Has America's Best Career Path Become Federal Gigs?

Mommy, Mommy When I Grow Up I Want to Be A Federal Worker

Posted by Scott Redler

 

Things were sure different when I was growing up. My parents taught me the value of a strong work ethic because that was how you got ahead in life. I shoveled snow off neighborhood driveways starting at age 10, and by the time I hit 13 I was busing tables at a local restaurant where, at 16, I became a waiter. In high school I hit the books hard with dreams of going to college and becoming a doctor, lawyer or fortune 500 CEO. Sadly, our society has allowed itself to drift in an altogether different direction.

“Anyone who wants to work an interesting job, earn a generous salary, enjoy unbeatable, rock-solid job security and, most importantly, advance the public good in pivotal ways would probably favor the federal sector,” said Lily Whiteman, federal careers expert. This quote represents a troubling new reality in today’s American society: the public sector has become more attractive than the private sector. Today, government favoritism towards public workers has skewed the sense of values that is the American capitalist hallmark.

Ms. Whiteman continues on to say, “. . .government employees seem to work shorter hours, have more vacation time, access unbelievable healthcare, never worry about job security and even make more money than people slugging it out in the private sector.” Sounds like a dream job, right? Work less, don’t worry about losing your job over poor performance, get better benefits, and get paid more for doing a job that contributes very little to the nation’s output. So what, now, are parents supposed to tell their kids, “weasel your way into a government job and you will be set for life”? The reality of the situation is that the government always looks out for its own, even when the economy is spinning down the drain.

The growth of public sector compensation and benefits in the context of a global recession is not only a travesty, it is a serious impediment to the future growth of our country. Why would a graduate from a top university pursue a job in the private sector (in which jobs are now even more scarce) when, after nine years of pay hikes and benefits in the context of a struggling economy, the compensation of federal civil servants is now, on average, twice that of private sector workers?

Recently, another $26 billion has been appropriated to the States, which, President claims, is about “saving the jobs of teachers and other essential professionals”. It wasn’t about saving jobs, it was about using tax payer money to pay off teacher union bosses, reward them for past political favors and to get the votes for the Democrats for the all-important November election. The additional funding is also to help bail out the bloated pension plans that guarantee a healthy yearly gain when the S&P is down over 10%-12% for the decade! Washington doesn’t seem to care about the busted 401k system of the private sector worker, they just want to shove their free-spending agenda down our throats while they raise taxes.

The United States right now needs to be moving in the opposite direction from the one we are currently heading in. We need the brightest college graduates innovating in the private sector, not working as overcompensated, underperforming federal workers. We need lower tax rates to stimulate private industry. We need to reorganize the flawed and broken pension system. We need to stop bailing out the unions in return for votes.

I’m just a technical analyst, but until we restore the core values that have driven this nation since its founding, our country will keep heading down this dangerous and self-destructive path. Until we correct these fundamental problems and get back on the road to growth, the stock market will not reward investors.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

The Islam I Left Behind

by By Amil Imani 

Looking back, I see no particular time or event that, in one stroke, severed my link with Islam. There was nothing nearly as dramatic as what reportedly happened to Paul on the road to Damascus transforming him from a rabid Christian persecutor to a devoted follower of Jesus.

My alienation with Islam started as far back as I could discern things. More to the point, I never embraced Islam in the first place, although I was born and raised in a Muslim family.

I believe in a modified version of Occam's Razor, popularly known as the law of parsimony. To me, an explanation with the fewest assumptions is either the correct one or the preferable one. The best answers, more often than not, are the simple answers.

My search for answers has taken me on a journey of discovery in the competing, crowded, and confusing marketplace of ideas. I noticed a universal human need to believe in some power or forces beyond ourselves and beyond the finite and the corporal. If there were no God, we humans would make one up, it is said. In order to satisfy this seemingly innate need, three major contentions have emerged: Rejection-ism, characterized by dismissing any and all gods; Deism, positing a god who created the universe, set it in motion, and let it play out without interfering in it; and God-ism, with many gods, that demanded a super-god to sort them out.

Of the three camps, God-ism seemed to me the most attractive and troubling at the same time. And Islam's God-ism -- Allah-ism-steeped in superstition, replete with nonsensical explanations, and discriminatory Sharia law, repulsed me. All I needed to guide my life was contained in the ancient Zoroastrian triad of good thoughts, good speech, and good deeds. The Ten Commandments are a sensible extension of the above triad and the Universal Charter of Human Rights is its further elaboration.

Things Islamic not only did not resonate with me, they often clashed head on with what I valued and loved. What appealed to me and even enchanted me were more often than not taboo in Islam or anathema to the creed. I loved life, beauty in all its forms, poetry, the ancient Iranian culture and traditions. I loved laughter, celebrations of joy such as birthdays, our yearly festivities of Nowruz, my favorite that lasts for thirteen days. Nowruz, this ancient festival, has been celebrated for thousands of years by my people; it ushers in the spring, welcomes renewal of life, and expresses optimism for the year ahead to bless us with good health, abundant food, family, and friends in the land of a civilized free people.

I owe my parents a great debt of gratitude for not pounding into me a blind belief. They allowed, and even encouraged me to think for myself, to chart my path in life. Father was my model. He treated Mother and the girls as unquestioned equals. Mother, by her deeds, taught me that my friends, who happened to be Muslims, Jews, Christians, Baha'is and Zoroastrians were every bit as worthy and Iranian as we were. She welcomed them all to our home and often at our table.

From very early on, I was troubled by Islam. It labeled people who were all alike differently and built walls separating them instead of bringing them together. Islam, the dominant religion of my native country, stigmatized non-Muslims and even persecuted them. I began questioning the value of religion. I couldn't see much in Islam that attracted me and I knew just about nothing regarding the religion of my friends and neighbors. I sought answers, not from the mullah at the mosque because I had a feeling I wouldn't like his answer anyway. I had heard their line more than I cared to. I began reading as widely as I could and it helped.

I discovered, that, historically, as far as it can be determined, all human groups lived by codes of beliefs. The codes were far from universally uniform, either in context or formality. Yet, they all served the critical function of prescribing behaviors that enhanced the welfare of the group while proscribing those that undermined it. In tandem with the emergence of the code of conduct was the practice of rituals. While the code of conduct secured order within the group, rituals gave it a sense of identity, essential for solidarity of the "in-group" against the ever-present threats of the "out-group."

Over time, the code of conduct and rituals merged, to various degrees, to serve the group. Some examples are religious ceremonies, secular observances, and the mixtures of the two.

Codes of conduct require enforcement. The physically strong, and perhaps more cunning, emerged as group leaders and enforcer -- Chiefs, Sheiks, Earls, Lords, and Kings are continuations of this line of authority. Yet, all along there was a realization that an authority or authorities with much greater powers transcended that of the human. The ancient Greeks' various gods, and the pre-Islamic idolaters of the Arabian Peninsula represent this line of thinking.

Among some human groupings, the utilitarian value of prescriptions and proscriptions for the group evolved to the belief in opposing superhuman powers. Good things, such as bountiful rain, great harvest, and plentiful game, for instance, were seen as the offerings of the benevolent superhuman, while famine, earthquakes, plagues and so forth were attributed to the actions of the malevolent superhuman. The Zoroastrians concept of Ahuramazda -- the god of good -- and Ahriman -- the lord of evil represents this line of belief.

At some point, monotheism appeared on the scene. The Abrahamic religions represent this line of development. One Supreme Being was posited as the all-powerful, all-everything author of the universe. It simplified things greatly. No need to supplicate many gods, or please one and antagonize another. This Supreme Being communicated with humans through intermediaries of his choosing, some so claimed. And through these intermediaries, He prescribed laws and ordinances. Obedience to His laws attracted His blessings and disobedience incurred His wrath, often administered by human agencies in this world and more to come in the purported next world.

The God of the monotheist is a hands-on God. And Islam's Allah is extremely hands-on. He leaves virtually no room for anything or anyone to do anything without his full knowledge and authorization. In the Quran, it is explicitly stated that not even a leaf falls from a tree without the decree and knowledge of Allah -- just one of innumerable assertions that define the all-everything Islamic superhuman.

In more recent times, another form of evolution appeared on the scene. The work of Sigmund Freud represents this line of development. God was marginalized. God was reduced to a hypothetical father figure who would reward or punish the children, depending on their actions. Yet, a form of duality was posited within the individual: the Id representing the impulsive, the ungoverned by the code of conduct, the amoral, devoted exclusively to self-gratification, and the Superego standing for the law-abiding, the moral, and the caring for others.

My love of reading the inexhaustible treasure of exquisite Iranian poetry helped nurture me. Along the way, I learned about and revered Cyrus the Great and a host of other Iranians who personified all that is good and in line with the great benevolent God, Ahuramazda. The more I learned and witnessed about Islam, the more it repelled me, for it is much more in accord with that of the agent of evil, Ahriman.

Islam glorifies death by calling many of its martyrs the solders of Allah. Islam preaches superiority of the "we," and inferiority of the "other." It is a creed steeped in superstition, demands blind obedience to authority, and sanctions just about every form of freedom -- the very precious gift of the Creator Ahuramazda that makes us humans. Everything in Islam is in black and while. One is either Muslim - good -- or non-Muslim -- bad. Men are superior; women are subservient. This life is worthless and should be offered for the pleasure of Allah as defined by the clergy.

Islam is a creed of a primitive age. It is fixated in time and place; it harbors the ambition of taking the 21st century world back 14 centuries and ruling it by its dogma of intolerance, injustice and death. Yet, Islam is not only an obsolete vestige of a defunct era, but itself is an infinitely fractured belief that can hardly put its own home in order. The numerous Islamic sects are at each other's throats; sub-sects and schools despise one another as much as they hate the non-Muslims. Hatred, not love, drives Islam.

I came to the realization that the root cause of my people's degradation and suffering is Islam. It is a creed that was imposed on an enlightened, tolerant and free people at the point of the sword by savages hailing from the Arabian Peninsula during the seventh century with promises of booty and women in this world and glorious eternal sensual rewards in the promised paradise of Allah in the next. With each passing day, I rejoice more and more in my good fortune; in my ability to avoid the yoke of Islamic slavery and its blinders that imprisons a billion and half people by walls of superstition, hatred of others, and celebration of death.

It is distressing to witness Islam making headway in the traditionally non-Islamic lands. Masses of brainwashed faithful semi-literate Muslims, badly underserved in their own native lands, are moving to countries where the "infidels" welcome them with material wealth denied to them in their own homeland as well as the liberty to subvert the very societies that give them refuge.

Even more distressing are those good-hearted simpleton non-Muslims who are up in arms defending the rights of Muslims to practice their religion in free societies such as the USA. These well-meaning, badly misguided folks don't realize that practicing Islam requires subverting and destroying any and all non-Islamic beliefs and practices. All one needs to see this deadly aspect of Islam is to examine how Islam is practiced in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, and even the so-called more moderate Islamic states such as Egypt.

The overflowing treasuries of the oil-enriched Islamic rulers finance legions of pampered clergy with a highly vested interest in maintaining and promoting the creed. Islamist apologists and mercenaries are collaborating shamelessly with the clergy in portraying a greatly deceptive picture of what Islam is in order to win a highly coveted prize -- the West.

Truth can be distorted and even hidden for a time. Yet, it invariably emerges. Thus is the case with Islam. Although it is, by its deceptive means, attracting some adherents in foreign lands, it is losing them by the tens of thousands in its own region as more and more people see for themselves the evil belief and deeds of this creed. It is from the ranks of the newly emancipated, that voices of alarm are raised to warn mankind about the true nature of Islam. Even a cursory examination of the teachings of Islam, the life of Muhammad himself, and the conduct of Muslims in the world provide irrefutable evidence to the fact that this creed, called religion, is anathema to all that is cherished by civilized and fair-minded human beings.

I am not against Muslims. I condemn Islam and those who support and promote it. In the same sense that I am not against slaves, I am against slavery and those who advocate and advance it. The very practice of Islam is tantamount to perpetuating and practicing slavery. Slavery enslaves the body, while Islam entraps the mind. Both ideals and practices are abhorrent and detrimental to the realization of our highest hopes as human beings.

I left Islam behind, because that's where it belongs -- behind in history. I summon Muslims to cast off this belief. I urge all people to resist Islam's encroachment, not to be deceived by its sanitized version presented in the non-Islamic lands, and to encourage Muslims to free themselves from its shackles.

Amil Imani is the author of Obama meets Ahmadinejad.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

How the Mainstream Media Misses the News

by Jennifer Rubin

For a year, a small number of conservative media outlets have been reporting on the New Black Panther Party scandal – a slam-dunk voter-intimidation case documented on videotape, which the government won by default but that Obama administration appointees ordered career lawyers to dismiss against the NBPP and two individual defendants. (The injunction against a third individual was drastically curtailed.)

On the web at CONTENTIONS, Hot Air.com, and National Review Online, and on the pages of the Weekly Standard and the Washington Times, readers could watch the story unfold as bit by bit an extraordinary tale came into focus and the stone wall erected by the Holder Justice Department crumbled.

The liberal media, meanwhile, ignored the story even though the allegations were explosive. Had the Obama team, in concert with the NAACP, quashed the case because of an ideological aversion to filing cases against minorities? Did the head of Obama’s Civil Rights division provide misleading testimony under oath when he said he had never heard of such a sentiment? Was there a new Obama policy to file only civil rights cases against white defendants? Had the Justice Department acted illegally in preventing its attorneys from testifying pursuant to a subpoena?

These and other issues, including the potential involvement of Attorney General Eric Holder (whom the Justice Department admitted in written responses was briefed on the matter), were explored on the pages of conservative print outlets and on right-leaning blogs. From the liberal media? Silence.

Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Lamar Smith (R-Texas) dueled with the Justice Department, seeking answers about the case for a year. Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, was grilled by House Republicans before the House Judiciary Committee as to why the case had been dismissed and whether his attorneys were hostile to claims that didn’t support the “traditional” civil rights model (i.e., bigoted whites vs. minority victims).

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights launched an investigation. The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (whose investigation — botched, it turned out — of John Yoo and Jay Bybee was breathlessly reported by every newspaper and TV news network) did as well, although it didn’t bother to question the NBPP trial-team attorneys. None of this raised any eyebrows in the newsrooms of the broadcast networks or liberal news magazines. (During this period, Newsweek did, however, run a great many stories on Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.)

In June, a whistleblower, J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who worked on the case, stepped forward to give public testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Fox News drilled down on the story, and cautiously CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post gave brief accounts.

Finally, last weekend the Post’s ombudsman, Andy Alexander, and Howard Kurtz on CNN’s Reliable Sources raised the question that conservative reporters and columnists have been asking for a year: where have the mainstream media been? Bob Schieffer, under Kurtz’s questioning, said that had he known about the story, he would have questioned Holder on Face the Nation the prior week. He acknowledged it was a real story that he now “cared” about.

Alexander forthrightly chastised his own paper for missing the boat. And finally this Tuesday, NBC Nightly News ran a segment on the story but eliminated any reference to the most explosive allegation, namely that the dismissal of the case stemmed from an aversion to a color-blind application of the law.

So what happened here, and will the mainstream media atone for their yearlong sin of omission?  As to the “why,” one could chalk up the liberal media’s sloth to a busy news year (“we had bigger stories to cover”) were it not for the fact that the non-coverage of the NBPP scandal fits a pattern.

This isn’t the first time liberal outlets ignored a story harmful to the Obama administration that was covered almost exclusively by conservative media until the incident was virtually over. Chas Freeman, who had expressed radical views about China, 9/11, and Israel, was appointed and forced to withdraw from a national-security advisory role before the mainstream media caught up. The controversy over Van Jones, the radical “9/11 truther” working as the administration’s “Green Czar,” was ignored by the mainstream media until he resigned.

These episodes repeatedly place the liberal media in an uncomfortable position. When the news can no longer be ignored, they must catch up their readers and viewers on stories they haven’t covered while delicately sidestepping how their crack investigators missed a significant controversy. At times, the op-ed pages of these outlets slip in news to their readers that their reporters have ignored. (The Washington Post editorial page provided that service on the Chas Freeman debacle.)

The easiest explanation may be correct: these outlets don’t want to report “bad news” that might harm the Democratic agenda. Really, when was the last negative story about conservatives that the New York Times “missed”? If the missed news stories were evenly distributed between those “bad for conservatives” and those “bad for liberals,” the evidence of bias would not be so strong.

Such bias, however, need not be as conscious or blatant as the most aggrieved of the conservative critics claim. Liberal outlets have, in essence, insulated themselves from a whole segment of the news. Campaign-donation records and polling reveal that liberal news outlets don’t have many (in some cases, any) conservative-leaning staff members. It’s not hard to conclude that they therefore have few, if any sources, inclined to provide information harmful to liberals. They have, for example, plenty of contacts with the NAACP, but how many of them have Justice Department sources who object to a race-conscious enforcement of civil rights laws? I’m going out on a limb: none.

Moreover, the reporters and columnists who populate the New York Times or the Washington Post and broadcast-news networks are not inclined to follow, let alone take seriously, reporting from conservative outlets. Would the network news anchors have missed a year of the NBPP scandal if they or a single person on their staff read some of the right-leaning blogs or print publications? It would have been hard. If the reporters, producers, and editors of liberal media only read each other’s publications and watch each other’s programs — and they all have exactly the same narrow news “judgment” — a lot is going to slip by.

We shouldn’t be too optimistic that the liberal media outlets will correct their errors, hire more ideologically diverse staff, cast a wider net on investigative reporting, and be on the lookout for Obama scandals. Even in its mea culpa mode, the delinquent media did not exactly come clean.

Schieffer claimed in his interview that he “missed” the NBPP story because he was away on vacation the week that Adams testified. Presumably he was not on vacation for a year. There was no hint that his network (and his competitors) not only missed the story but was also beaten to it -- for a year. To have acknowledged that would have been to confess that they were not simply busy but blinded to a big story that conservative reporters spied very early on.

Nor did NBC fess up that the case had implications far beyond a single investigation. Again, it would involve dredging up much explosive news that had gone unreported for a very long time.

The problem is cumulative, and the pattern has a self-fulfilling quality to it. Whistleblowers in a liberal administration (who are often conservative, just as those in a conservative one may very well be liberal) are not going to beat a path to liberal outlets that they suspect will bury or distort their accounts. So even if they wanted to, at this point, liberal news organizations are seriously handicapped in uncovering such stories, no matter how important or intriguing. Once you forfeit your journalistic credibility, it is very hard to get sources – and readers – back.

(Click on bold headline for complete story)

XYNG is now in!