Obvious Antithesis to “Yes, we can”

While it may be obvious to some, I feel the need to point this out to all. And the move is relatively simple: What is the opposite of “yes?” “No.”

So, it might be very easy, via the transitive property, to say the alternative to “Yes, we can” is “No, we can’t.” But this additional phrase complicates the matter. It is not as simple as adding the phrase to the opposite of the first word.

Now certainly, it is important in any decision to examine whether it is possible to do something. I cannot buy a flying car – perhaps not because of costs or ideology or the usefulness of a flying car – because they do not exist.

But quite aside from the initial examination of whether a thing is possible, it is necessary to look at whether a thing ought be done. For the most part, within the political arena, the possibilities of things are foregone conclusions – especially for the left.

To emphasize the point, Thomas Sowell writes in The Vision of the Anointed:

“Solutions” are out there waiting to be found, like eggs at an Easter egg hunt. Intractable problems with painful trade-offs are simply not part of the vision of the anointed. Problems exist only because other people are not as wise or as caring, or not as imaginative and bold, as the anointed.

With the “anointed” being the left, it is obvious that they take for granted the possibility of almost anything.

The new commercials railing on “clean coal” exemplify this point entirely. Environmentalists use extreme sarcasm to point out that “clean coal” is not free from pollution and carbon emissions. Well hoo-ray for these enlightened and reasonable fellows. So, in conclusion, we are left with what, exactly? So we cease using “clean coal” as a result of it not being 100% free of pollution? Apparently, “progressive” liberals should now be referred to as “all or nothing” liberals.

(This point falls so closely to Sowell’s other point about solutions and trade-offs, but as he is far more intelligent and published than I, you should let him tell you.)

Of course, this is ridiculous. If no action could ever be taken to incrementally affect a negative attribute in society, persuasion would be lost. Entirely. This is no small point. It is absolutely as totalitarian as possibly to remove the ability for incremental progress in favor of absolute solvency. (Not to mention, it isn’t possible, in most cases.)

This brings me to my next point: the area of diminishing returns. Statistically, we can demonstrate that certain policies can diminish, for instance, corporate theft, to a very few instances, or dollars. (Hiring a theft-prevention manager is an example.) But, to eliminate it completely, the corporation would have to monitor 100% of the activity inside its own walls, which would be so costly, it would outweigh the amount of money saved on the stolen property. So the company can effectively reduce say, 98% of theft reasonably, and the last 2% is acceptable for effective operations.

With these premises laid out, I should not need to demonstrate the applications it has to our country’s current situation:

1: AIG executives should be left alone. (They should never have been made a focus of politicians in the first place.)

2. Failing companies should be allowed to fail. (Our brilliant politicians believe, and have for a long while, that dollars, and not innovative ideas, solve problems. This is not the case. Here, an economic model picked up by several lending institutions is shown not to work (referring to the packaging of bad mortgages). And Congress says, “Well, it’s money they need.” No, it isn’t money that they need. It is adaptability. And it is this and nothing else.)

4. Relying on Congress (Obama, Geithener, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell and a lot of others) to solve any issues in the economy is absurd. These people have not said one impressive, knowledgeable, insightful thing about the economy since this crisis began. Why? Because they are experts in a different field (namely, the field of using issues as a political football in order to “score” an election victory). None of them know how to do anything with a barrel of oil, besides maybe light it on fire. None of them have apparently ever read the Constitution, Free to Choose, Atlas Shrugged, The Vision of the Anointed, Basic Economics, the GOP Platform, or the 2009 Stimulus Bill.

5. Relying on TV news guys to parrot the above fools is equally absurd. (Looking at Rachel Maddow, Keith Oberman, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, David Gregory, Donnie Deutsch, etc.) It is the blind taking directions from the blind. Especially given the antics of 24 hour news stations these days, allowing all of 180 seconds for an “interview” with an expert amid shouting between hosts and panels, only to go back to the indoctrinated panel members for a “discussion” on the character, references, and history of the expert. It would remind me of a televised interview if I didn’t already know that there are no jobs available these days.

6. There is a reasonable, succinct alternative to “Yes, we can.” It is “No, we shouldn’t.”

Further, I advise that radical terrorists must be destroyed.