is not allowed on those sites?  I suspect the idea of a free exchange of ideas will fairly quickly be squashed in the name of safety.  Yet another of our rights cast aside, or was it only an illusion all along?

The historical view of freedom rested on the acceptance of responsibility by the individual citizen.  As more and more refuse to hold themselves accountable for the common good, and move towards their more selfish instincts, what will be the next version of freedom here in the United States?

Moving from Theology to Meology

There was an excellent homily Sunday morning at church.  The priest spoke about a sign he had seen on another church.  It said we were replacing theology with meology, and he wanted to talk about that.  It got me thinking about it, which is what a good sermon, or homily, should do.

What is Meology?  The simple definition suggests it is placing your individual desires above all else.  If theology is the study of faith, God, and God’s relationship with the world, then meology would be the study of self and how one relates to the world.  The distinction replaces a supreme being with the individual, in effect making the individual the supreme being accountable only to oneself.

This theory, along with the principle of Stare Decisis[i] form the basis for the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey[ii], when Justices O’Conn0r, Kennedy and Souter writing for the court said, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

In its support and modification of Roe vs. Wade,[iii] the court sided with the right of the individual woman over the right of the fetus (and the state).  What they did not, and could not, address was the long-term affect those decisions would have on society.

As we moved from a belief in the value of life, to a belief that a woman’s right to end life if she chooses is more important, what other unifying principles are discarded?

I believe Justice O’Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter err in their statement that at the heart of liberty is self-definition.  I believe acceptance of self-responsibility is a more critical basis upon which individual and collective liberty must rest.  For if we are not responsible for our actions, how long does it take to move from freedom to anarchy? 

Since the court took it upon itself to establish a woman’s right to abortion as a guaranteed freedom, reinforcing that position in PPSEP v Casey, we see in our politics a clearly growing polarization of opinion as those with agendas, both obvious and hidden, maneuver to pull the nation apart.  What within our moral framework calls for us to find common purpose and basis for agreement, if we are focused solely on me rather than us?

---

[i] Latin – Let Stand

[ii] 505 U.S. 833 (1992), page 851

[iii]410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Staring at a Blank Page.

 It is dark and breezy outside.  Just a very gentle reminder of the winds to come as Hurricane Irma makes her way north.  She is approaching the Florida Keys right now, and those to her east are dealing with heavy rain, strong winds, and tornadoes.  None of those are expected to impact my little home on the western edge of the state.

Each day starts as a blank page, it will be filled with the doodles of our lives.  It is funny how these pages turn out as we look back on them.  One of the first things I came across as I looked at social media was a post from a couple of friends regarding President Trump’s nomination for Assistant Secretary of the Navy for development and acquisition.   

It was probably 10-12 years ago when I first met James Geurts, at the time an acquisition officer in the USAF with the rank of Colonel.  He had come to United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to serve as the program executive officer for fixed wing aircraft.  In that role he, and his team were responsible for the acquisition and modernization of the majority the of aircraft flown by Air Force Special Operations Command.  As one of the people who wrote the operational requirements for these aircraft I worked closely with him and his team as they directed the necessary funding to various program offices.   During this time, he retired from the AF to become the deputy civilian leader for the acquisition arm of USSOCOM, eventually rising to be its Director.  He is a dynamic individual who both motivates and empowers his subordinates and finds ways to cut through the red tape that burdens the conventional defense department acquisition processes.  Assuming his confirmation by the Senate, it will be an interesting transition for both him and the Navy as he deals with a whole new set of institutionalized bureaucracies.  I wish him, and the Navy personnel who will experience him, good luck and a following sea.

Today will be one spent in final preparation for the winds and rain we should get tonight and tomorrow.  It shouldn’t take long as the forecast is not that dangerous, and when I’m done perhaps, if it isn’t raining, I can get in some golf.

There are always other pens and other doodles I make as I fill my page, but for now they will be my doodles.  Perhaps someday I will share one of those doodles.

Natural Disaster, Aid, Pork, and Political Agendas

-->

Texas just experienced Harvey, and as I write this Florida is about to experience Irma.  The results will be thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of lives forever altered, property losses measured in the billions of dollars, and a recovery cycle likely to take a decade or so.  I expect as a nation we will get through this, we will help each other, and it is fundamental to our nature to move from the bad to the better, and hopefully toward the good.  That said, we see in this and every disaster, the evil and greed of mankind manifest within individuals, corporations and the government itself.

It is for this reason I grieve.  We condemn the companies who will seek profit over compassion when they raise prices to suck the most out of those who are living in fear and panic. As we enter the recovery phases there will be insurance companies who will nickel and dime the insured until they give up in frustration, or the unscrupulous contractors flooding into the areas promising to help the victims restore their homes, but who are only interested in taking as much from the victims as possible.  These are all horrendous examples of man’s inhumanity to their fellow men, but they pale in comparison to the graft and greed we see in our politicians.

We expect the Congress and the President to work together to provide funds to those in need.  The house votes for $8 Billion (that is billion with a B), for initial relief for Texas (and maybe FL), the Senate doubles that amount.  Those who resist are called heartless SOBs.  I wonder how many politicians will pad their retirement funds from this taxpayer largess. 

Spending other people’s money is easy as long as you can take your cut.

Random Thoughts on a Wednesday

Without reading:  Book review of Hillary Clinton’s What Happened, “It was everyone's fault, I am a victim.”  Specifically, Bernie, Donald, and every sexist man and anti-feminist woman who didn’t vote for me. (from multiple sources)

A match made in heaven:  Hillary Clinton’s pastor writes a book, CNN discovers he plagiarized from others, and his publisher stops publication and recalls it.  Seems only appropriate.

Alice through the looking glass:  Obama by-passes the Congress and issues a decree allowing illegal immigrant children to remain in the United States, while Congress does nothing.  Trump rescinds the decree, gives Congress 6-months to do something before he will start deportation hearings, and the political opposition is outraged.  Seems about right.

Two Major Hurricanes hit U.S. in one month… It’s Trump’s fault for questioning climate change causation data (credit Gino) (I don’t want to be accused of plagiarism)

I am a pawn in the game of life (Mongo in Blazing Saddles):  Science, when it becomes political, looks a lot like a badminton shuttlecock.  He says this, she said that, data proves this, data proves that, we have peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies don’t mean diddly, we have famous people who agree, we have famous people who don’t.   As I watch this tournament play out, I am reminded of the line from All the Presidents Men, (1976) – “Follow the money!”  The people who speak loudest, and most often, have something to gain from their position.  Know what that is and you will know why they are speaking.  Altruism is an illusion. 

We have nothing to fear, but fear itself (paraphrase FDR 1^st Inaugural Address):  TV seems to center on the fear and anger invoking story lines.  Reasonable reporting and analysis shall not be tolerated at the national level.

They Say Clothing Makes the Man

This will be a post seen by only a handful of people, for I won’t post it to Facebook as I am wont to do for most of my posts, but I did want to jot down a couple of thoughts I’ve had about the ongoing cycle of political posturing, and violence, regarding the removal of Confederate commemorative statues, the white supremacists, and their opponents the BLM and Antifa (Anti-fascist).

Many of the millennial youth agree that if the statues offend someone they should be torn down, others argue they are part of our history and should remain.  As a society, we have the right to change our minds about things we’ve done in the past, and for better or worse we have elected people to make those choices for us.  This is the way it is in a Republic.  The fact we may not like the choices of our elected officials is why we have the protection of the 1^st Amendment and the right to protest those decisions, or protest the protestors of the decisions.

But with the KKK, BLM, Antifa, or any other hate group we cross over the line where intimidation or violence serve as political sledge hammers to force people into line.  The fact some groups are supported by one party while others are condemned only serves to reinforce for the average person the party that offers them shelter sees political gain in their hate.

So, we come to this question.  What is the difference between a fascist and an anti-fascist?  The color of their clothing.  One likes brown (or white), the other likes black.   

  As far as I can tell that is the only difference. Oh, their supporters will go on and on about how stark the contrast, and how evil fascism is for all the people the Nazis or Japanese killed when they controlled power, but is that relevant?  Do we really think the anti-fascists or any racially driven movement wouldn’t violate another’s human rights if given half a chance?  

   I don’t.

Living in the Age of Tycoons

The industrial age of the nineteenth century saw the rise of the tycoon.  Men who by the strength of personalities, good fortune, and willingness to take risks rose to control the economy of the United States.  They acquired great wealth in a time when most of the country was struggling to make ends meet, and support themselves.

They have left an unmistakable imprint on the America of today, but in their time, they were feared and despised by those whose lives they controlled and the politicians they had not bought.  Names like Andrew Carnage, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt controlled the critical industries of steel, oil, and transportation, and did everything within their power to eliminate competition, and gain a monopoly.  This became such a central issue to our economy that Theodore Roosevelt set out to break them, and their stranglehold on the nation through the courts, after Congress wrote anti-monopoly laws to force competition.

Andrew Carnegie

John D. Rockefeller

Cornelius Vanderbilt

In the 20^th Century we saw a similar pattern with the likes of Henry Ford and John Paul Getty, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Sam Walton and the Koch Brothers.  Men who saw a need, created a product, and through strength of personality grew their businesses, while they amassed billions of dollars in wealth.  Their vision, their willingness to take risk, and ability to dominate their competition stands as a testament that no matter the rules or hurdles placed before someone, a select few will find a way to separate themselves from the average man or woman.

John Paul Getty

Warren Buffet

Bill Gates

As if proof of this statement is necessary, here we are in the 21^st Century and who do we find as this age’s industrial tycoons.  We are in the age of information and advanced technology so it seems fitting to recognize Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Eric Schmidt of Alphabet Corp (owns Google), and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.  Are these men any different than the tycoons of the 19^th century?

Jeff Bezos

Eric Schmidt

Mark Zuckerberg

Although I am sure they would cite their pure humanitarian interests I think the answer is obvious by how they run their corporations.  Just like the tycoons of the 19^th and 20^th century they will do whatever they can get away with to dominate their market and eliminate, or at least minimize, the potential for a rival to take away market share or profit.  They, like their role models of the earlier times, will also make their profits on the back of the average employee and will side with whatever causes they believe will improve market share.  A recent case study with Google serves as a good illustration.  Despite Google’s discrimination in its hiring, promotion, and pay for women, when an employee had the gall to justify why this might be the case he was immediately fired for questioning the public position of the company.  The only true difference I see is those 19^th century tycoons would probably have had the employee beaten to show him or her who is really in charge.

Today we see Google coming under increasing anti-trust litigation, and attacks from various governments for its failure to pay, what they believe to be, appropriate taxes.  The same is true for Amazon.  Facebook is just a bit different, but we frequently hear how it, as a private organization, will make a determination on what speech it will allow, and what speech it won’t.  Since Facebook has not been classified a public utility I believe they have a right to do so here in the US.  Of course, in China, Russia, and much of the rest of the world, how Facebook edits content is more in the hands of the host nations.  It’s willingness to modify its standards to ensure national access and government support is in the finest traditions of the industrial tycoons.

At the end of the day the central focus of a rising tycoon is on the accumulation of wealth, it is only later in life do they try and figure out how to leave a favorable legacy.  For those who condemn the 1%, tell me how that condemnation will alter the drive and desire of those who strive to be in that group?