There has been growing talk recently about consolidating school districts here in the Alamo City, much of it driven by “governance issues,” financial problems, “corruption,” etc.  As a general rule, going in that direction is not ideal.  Control moves further away from the people, and leaves those in power less accountable.

Nevertheless, my sentiments have drifted toward the pro-side, but not in the way one might suspect. 

We should have one Greater San Antonio zone of public education where children can attend whichever autonomously-owned and operated school their parents believe is best for them.  They would pay for it with a proportionate amount of tax revenue earmarked for that purpose.

As with all publicly-funded operations, the ideal way to do this would be with a zone-wide sales tax.  It is the most efficient form of taxation, and unlike targeting income, it does not penalize work, savings or investment (it actually encourages the latter two), the very actions that power our prosperity.

Alas, odious though property taxes are, amending the Texas constitution may be required to eliminate that option lest we be subject to both. 

Once the fog of any U.S. constitutional misinterpretation and/or property-wealth elitism has cleared, the logic of the choice option becomes apparent.

First, there is no reasonable explanation for why this decision should rest anywhere but in the hands of children’s legal guardians.  When discerning parents spend their scarce time and resources focusing on what’s best for their families, the optimal result for society is more likely to follow. 

Some might respond that not all parents are so judicious.  Unfortunately, there’s truth to that.  We see examples of it too often. 

However, putting choice where it belongs would, to one degree or another, compel less engaged parents to get more involved.  Regardless, should our education system, or anything else for that matter, be geared around those who go through life in such an inattentive manner?

Once the “three Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic)” are accounted for, schools would be free to specialize, and set their own curriculum.  Parents could then go shopping.

A former professor of mine at UT-San Antonio, Dr. John Merrifield, has made a living on this topic, wading into these waters yet again with his forthcoming book “School System Reform: Why and How is a Price-less Tale.”  The title alludes to a key ingredient that’s been missing in grammar school: price signals.

My favorite example to use in class to illustrate the power of price signals is flat-screen televisions.  When I first bought a 40” or 42” fifteen or so years ago, I shelled out a few thousand dollars.  Now, you can get one for few hundred bucks, or less!

To correct this problem in K-12, schools would be free to set their own tuition.  Invariably, this is where 5-second thinkers throw their arms up in a huff.  But go back to the T.V. example.

If one school sets its tuition high, it would certainly need to deliver the goods.  If it didn’t, it would not stay in business long.  If it did succeed, not only would it be providing a superior service, it would attract competition for the new standard it has set, and when supply increases, price has nowhere to go but down.

This all assumes of course a light regulatory touch.

If this is good enough when it comes to watching a ballgame or T.V. drama in HD, in multiple rooms, why isn’t it good enough for our kids’ education?

Another possible positive outcome came to mind recently thanks to a group of parents promoting an organization called RootEd. 

It encourages parents to get to know their schools, something with which I wholeheartedly agree, having volunteered a number of times for Watch D.O.G.S.: dads patrolling hallways, spending time with their child/children’s class, helping out in P.E., etc.  It was always a delightful, often inspiring experience.  Having lunch with three different sets of friends never ceased to amuse me (my four daughters range in age from 16-10). 

I believe however, that the authors of that piece, and perhaps others, use the words “neighborhood” and “community“ too synonymously.

“Neighborhood” is self-explanatory.  Your neighbor lives right next door, maybe even a couple doors down.  “Community” is somewhat broader, perhaps a group of neighborhoods.  Possibly even a city. 

Many of us are “rooted” in our respective neighborhoods.  We keep an eye out for each other.  Our children play together at the same playgrounds and parks.  We set up homeowners associations to address common concerns.   

How well though, do we know our fellow city dwellers from across town?

To be sure, many of us work with folks who fit that criteria.  If you’re fortunate, those relations are good.  I see staff commiserate regularly with executives about fantasy football, for instance.  That’s important because we all have our eye on the same ball; survival/success in our respective industry.

Imagine however, parents from a city’s economically distressed neighborhoods, rubbing elbows with their counterparts from more affluent areas because of a common choice they made for their children.  Maybe the former will come to be less likely to view the latter as unbothered by real-life stresses and concerns, while the latter might see that “shiftless” or “irresponsible” stereotypes don’t apply to all people in lower tax brackets.

Our K-12 segregation almost makes one wonder if those in power prefer it that way in order to maintain their electoral bases.  By knocking down these artificial walls that serve to fuel class warfare, our cities/counties could very well be woven more tightly together.

It would also help teachers, some of whom have good, innovative ideas for how to educate and/or run schools.  They need only be free to do so, rather than constrained by competing with entrenched institutions that have built-in claims on the funds.

And those are the only folks who wouldn’t benefit, so dependent on the status quo that they think they know better than us.  Do they?
​
That’s where parental choice comes in.

​The year before she hit it big in the action flick “Speed,” Sandra Bullock played a police officer in the Sylvester Stallone/Wesley Snipes futuristic crime movie “Demolition Man.”  Criminal Snipes and policeman Stallone are cryogenically imprisoned in 1996 after Stallone’s allegedly rogue efforts to catch Snipes result in civilian fatalities.  Fast forward almost forty years to the utopian San Angeles, when Stallone is thawed to catch a reanimated Snipes after he escapes from a parole hearing. 
 
In one scene, Snipes attempts to construct a gun as lightly-armed police officers close in to apprehend him.  He proceeds to wipe out the entire squad.  “We’re not trained to handle this kind of violence!” one officer exclaims.
 
This comes to mind every time the inevitable gun-control debate rages after a mass shooting.  Who wouldn’t want a society so peaceful and free of violence that not even law enforcement officers carry lethal weapons?  Unfortunately, that’s not the society we live in, but we’re closer to it than we’re led to believe.
 
According to the Pew Research Center, violent crime has “fallen sharply,” between 49% and 74% over the last generation.  Moreover, after cresting in the 1970s and 1980s, the murder rate has halved to around 5 people per 100,000 citizens.  Regrettably, this type of news doesn’t get ratings and is incompatible with opportunistic political narratives.
 
It also provides inadequate fodder for us to blow off steam. 
 
Instead, one tribe exploits the tragedy to insult the spirituality of the other by ripping the supposed fecklessness of “thoughts & prayers,” while the other tribe retorts with assertions of naiveté.  We’re both guilty of this.  Less hotheaded dialogue is more likely to build a consensus behind possible enhancements to our security.
 
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia allow judges, via so-called “red-flag” laws, to order authorities to confiscate firearms from individuals deemed to be a threat to the safety of family and/or law enforcement.  The problem is that this runs afoul of the “due process” clause of the U.S. Constitution. 
 
Tighten that up by allowing the gun owner to defend herself before permitting the seizure of her property, along with enacting “criminal penalties for anyone bringing false accusations,” as the Wall Street Journal suggested recently, and perhaps more support could be garnered for this safeguard.
 
We could discuss other proposals, but the way we all tend to talk to each other concerns us nearly as much.  This is something we feel should be addressed, starting with words like that, “should.”
 
We’ve talked to our daughters before (six between us) about “needs,” “wants,” etc.: “You don’t need the latest smartphone; you want the latest smartphone.”  Some folks seem peculiarly comfortable instructing other adults in similar fashion: “No one should own a semi-automatic rifle.  Why do you need one?” 
 
We’re entitled to our respective opinions, and to live life by our own personal set of values.  When did we become so presumptuous though, as to impose them on others? 
 
By the same token, perhaps calling into question people’s ability to control their emotions after such slaughters is out of bounds as well.  Who isn’t saddened when the news breaks?  The most heinous amongst these unspeakable acts, when the victims are children, put every loving parent on edge when their phone flashes a subsequent news alert. 
 
Similarly, there’s a disregard for those who connect the dots between something like the precipitous slide in Venezuelan society, and the part of the second amendment that was intended as a check against an oppressive national government. 
 
The once-prosperous South American nation banned the private sale of guns in 2012 ostensibly to address “criminal violence.”  That didn’t work, serving only to leave the general populace “defenseless.” 
 
Incidentally, those who push for more “sensible gun control” tend to be the same ones who support politicos who favor greater taking of personal property and more restrictions on individual liberty.
 
Once triggered, the pro-gun crowd will respond with denunciations like “you’re weak,” “you’re a coward,” “you can’t protect your own family,” and the all-CAPS cycle goes back into full-swing.  When did we become so brazen as to discard decorum just because the text on the screen is coming from hundreds of miles away? 
 
We’ve been around this block too many times. 
 
After we’re done converting our passions into a withering fire of social media posts, we fall back on outsourcing our individual conclusions to ready-made demagogues eager to translate these sentiments into votes. 
 
These master panderers are willing to do so regardless if it means criminalizing some of the most law-abiding citizens, nevermind that the rifles currently in their crosshairs are used in many fewer homicides than handguns.  Moreover, it’s difficult to tell whether these so-called leaders are ignorant of the law, or if their motives exist on a slippery slope given how wide of a net they use to classify “semiautomatic.”
 
While these cyber-combatants and their (prospective) representatives are going at it, we’re sitting here wondering if Americans have simply become lazy about our personal safety. 
 
We know background checks, even when properly executed, are not terribly effective.  At our most logical core, we know gun-free zones are target-rich environments, and ever since we’ve been watching cops-and-robbers shows, we know, by definition, that criminals do not follow the law.  They’re going to get what they want, whether it’s banned weapons or materials to make a bomb.
 
We can’t even fully rely on the police.  The Supreme Court affirmed as much, 7-2, when they declared in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that the cops have no “constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.”  We are our own first line of defense. 
 
Yet, as the manufacture of firearms and applications for concealed permits have both risen in recent years, the percentage of ownership among American households has trended down for more than a generation. 
 
We’re not saying everyone should own a firearm.  They are clearly intimidating and dangerous objects.  Just like knives or chemicals, mishandling them can cause serious injury, and obviously death. 
 
It’s not a stretch though, to believe that there is room at the margins to add a few folks with an “if not me, then who?” attitude.  
 
All of us would be scared beyond measure to be in the middle of something so terrifying, but there are some of us who couldn’t live with ourselves if we didn’t attempt to thwart the attack, or run headlong toward the danger in order to save others.    
 
“I grab as many (kids) as possible because that’s what I was trained to do,” said Private First Class Glendon Oakley of his heroics during the recent shooting in El Paso.
 
There are no guarantees in life, particularly in the midst of such a chaotic situation.  However, if more citizens found “if not me, then who?” within themselves, it’s hard to argue we wouldn’t be safer.
 
While fear would naturally be our first instinct, take a minute right now to imagine what would be at stake.  What is the shooter threatening?  Lives are at risk, some of whom may be your family.  When someone is a menace to your child’s survival, what is your attitude toward that person? 
 
A little more than fifteen years after “Speed,” Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for portraying just such a parent.
 
No longer in the idyllic haven of 2032 San Angeles, where “anything that is not good for you is … illegal,” she was staring down a gang-banger in “The Blind Side,” on his turf, after he threatened her son, assuring him that she’s “always packin’.”  No doubt a little nervous and fearful during this confrontation, there was a noticeable tinge of anger in her tone. 
 
A similar mix could be what’s driving El Paso residents in droves to concealed-carry training, and why churches are beefing up security measures for parishioners.  Maybe we’d be better served turning our ire away from each other, and channeling this fear and anger toward utilizing this constitutional right we are fortunate to have.  

Like most kids, mine clamor for their own smartphone.  If they keep their grades up and help out around the house, they’re more likely to get one.

Once in hand, they’re prone to download game apps like Aquapark, Minecraft, etc.  Music and/or social media apps are probably the extent of any overlap they have with their old man.  Instead, mine is filled with news and reference apps, including the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the U.S. Constitution.

The exceptional guideline embodied in our founding documents comes to mind when reading particular defenses of socialism, like those put forth by writer David Cay Johnston, and more locally by Peggy Rodriguez-Stover.   

They invariably point to public libraries, fire departments, social security, etc. as “socialist-based programs Americans have benefitted from” for years.  Yet, there’s always one glaring inaccuracy; many of them are local in nature.  Our Founding Fathers knew that whatever could be handled at the state and/or local level, should be.  Hence, the 10th amendment.   

Regardless, it’s disputable whether or not any of these functions are socialist in the first place. 

Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”  At best, these ubiquitous examples are simply provisions of public goods.  At worst, they represent inefficient, inferior government alternatives to private sector offerings.

Even though folks like Mr. Johnston brand the police as socialist, law enforcement is one such public good: it’s available for all to use, but usage by one does not mean another can’t also use it.  This accessibility makes it nearly impossible for a private company to supply the consequential demand. 

“While serving as the senior advisor of all police activities in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan, I witnessed a complete lack of law and order, and police who were extremely corrupt,” Col. Jason B. Blevins told me upon his retirement in June.

This separates us from such countries.  Add in the court system, and the groundwork is laid for prosperity via property rights and contract enforcement.

National defense is another public good, and at least here Ms. Stover is on solid jurisdictional ground.

Nevertheless, “it’s not socialist,” Blevins added, “but a service that provides for the ‘common defense,’” one of the primary obligations of any national government, and accordingly one of the very first duties cited in our constitution.
 
Assisting those who have been wounded serving in that capacity, and/or acclimating them back into the society they defended, essentially makes the Veterans Administration an extension of that commitment.

Nearly every other program she mentions, and some currently being proposed, is either part of the welfare state, or falls within the purview of states and/or municipalities.  Nonetheless, the quality of all of them would be improved by the injection of (more) free market discipline.

The unwillingness of congress to make logical reforms to update social security is merely the rotten icing on top of a crumbling cake that is regularly, clearly outperformed by the stock market.  In this age of readily accessible index funds, there’s little reason we should not be able to recoup some or all of our earnings that have been taken away, so that we can bolster and secure a more comfortable retirement. 

Even though education merits public support in the name of equality of opportunity, that’s not justification for government to run the whole show. 

Not only would redirecting the financial responsibility and selection process to parents be the proper thing to do, the subsequent competition to serve this demand would most likely result in higher quality and lower costs. 

Higher up that ladder, we’ve seen in recent years the fallout from federal government overreach into students’ “receiving an education at a public university”: collective debt levels nearing $2 trillion, encouraging individual students to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into the red, to earn degrees of questionable marketability. 

If community college systems want to flirt with skewing incentives, that’s their prerogative.  It’s doubtful th
ough, that this is what citizens from South Carolina, to Illinois, to Utah have in mind when it comes to the “pooling of resources.”

Unmentioned by Ms. Rodriguez-Stover is the one constitutional function that arguably comes closest to socialism: the U.S. Postal Service.  Considering it has performed so poorly over the years as to attract private competition, perhaps the omission is not surprising.

Holding these examples up as selling points is not only questionable, but their lackluster results provide little comfort for more of the same, irrespective of what you want to call it.
​
Fortunately, my daughters can pull the constitution and DoI apps down from the cloud and do their part to remedy the generally sorry grasp we have of our brilliant federalist system.  Maybe then we can take Ben Franklin up on his oft-cited challenge when asked what kind of government we have: “a republic, if you can keep it.”

Every few months I meet up with some friends at a central Texas location for a BBQ lunch.  The conversation usually revolves around politics, history, economics and the like.  Last time, one of them quipped “I learned my history from Iron Maiden.”  That’s not the first time I’ve heard that, whether tongue-in-cheek or not. 

Last May a buddy of mine came down from Austin to check out Hatebreed’s 25th anniversary tour.  Opening the show were relative newcomers Skeletal Remains, Prong, who made their mark with the 1994 tune “Snap Your Fingers, Snap Your Neck,” hardcore/thrash pioneers Agnostic Front, and one of the original death metal bands, Obituary.

We knew of most of the openers from back in the day (he and I created one-half of a wire sculpture band in high school: he made the guitarist, and I did a drum-set ala 1988 Charlie Benante of Anthrax), and I’m a huge Hatebreed fan, purveyors of the most inspirational lyrics in metal. 

On this night however, I left beaten into submission by Obituary. 

I promptly immersed myself in their world, buying five of their albums and learning to play three of their songs on bass.  I’d stay up late on weekends to watch their videos and concert clips.  I couldn’t help but notice how much fun it appeared they were having, particularly lead guitarist Kenny Andrews, who seems to always have a smile on his face.  Ironically enough, that led my thoughts to my daughters and my classes.

Their mother and I have laid many toys, books, gadgets, etc. before them to see what might snag their interest.  We’ve encouraged them in hobbies, projects, extracurricular activities about which they might be keen.  Now, with two in high school, we’re starting to chitchat about possible career paths. 

They have proven to be high-achievers, setting a great example for their two younger sisters.  We hasten to let them know that they have more choices than simply heading straight for a university.

They know that joining the military is a viable option.  They also know they could support themselves, even if temporarily, with something less than a bachelor’s degree.  One key to making that work that I remind them of ad nauseum is to spurn debt and live within your means, traits that can’t be lost on a metal musician. 

My preferred sub-genre is thrash, bands like Slayer, Exodus, Metallica et al.  While death metal music can be impressively intricate and complex, pulled off with awesome speed, the vocals are sometimes difficult to digest.  That could be the reason for the ceiling on its commercial success, not to mention the often gruesome lyrical content.  This explains why my buddy and I were both blown away by Obituary.

“This doesn’t sound so death-y as it does thrashy, doomy, and a little groovy,” we said to each other.  Moreover, John Tardy’s vocals lacked the clichéd “Cookie Monster” nature of many death metal vocalists, but are filled with all the rage, fire and full-throatedness that have made Death Angel’s Mark Osegueda and Anthrax’s Joey Belladonna a couple of my favorites.

It occurred to me only recently how modest are their lifestyles.  When you see a band take control on stage, and you’re surrounded by hundreds, if not thousands of other fans, it’s easy to think otherwise.

“I worked for almost my entire career, and it wasn’t until recently that the band has been so busy that this is all I do,” Obituary vocalist John Tardy recently told me via email.

He’s not the only one who does well to make ends meet.

A couple years ago, Cannibal Corpse vocalist George “Corpsegrinder” Fisher took the website Metal Injection along with him on one of his trips to Target to show them how he bargain shops.  When his lead guitarist Patrick O’Brien’s house caught fire last year, the news coverage showed a middle-class neighborhood that struck me as similar to the one in which my sister and I were raised.

Fortunately for these two, their band is based in Tampa, FL., where the cost of living is almost half what it is in the Bay Area, where former Testament bassist Greg Christian helped form that band.    

Christian has raised a stink more than once about his most recent departure in early 2014, calling the conditions “disgusting,” in which he was treated like little more than a “stage prop.”  Oddly lost on him is the fact that vocalist Chuck Billy and rhythm guitarist Eric Peterson “own the band,” having stuck it out during metal’s dog days of the 1990s.  They kept the enterprise afloat when bands like Exodus, Death Angel and Obituary temporarily bowed out.
They earned the right to set the terms to which Christian once agreed.

Alas, in this industry, ownership might provide only marginal benefits.  As Death Angel lead guitarist Rob Cavestany, who given his tenure presumably also has an ownership stake with Osegueda, told Billboard earlier this year that it’s not a breeze for his wife when he goes on tour, because she has to “be a single parent” while working “full-time.” 

Being in a metal band is not a path to riches, particularly if your band name doesn’t include “Sabbath” or “’Knot.”  Tardy is cognizant of this reality. 

Though he, brother/drummer John and rhythm guitarist Trevor Peres “are the owners” of the band and “make decisions together,” they understand incentives, and likely value continuity. 

“We all (including bassist Terry Butler) come home from tour with the same amount of money.  I’ve seen what happens to bands too many times when things aren’t equal.”

Some keep busy when their main gig is between recording and/or tours.

Similarly situated as a returning original member of Testament is lead guitarist Alex Skolnick.  After leaving the band in the early 1990s, he played with various other acts before diving full-time into jazz.  He returned to the band, along with  Christian, in the mid-2000s.

In addition to still shredding with Testament, Skolnick still plays jazz on the side, and has also hooked up with founding Megadeth bassist David Ellefson, from whom Christian could probably learn something. 

When he returned to Megadeth eight years after a fallout with frontman Dave Mustaine, he did so as a salaried employee.  One of the most grounded players in the genre, he recently said the key to his longevity is “know(ing) my place.” 

One benefit is freedom “in doing music with … other people.”  In addition to his Altitudes + Attitude project with Anthrax bassist Frank Bello, he also plays in Metal Allegiance, a group in which he has made two albums with an assortment of metal vocalists, bassist Mark Menghi, former Dream Theater drummer Mike Portnoy, and the aforementioned Skolnick.

It’s no wonder so-called supergroups fill in the gaps of activity of primary bands, and not just for “salaried members.”  Killer Be Killed counts Sepultura (former), Soulfy and Cavalera Conspiracy founder Max Cavalera among its ranks, alongside founding Mastodon bassist Troy Sanders.  Peterson has recorded three albums with his own Dragonlord.

Some branch out beyond making other music, like Hatebreed frontman Jamey Jasta’s podcast, Billy’s management company or Benante’s line of coffee. 

Unknown is whether or not Christian had/has any side-gigs.

I have heard however, interviewers put forth the theory of whether or not the presence of a fall back plan might possibly dull an urgency of going all-in to make it in the business.  Does it inhibit artists from producing the best possible product?

Tardy disabuses any such notion.

“I would tell anyone that wanted to play in a band, or create any art for that matter, to have a backup plan.  It’s a hard, unfair, unpredictable business.”

Another key is frugality.

Jason Newsted played bass for Metallica, one of the biggest bands in the world, but was famously caught on video “making sandwiches” backstage “because he’s too cheap to order room service.”
 
“You’re absolutely right I’m a cheapskate,” he responded.  “I’ve got plans for those millions (we’re going to make).” 

It allowed him to leave one of the most plum gigs in the business when it became untenable, and subsequently pursue other endeavors for which he previously lacked the time and freedom.

Granted, that is an outsized example, but it can also be achieved by eating in, performing your own household and auto maintenance, regularly socking away a chunk of income, etc.  In this case, it also means setting up and tuning your own gear before a show, which I watched Obituary do in September. 

These are the types of habits that provide people with maximum flexibility and control over the course of their life.  They’re ready when opportunity arises, or if they want to return to school, or attempt to turn a hobby into a career, etc.  It’s also what prevents them from being stuck in an undesirable job they hold down merely to service debt incurred chasing short-term satisfaction.  

Since I’ve reconnected with him twenty-five years after high school, I’ve learned that my buddy checks off a few of these boxes: he earned an associate’s degree; he lived in a camper he built while saving for a house; he takes on a second job occasionally; and, he sublets to a roommate from time to time.  The only debt he carries is a mortgage, and for his truck (itself a replacement for a car that he drove for seventeen years).

All the while he’s been gigging around Austin in various bands.  Though he’s written and recorded songs, he’s realistic about the odds of “hitting it big.”  Nonetheless, he’s set himself up to devote most of his free time and resources doing what he loves, keeping his chops up.

When I ask Tardy if he has any regrets knowing what he knows now, he confirms “I’m glad I stuck with what we did.  We have been really, really fortunate and have gotten to see so much of the world, made so many friends and gotten to share the stage with so many cool bands.”
 
One of the very first things we talk about in my macro classes is specialization; finding what you have a knack for and focusing on it.  Incorporate some training and (continuing) education, and you develop a comparative advantage, where few people can match what you do, and the value of it necessarily rises.
 
When I extend this lesson to my daughters, I tell them that sometimes there is some overlap between that and doing what you really enjoy.  If there isn’t, or your tastes change, capitalizing on your comparative advantage and good habits can free you up to make a change.
 
All too often we hear about or feel bad morale at work.  Power-hungry politicians like to point the finger of blame at “the Man/boss” as the source of our problems or animosity, when most times that person is the reason that job is even there to be had.  Very rarely do these politicos prescribe the correct medicine; holding up a mirror.  Newsflash: that doesn’t get votes.  For the most part, where we are in life is a function of choices we’ve made, or our failure to break vicious cycles.  

I told my two oldest daughters recently that between high school and their early thirties is their opportunity to make their mark, pave their path.  Once children (John Tardy, Peres and Butler are fathers) come along, our priorities necessarily change, so “don’t tie yourself down with bad habits until they do.”
​
They and their sisters will probably roll their eyes when they read this, assuming they read it at all.  Then again, they hear me preach these principles all the time.  My parents on the other hand, who gave me weird, sometimes mildly terrified looks when they heard this loud, abrasive music coming from my room, will be a harder sell trying to convince them that metal is an example of good, happy living.

Korn/Alice In Chains was an event I’d very much been looking forward to attending this year.

I hadn’t seen Korn since the 2006 Family Values tour, with Stone Sour and Deftones. Before that, I somewhat unwittingly saw them supporting their first album on a tour in support of Megadeth back in 1995.

Korn was one of the primary bands that filled my radio-void in the 1990s. Metal in general had gone underground then, and while I kept up with my favorite bans who kept recording, Korn bolstered aggressive music.

After they released one of their best albums “Take A Look In The Mirror,” lineup changes ensued, injecting a bit of turbulence into the enterprise. Much to their credit, they soldiered on. I kept up with them, but they fell a bit off my new-music radar. It was also about the same time I subscribed to SiriusXM, which served to redirect my attention to their Liquid Metal channel.

I saw them last night for the first time since that Family Values tour, and they didn’t disappoint.

Talk about redirecting my attention, bassist Reginald “Fieldy” Arvizu, arguably the element of the band that sets them most apart, seemed to play a different bass every song. Not only that, one could be forgiven for wondering if he was pulling them out of a bag of Skittles. I felt like I was seeing rainbows by the end of the evening.

One thing Korn is not known for is solos, so it was a bit of a challenge to figure out what they were playing when the spotlight turned to guitarist James “Munky” Schaffer. By the time I realized they were playing a snippet from Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall,” which they recorded for their “Greatest Hits” album in 2004, they had launched into another cover which was readily apparent as soon as the double-bass kicked in; Metallica’s “One.”

Jonathan Davis’ enthusiasm to “still be doing this after twenty-five (expletive) years" was palpable, and his gratitude toward the fans, genuine. They made a powerful run through many Korn staples, and I’m glad I was there to take it in.

This night for me however, belonged to Alice in Chains.

The more time goes on, the more it seems labels aren’t as equally adhesive to all surfaces. This has become most apparent recently with the “death” metal band Obituary. Lumped in with that subgenre since its inception, I’ve learned their music has more life than just guttural vocals and blastbeats.

This is in the back of my mind more and more whenever I refer to AiC as easily my favorite band to “come out of the grunge movement of the 1990s.”

I liked many of the other bands to come from that era, but Sean Kinney’s wanderingly groovy drums, Jerry Cantrell’s harmonizing vocals, and Layne Staley put them in a different league.

Unfortunately, Staley died before I got off my ass to see them live.

Alas, I still had the albums, radio still played them, so they were never far away. In time, the aforementioned mothership of metal, SXM’s Liquid Metal, had drawn more of my attention away.

Then, they came back.

They brought on William DuVall to share vocals and shore up guitar duties, and released “Black Turns to Blue” in 2009. “Check My Brain,” which they played, was their primary release from that album. They released “The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here” a few years later, but it wasn’t until last year’s “Rainier Fog” that I was hooked and reeled back in.

Layne Staley’s shoes are impossible to fill, but thanks to Jerry Cantrell’s increasingly prominent vocal role in those years, a foundation was laid to continue on, and make no mistake, they have!

DuVall certainly has his own solo sound, which will be more prominent on his forthcoming solo album. But when he and Cantrell sync up, it sounds an AiC evolution. “Rainier” and “Dionsaurs” are, in my book, as good as any album they have recorded, most mesmerizingly captured by “Pretty Done” off the latter.

I have been so sucked back into their orbit that this spring I learned a whole album’s worth of Mike Starr/Mike Inez bass lines. Saturday, for the first time, I got to see them live. A buddy of mine who was also at the show texted me a tune or two into their set exclaiming “they sound amazing!” He was right.

Perhaps not surprisingly, they played seven songs from their iconic second album “Dirt,” opening with the deep cut “Junkhead,” and it reminded me of when Metallica’s current “Worldwired” tour came through town. During their set, they played about as many selections from their most commercially successful black album. I remember leaving thinking they could have dropped a few of those in favor of some other classic and/or deeper cuts from any other of their albums.

No such thought crossed my mind with AiC set.

They put on such a good show, that even my least favorite ‘hit’ of theirs, “Man in the Box,” turned out to be a pretty enjoyable crowd sing-a-long.

I’ll never get to see Layne Staley perform, just like I’ll never be able to see late, great Metallica bassist Cliff Burton play. It’s also highly unlikely I’ll ever be able to witness the original Black Sabbath lineup, much like another “Big 4” show is doubtful to happen.
​
All things considered, after seeing Alice in Chains live, I’m probably as musically fulfilled as I’ll ever be.

In just over fifteen months, both my oldest daughters will likely have their drivers’ licenses.  In addition to driving themselves to school, football games, etc., they’ll also be able to get to a job.  Thank goodness we live in Texas, because they’ll face one less obstacle to finding employment than do kids in other states; a minimum wage prohibited by law from rising higher than the federal $7.25 level.

In their constant drive to shield all manner of folks from the responsibilities of adulthood, democrats in Washington want to more than double this price floor.  Even though many starting wages here in San Antonio are above the current minimum, they are well below the $15 proposal.  Needless to say, this proposal would shut out many teenagers who might not be grandfathered in by current jobs.  On the flip side, it would attract some to an easier gig than what they’re currently having to do for roughly the same pay. 

This perversion reflects the left’s general (mis)understanding of economics and incentives, not to mention human nature.  So convinced are they of the virtues of this policy that they dismiss job losses of as much as nearly 4 million, according to a recent CBO report, as “worth whatever the cost might be.”  The cynic could be forgiven for seeing this as a step closer to total government dependence when combined with a universal basic income, their supposed solution to the imminent takeover of our society by robots. 

Business’ constant drive to keep costs low in order to stay afloat, and by extension maintain a payroll, has prompted many to utilize such automation, which ironically makes these price controls obsolete.  To the extent that it makes jobs vanish, it’s a quiet disappearance via attrition: a worker leaves, but is not replaced.  Bigger companies can afford to experiment and deploy cost-saving technology.  As a result, a hike in the minimum wage is an affordable, temporary uptick against revenues.  It is also an assist from the government at keeping smaller competitors at bay.   

As a result, some companies are indifferent to it.  Others, not so much. 

During a debate last year about the Alamo City’s proposed paid-sick-leave ordinance, a lady told me she already offers it to her employees, and that her rivals should be compelled to do the same in order to “level the playing field.”
 
When Amazon announces that they “intend to … gain congressional support for an increase in the federal minimum wage” to the same $15 level they just granted to its employees, the scale is different, but the principle is the same.  Politicians laying out plans to “revitalize … rural America” should know better when Walmart urges “Congress to boost the federal minimum wage.”  It’s reminiscent of when golf courses tried to “Tiger-Proof” their holes by lengthening them to a distance manageable only by … Tiger Woods.   

Smaller companies are less able to absorb higher labor costs.  At some point, the owner cannot support herself and her family and therefore has to abandon her venture and find paid employment at a bigger firm.  Meanwhile, her former employees join the increased supply of labor clamoring for work at the bigger company that now needs fewer employees thanks to the aforementioned technology.  This is how monopolies AND monopsonies (sole buyer of labor) are born.   

This is not at all an argument against automation, which itself is a sign of progress and prosperity.  Often times a small business needs manual help to get off the ground.  It is doubtful, judging by their modest-looking storefronts, that local businesses can do so with anything more than basic technology i.e. cash register, debit card machine, etc.  They need the flexibility to find just the right people at freely agreed-upon wages, who are happy to get their foot in the door.  This is as much a case of jobs that will never be created, as it is those that we see today eventually disappearing. 
​
As it is, the only doors my daughters have wedged open is mine and that of their mothers.  I’m happy to keep paying them to tend to the lawn so I can do other things.  I would however, appreciate the workout from pushing a mower around lawn if they landed a job somewhere, though I suspect my wife would soon hire a housekeeper to make up for the lost mopping services.  In the end, that’s lower unemployment by three people.

​​One of my favorite publications is the “Review” section of the Weekend (Wall Street) Journal.  For anyone whose desire to read outweighs their available time to do so, it provides nice, thorough synopses of books that document the nooks and crannies of history to which general textbooks don’t have the pages to commit: Oliver Wendell Holmes’ life before ascending to the Supreme Court, 18th and 19th century life in Ohio when it “was the frontier”, etc.
 
More recently, Gordon Marion reviewed Mark Kram Jr.’s “Smokin’ Joe,” a biography of the late heavyweight boxing champion, and 3-time Muhammad Ali foil, Joe Frazier.  Among the notable details was the fact that five different women gave birth to his eleven kids, an occurrence not uncommon among celebrities: Ali himself, actor/director Clint Eastwood, comedian Eddie Murphy, et al.
 
This dynamic has been on my mind since I learned that recent San Antonio mayoral candidate Greg Brockhouse has four children with four mothers.
 
It goes without saying that the ideal arrangement for children is that they live with both of their biological parents 24/7.  When two people accept the duty that comes with parenthood, no one else has the same vested interest in the health, well-being and success of their children. 
 
Life happens, though. 
 
Some spouses commit acts of inexcusable betrayal, or maybe worse; perpetrate a crime.  Intractable clashes of principle can also make continued cohabitation untenable.  Some relationships break down over time, and marriages are not immune.
 
None of this necessarily erodes parents’ childrearing abilities, or absolves them of the responsibility they have to the children who depend upon them. 
 
Spending enough quality time with each child is enough of a challenge when just one father and one mother are involved.  The logistics of trying to pull it off when there are greater multiples of parents are difficult to comprehend.  Unfortunately, irrespective of the particular situation, one parent usually gets primary custody while the other ends up paying child support. 
 
What’s worrisome about these arrangements is that children typically spend only a quarter to a third of their time with the non-custodial parent.  According to a U.S. Census report, as recently as 2016 mothers accounted for 80% of custodial parents. 
 
The mother may be the best one a child or children could have.  That does not however, diminish the equivalent importance of a father in a child’s life.  Moms and dads tend to occupy different roles.
 
While a mother generally has a softer touch, the father is usually more stern.  As mom is imparting manners and etiquette, dad is being a goofball.  As mom is advising that care be taken before climbing into a treehouse, dad is saying “go for it!”
 
It gets more serious as time progresses.
 
The authenticity with which dad speaks to the machinations of young boys is second to none; he was one after all.  He can caution his son(s) about the ramifications of being hotheaded, before the latter encounters a bigger fish one day and learns the lesson the hard way. 
 
Also, not only can he convey to young men the importance of treating girls with respect, he can also lead by example via how he treats their mother, and his spouse if he’s remarried.  Daughters can get the same lesson, but dad can show them more directly via date nights: opening doors, pulling out chairs, etc.
 
It should be no surprise then what tends to happen when dad isn’t around.  It’s been well-documented that educational achievement is lower, drug/alcohol use is higher, as is criminal activity.  Arguably the worst manifestation of the latter is the direct link shown between mass shootings and the fatherlessness of the shooters.
 
Dads need to step up. 
 
Kids aren’t just a “check,” as I once heard a father infer.  Regardless of the nature of the demise of their relationship with the mother, they have an obligation to their children, and society as a whole, to fulfill their parental responsibility.  They and moms need to set aside any residual hurt feelings and commit to more equal involvement in the lives of the children. 
 
Forunately, the tide is turning for the better.
 
More states have sought to reform custodial laws so as to address each case from a position of co-equal parenting, most recently in Missouri.  Some celebrities have exposed their fatherless childhood wounds in an public effort to break the cycle, including none other than James Hetfield, frontman of the legendary metal band Metallica. 
 
All this is not to say kids are absolutely doomed in the absence of one parent.  Examples to the contrary exist, as do instances of children who persevered through the presence of bad parents.  Regardless of the situation, once a child is conceived, parents need to accept that demands on their time have necessarily changed, and that the importance is 50/50 between the two.

We’ve been enduring a regular drip of whining these days regarding the misguided notion that “capitalism is broken.”  It has even crept into my house, as my oldest daughter has been hearing from her classmates about the virtues of socialism (the dire situation in Venezuela notwithstanding). 

This both startles and thrills me.

It startles me because I wonder where it’s coming from.  The best case scenario is that it’s not talked about at home.  The worst case scenario is that is that they’re learning about it from authority figures, absent its inherent individual submissiveness and responsibility abdication no doubt. 

Nonetheless, I’m thrilled as well.  Having the opportunity to teach college students is one thing.  Being able to convey to my own children the wisdom of the principles codified by our Founding Fathers is quite another.  It’s a privilege.

My mind filled with these thoughts upon reading Peggy Noonan’s recent column in the Wall Street Journal.  I’m not a regular reader of her weekend “Declarations,” but the highlighted “Less taxes and spending won’t resolve America’s crisis” caught my attention.

Initially I thought to myself “great; another ‘conservative’ throwing in the towel on fiscal matters.”  Sure enough, she taps out: “the federal government will not become smaller or less expensive in our lifetimes.”

A couple years ago, a younger friend of mine expressed a similar sentiment when he asked “shouldn’t we just accept the government we have and work with it?”  Even if I deemphasized my stance on one issue in favor of others, I can’t imagine so openly surrendering my principle in the process.

Alas, principles aren’t what they seem.  When she says the “old conservatism of smaller government … was deeply pertinent to its era and philosophically right, but it is not fully in line with the crises of our time or its reigning facts,” it sounds more like political messaging than a set of deeply-held values. 

That’s ironic given her reasoning for why the government should “revitalize small towns.”  “We lose a lot when we lose those old shared ways and values,” she laments.  Unclear is what politicians and bureaucrats thousands of miles away could do to rejuvenate thousands of towns with merely thousands of residents each.

Having grown up in one such town (Victoria, TX, population 67K), with most of my elder relatives a half hour away in Goliad, TX. (pop. 2K), I can say values there were sturdy.  It was those same values that “(bound them) together” when an arsonist flattened a mosque a couple years ago.

People from around the world donated more than $1 million to rebuild.  Local stores donated a cut of their sales to the same.  Varied houses of worship opened their doors.  “Victoria is not looked at as the city that burned a Muslim church, it's looked at as the city that came together,” said Abe Ajrami, board member of the Victoria Islamic Center.

One could be forgiven his/her skepticism that better values could be injected from a place where they appear more malleable.  The government, regardless of jurisdiction, can no more do that than it can “help families form and grow.”  In fact, excessive state involvement in our lives has arguably contributed to the deterioration of the family, under the guise of doing “whatever will help.” 

Her essay essentially reads like a “Compassionate Conservatism” reboot: comfort with the government as is, and republicans should do “whatever it takes … to make it significantly more helpful.”  The good intentions implied in “compassionate” do however, allow some room for a couple of worthy ideas.

I found myself nodding along to the idea of a return of “settlement houses” to teach prospective Americans “the meaning and history” of their new home.  Immigrants go to great expense, be it monetary, time, personal risk, etc., to come here to make a better life for themselves.  They seek the same opportunity with which my daughters were born.

The current anti-immigrant sentiment that permeates certain segments of our society is unfortunate, but much of the time it’s predicated on a valid concern; legality.  Immigrating to the U.S. should be easy and permissive.  You bring a disease, you stay in quarantine until deemed healthy.  You come here a criminal, you get turned away a criminal.  To everyone else, welcome, and here’s your path to citizenship.

Additionally, though the suggestion to “drag … lost … teenage boys … of the working and middle classes … out of” their house was likely made tongue-in-cheek, it sounds like one good way to populate the labor force required to fix up our ports, bridges, etc. 

The irony is that spending on immigration and infrastructure is not what put the federal fisc in its current distended state, and the rest of her “Compassionate Conservative 2.0” brings back bad memories from 1.0.

For the first time in a half century, the GOP had control of congress as the 21st century began, and for a majority of it, a republican presidency.  But far from being the “sober-minded … best stewards” of the government who look at spending “coolly,” as Ms. Noonan envisions, they became drunk with the power of the purse.  Spending rose an average of 7% per year, 2-3 times the rate of inflation.

Perhaps the saddest part of this commentary is that she predicates her entreaty on the certainty of a “terrible day” in our future, an act of war against us using nuclear or biological weapons.  This is eerily reminiscent of the justifications we hear to maintain military spending more than twice as high as China, and more than the next seven countries combined. 

Only those who live under a rock are unaware of the presence of such weapons.  To exploit fears of such nightmare scenarios so that taxpayer resources can be politically-directed toward “growing families” is unfortunate to say the least.  Not only should such appeals be rejected, but so should said defense spending be subject to greater spending discipline, especially when the Pentagon seems prone to lose track of almost a billion dollars.

On one of the tests in my macroeconomics class, a question states “discretionary fiscal policy is limited by the fact that roughly __% of the federal budget is dedicated to defense or is on autopilot: 30, 50, 70 or 90.”  The answer is 70. 

Rooting out “waste and fraud” is always a noble sentiment, but over the years it’s been reduced to little more than a political bromide intended to placate those committed to a constitutionally-sized government.  If republicans “naturally enjoy” this exercise, as Ms. Noonan alleges, they’ll work with President Trump in his effort to sell off the governments $1.45 trillion student loan debt to private investors, just to name one example.  They could even go a step further and help him make the Department of Education leaner.

While abolishing the DoE altogether and returning that function to the states where it belongs is the ultimate goal, these practical baby-steps would at least prove her right.  The primary target of spending reform however, should be that ~70%.

Some of what should be done is simply common sense. 

Life expectancy for example, has increased by roughly a decade since the inception of both social security and Medicare.  Logic dictates that the age of eligibility should follow suit.  Also, we should have more choice about our participation in these programs, and the way disbursements are administered.

Furthermore, there’s a popular myth that these entitlements have dedicated revenue streams; the payroll tax.  The fact is, barely a third of Medicare is funded that way, and if demographic trends don’t change, it’s currently projected that social security will also have to start dipping into general revenues to help pay out full benefits in fifteen years. 

Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has a wonderfully illuminative chart that shows the inflationary effects wrought by government involvement in some of these sectors.  It eats into our ability to pursue other worthy personal ventures, not to mention the vicious cycle it perpetrates on the federal budget.  

If we do not adequately address these problems, interest on the national debt will likely blow past 10% of the budget, and Ms. Noonan’s spending preferences will be further squeezed.  This assumes of course that hers is not simply one of the initial ‘conservative’ endorsements of the fantasy known as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). 

She is certainly correct in stating that republicans are bigger proponents of free-market capitalism than are democrats.  One might quibble that her claim that progressives simply do “not love it” is too restrictive.  Some on the left profess to and genuinely enjoy prosperity, but their obliviousness regarding which policies support or impede it is often staggering. 

Regardless, even though republicans have proven they can spend, they can’t match the deceptively gleeful ignorance with which democrats assert they can give things away cost-free.  If we’re stuck with a two-party system, they need to be the party that aggressively represents and promotes independence and personal responsibility, not to mention logic and basic math.  If a parent cannot understand or accept his/her duty to his/her children, no amount of government largesse is going to change that.
​
It’s been proven before, as recently as 2006 and last year, that republicans can’t win elections maintaining or adding to the welfare state.  They might as well stand and act on effective, decidedly American principles, to the extent they still exist within the party.

By Chris Baecker and David Peek
===
Two years have passed since what can safely be characterized as a very unusual, highly-charged presidential election, which produced a result that shocked many; the election of Donald Trump.  That means it’s time for midterm elections, where all 435 representatives in the House, and 35 senators (2 via special election) face the voters.
 
Midterms have traditionally been a dicey proposition for the president’s party.  Levelheaded voters, including his supporters, should be able to reasonably surmise that if any president could so inflame the opposition to maintain that trend, it would be President Trump.  
 
As if his blunt, abrasive personality wasn’t enough, the fact that he lost the popular vote by almost three million on the way to victory in the Electoral College triggers the intensity of his detractors to the level of a bonfire.  The recent confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh turned that bonfire into an inferno. 
 
One thing most regular folks see on fire right now however, is the economy.
 
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported that GDP grew by 3.5% in the 3rd quarter.  That follows 4.2% growth in the 2nd quarter.  Wages are rising.  Unemployment is at historic lows, down across most demographic groups.  It’s true that unemployment has been steadily trending downward since the recession of a decade ago, but so was participation in the labor force.   Until a couple years ago.  Unemployment has continued dropping even as more people have (re)entered the labor force. 
 
While democrats and former President Obama have been quick to throw dirt on the leftist commentariat’s predictions of economic doom under President Trump in order to grab some credit, a look at the facts tell a different story.  There is a clear break between the first several years of the last decade, and the last couple.  We’ve gone from a rollercoaster GDP ride to one of an ascending flight of stairs. 
 
When we covered fiscal policy a few weeks ago, I told my class that government actions do have an effect on the economy, though it’s more analogous to a jumbo jet changing course rather than us taking a left turn in our cars.   Because of President Trump’s stout deregulatory posture and his signature on tax simplification/reduction, a bumpy taxi down the runway appears to be giving way to a long-awaited takeoff for the economy. 
 
The only foreseeable bumps in the road are the current trade disputes and the impasse on immigration policy, the resolution of the latter of which could help fill the excess of job openings over job seekers.  Fortunately there are enough pro-free trade and pro-immigration republicans to keep either situation from devolving much.
 
With that in mind, we can’t help but wonder why voters would hand over the House speaker’s gavel to Nancy Pelosi, who characterized as “crumbs” the employee raises and bonuses handed out by companies after the passage of the tax reduction?  Why would we put in charge her and the party she leads when they appear perpetually challenged by the simple logic that those individuals and entities that pay more in income taxes tend to gain more of the “benefit” when taxes are lowered?
 
This is the same party that, every time a tragic mass shooting occurs, comes out guns blazing wanting to shoot more holes in the 2nd amendment.  Yet their own gun control proves poor in that regard when it’s revealed that many of these shootings either happen in gun-free zones, or the killer broke gun control laws already on the books, or both.  Common sense yields to uncontrollable emotions, raging passions that can seemingly only be pacified by the former President Obama’s smooth smile or a wink of Congressman Beto O’Rourke’s batting eyes.
 
They are quick to get stoked again though, when a republican president gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
 
A quick look at the last 100 years shows that, by and large, presidents have been given deference regarding such nominations.  In recent times however, even non-controversial republican appointees garnered only a handful of democrat votes.  The rest are afraid of losing the ability to get the constitution to say what they want it to say, instead of, gasp, living by its original meaning.
 
When controversy does arise, a total meltdown ensues, and the legitimacy of nearly every institution is called into question.  We saw less whining when our respective nine children were in diapers.

Furthermore, their lack of shame appears indirectly proportional to their intellectual honesty when confronted with a GOP merely following the precedent laid down by their own leaders regarding appointments in a presidential election year. 
 
One might then ask “don’t we need two prominent political parties to keep each other in check?”  Don’t we need “these guys to watch those guys,” in the words of the late Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter?  As long as the system is rigged against third parties, that’s a legitimate concern.  Democrats however, regularly demonstrate that, at best they are too unserious, and at worst too dangerous, to be that other party.
 
We need a second party where Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would feel at home.  He was the only to voice genuine constitutional concerns about Justice Kavanaugh, regarding the 4th amendment, that weren’t just worn-out political talking points. 
 
We need a second party that would welcome Congressman Thomas Massie, also from Kentucky.  No doubt informed by his belief in the 10th amendment, last year he introduced legislation to abolish the federal Department of Education.  One has to believe this would be helpful in restoring some market discipline into the student loan sector that has Americans on the hook for $1.5 trillion.
 
We need a second party that has no illusions regarding the source of our fiscal/budget problems; excessive spending.  Spending is an emotional narcotic employed by democrats to scare people into thinking we need the government to provide for us.  They think it’s the candy and we’re the baby.  We need a second party that is immune to this rubbish.
 
We need a party that appreciates when someone like Congressman Justin Amash from Michigan pushes for a humbler, less adventurous foreign policy conducted on a tighter budget.
 
In a recent column in the New York Times, Bret Stephens, who hopes “republicans get pummeled in the midterms,” lamented how the democrats are “flubbing it”:  from the myriad ways they lost their marbles during the Kavanaugh hearings, to the (encouragement of) public heckling of republican officials, to countering them from beneath the gutter.  He pines for a “party of moderation, not extremism.”
 
The democratic party is not that party.
===
Christopher E. Baecker manages fixed assets for Pioneer Energy Services in San Antonio, and is an adjunct lecturer of economics at Northwest Vista College.  He is a 2006 graduate of UT-San Antonio, a 1996 graduate of UT-Dallas and a 1990 graduate of Victoria High School. He can be reached at facebook.com/professormetal/ or professormetal@chrisbaecker.com.
David E. Peek currently serves as the Rockwall County Treasurer.  He was a 2008 Delegate to the Republican National Convention, a Distinguished Military Graduate of the United States Military at West Point, and a 1987 graduate of Samuel Clemens High School in Schertz.

​Once on his T.V. show, John Stossel laid out dozens of consumer goods: a flashlight, a newspaper, a video camera, etc.  As he strode along the tables, he picked up and demonstrated some, then held up a smart phone and said “now it’s all in my phone for a few hundred dollars.  What a bargain!”
 
Back in the day when you fumbled your way to turn off the alarm clock, or took your Walkman to the gym, or mapped out a particular destination, did you ever think to yourself “man it’d be great if I could access all my stuff at once in the palm of my hand?”  If you did, did you go around waving money hoping someone would concoct and sell such a device to you?  Doubtful. 
 
Make no mistake; for all but the most basic goods, supply creates demand.
 
Many of us have had an idea(s) that we thought could possibly be turned into a worthwhile commercial venture, but how many could actually do something about it? 
 
While we’re partying, playing ball or otherwise maximizing our leisure time, folks like computer programming pioneer Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, or Tony Fadell, co-inventor of the Nest Thermostat, are trying to figure out a way to make life better, easier.  Whereas we’re busy adding bells and whistles to our resume, these visionaries we’ll end up working for are singularly focused and determined to make their vision a reality. 
 
“Entrepreneurial spirit” is a personality trait that can’t be taught.  Without its creative spark, much land, labor and capital would lay idle; some of the latter two might not even exist.  There would be notably less progress without that applied imagination. 
 
While untold numbers of these dreams are never realized, some are: the tastiest recipe comes together, biology and chemistry are merged perfectly into a life-saving medicine, etc.  At that point a vital characteristic kicks in; intestinal fortitude. 
 
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment, and you can start to understand why a high school classmate recently told me he’s “gone crazy and started a second business”; many times they are trading a regular paycheck for a world of uncertainty. 
 
These producers deserve the utmost respect and admiration for taking the dive.  Unfortunately, too many people don’t get it.  “You chose to do that, so deal with the taxes and regulations” someone once told a friend of mine who co-owns not one, but two businesses.
 
These are probably the same type of folks behind some of the more misguided, domineering initiatives to have sprung up across the country in recent years. 
--
In May, in an effort to deal with a growing homelessness problem, the Seattle city council unanimously passed a so-called head-tax of $275 on every employee of local businesses that earned at least $20 million annually.  They wanted $500, but the mayor threatened a veto because apparently that was too high. 
 
Seattle-based Amazon issued a veto threat of its own, implying that a second headquarters might not be the only company growth that happens outside the city due to its “hostile approach and rhetoric toward larger businesses.”
 
A month later, the city repealed the measure.   
 
A few years prior, the Emerald City boosting the minimum wage to $15 per hour.  Even as this particular policy slips further into obsolescence due to automation and the fact that very few people support a family on such earnings, how insolent of a public body to commandeer the resources of those who risked their livelihood and financial solvency to get a new venture off the ground. 
 
In addition to having their own elevated minimum wage, the D.C. city council recently raised by fivefold the revenue tax on Uber, Lyft and other ridesharing companies in order to provide funding for the  government-run Metro transit system. 
 
What type of reasoning concludes that one way to fix homelessness is to tax employment, the very activity that produces the income needed to obtain shelter?  What kind of imperious mentality endorses taking from successful companies to give to a failing entity?
 
The irony with these ordinances is that the homelessness is exacerbated by restrictive zoning and a building code that is more than twice the size of Portland and Austin combined, and the overcharged Metro patronage is slipping in part because of safety and maintenance concerns.
 
This kind of foolish, authoritarian approach has infected other parts of the country as well. 
 
In the Big Apple, Mayor Bill De Blasio and the city council are going another round with those same ride-sharers by capping new vehicle licenses and imposing upon them an industry-specific minimum wage.  Even here in the Alamo City an ordinance was recently passed to coerce businesses to pay for employee sick days. 
 
If politicians as high up as Sens. Cory Booker (D – N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D – N.Y.) are so confident in their business ability that they’ll propose a jobs guarantee, why not strike out on their own, without the cushion of a taxpayer-supported slush fund?
 
Because just like many other officials and activists, they have scant, if any experience owning/running a business.  It begs the question; where does all this misplaced overconfidence come from? 
 
Innovators and producers don’t ask for our gratitude, but nor do they welcome such arrogant policy supported and enacted by those with only a fraction of their cojones.  If these kinds of regulations continue to proliferate, the next big gadget or service could very well disappear from the future just like Marty McFly before his parents kissed.   
--
Perhaps these bureaucrats and advocates could instead become productive members of society and put their money where their mouth is, like the investors in the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment did a couple years ago.
 
Led by former executive director Sister Patricia Daly, they spearheaded a shareholder drive to compel ExxonMobil to factor the “realities of climate change” into their policies.  Sister Daly is currently on the advisory board of Jana Impact Capital fund, which along with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, is pushing Apple to “offer parents more tools” to help them monitor their kids’ activities on their products. 
 
Or, they could follow Howard Schultz’ example.
 
Under his leadership, in an effort to “build the kind of company that … not only cares for its people but gives them opportunities to be their best,” Starbucks recently gave a healthy bump in pay to its employees, extended to most of them tuition reimbursement for an entire bachelor’s degree from Arizona State University, and expanded parental and sick leave benefits. 
 
If those avenues seem too daunting, they could open a lemonade stand and experience the wet blanket their ilk have thrown on pre-teen entrepreneurs.   
--
Fans of “The Walking Dead” will recall the first things the survivors did after escaping the “biters”: gather food, set up shelter and scavenge fuel.  For the sake of survival, we’ll always seek out these basic necessities before they’re presented to us.  However, even the supply of these items has reached vast abundance and variety due to pioneering minds.    
 
One friend of mine was recently called up by the ABC show “Shark Tank” to pitch his vision of “revolutionizing urban agriculture” by employing underutilized spaces like city-owned vacant lots and drainage areas, while my aforementioned classmate tells me he will soon be machining new cost-saving equipment that will “revolutionize” the energy industry. 
 
We hear about heroes all the time: medics, teachers, first-responders, et al.  These risk-taking creators of the future belong in the same conversation.  Only they know the answer to the question with which Stossel ended his show: “who knows what’s coming next that I can’t even imagine?”