GrowUp.org

While we have tried to capture the key concepts behind GrowUp.org in the previous sections, there are a number of other areas that either don't fall under that structure or need additional exposure.  We highly recommend you review and thoughtfully consider these things while trying to make sense of the world around us. 

Since there are so many things that need clarification and thoughtful consideration, please send your thoughts to things@growup.org so that we can incorporate what we've missed or enhance what we have.

What are some defining characteristics of the political left and right?

How can you give back what you haven't taken?

We hear it all the time - the desire and/or need to "give back."  While the choice of charitable giving is certainly something we'd advocate and do practice, it is most certainly not because of a need to give back since we didn't take anything.

(Likewise, but aside, how can you apologize for something you didn't do?  Or forgive for something not done to you?  But we digress.)  

You cannot give back something you haven't taken and the idea that we have (and therefore we should), while not the most insidious of the problems facing us, really is based on very false, leftist premises. 

The underlying basis is the idea that there is a fixed financial pie from which we all should have the same portion (so that any excess to one is a loss to all others.)  Clearly the pie can be larger and my slice has nothing to do with yours.

When is organizational "bigness" bad?  Does it have any correlation to profitability or industry?

Rank              Revenues(B) | Profit Margin | Employees(k)

1      Wal-Mart                              $378.8 |  3.4%   | 2,055
 -      US Federal Government
        Executive Branch (-USPS)        ?  |    ?%    | 1,774
 -      US Military                                 ?  |    ?%   | 1,400
2      Exxon Mobil                          $372.8 |  10.9% |  83
3      Chevron                              $210.8  |   8.9%  |  65
4      G M                                      $182.3 | -21.2%  |  266
5      ConocoPhillips                       $178.6 |    6.7%  |  38 
6      G E                                      $176.7 |  12.6%  |  327
7      Ford                                     $172.5 |  -1.6%  |  246
8      Citigroup                              $159.2 |   2.3%  |  381 
9      Bank of America                   $119.2 |  12.6%  | 210 
10    AT&T                                    $118.9 |  10.0%  |  309
14    HP                                        $104.3 |  7.0%   |  156
15    IBM                                        $98.8 | 10.5%  |  387
 -     US Postal Service                  $75.0 |   -?%   |  800
44    Microsoft                                 $51.1 | 27.5%  |   79  
46    UPS                                        $49.7 |   .8%   |   425
61    Altria                                      $38.1 | 25.7%  |  199
67    Walt Disney                             $35.9 | 13.1%  |  137
68    Fed Ex                                    $35.2 |  5.7%   |  239
71    Cisco Systems                         $34.9 | 21.0%  |   63
83    Coca-Cola                               $28.9 | 20.7% |  90.5
137  Oracle                                     $18.0 | 23.7% |  80.2
150  Google                                    $16.6 | 25.3% |  19
297  Qualcomm                                 $8.9 | 37.2% |  11.2

Fortune 500 Median                             |  5.7%  |  26.7

It is interesting to hear the left always demonize the big industries/companies that they don't like while ignoring the big entities that they do.  The table at left shows some of the largest US companies (in the Fortune 500) and their relative employee size and profitability. 

The meaningful profitability measure is as a percentage of revenues (in order to account for size as opposed to gross profits).  It's hard not to notice the relatively weak oil company profitability even in this time of high gas prices (between 7-11%, slightly more than the average of 6%) versus so many other well know companies.  So where are the cries to limit Big Cola or Big Software and their "outsized gains?"  (as opposed to the "insized" ones - whatever those are.)

The various government entitiies are also the largest employers in the country.

The reality of course is that bigness and profitability are irrelevant - it's just used when convenient to stir negative emotions and views against the big bad companies that the left doesn't like.  To of course be solved by much bigger, but in their view better (leftist) government.

Why is a private business monopoly bad, while a government one isn't?

Monopoly in private business provides pricing power (and usually service degradation).  That's always bad news for consumers, especially with essential goods and services.  But government, in addition, brings the added force of law behind it. 

Whereas private monopolies will use their pricing power as much as possible (which is why government has an interest in regulating them), the government itself generally operates outside the pricing mechanism.  Without that mechanism, scarce resources (which are all of them) must be allocated on some other basis - by political power. 

So without pricing and competition, government must ration resources and decide who gets what, when.  If you're worried about too much money in politics (or even political correctness), you will only see more of both as government involvement increases. 

Since much of what government does is required, we must work to minimize the inefficiencies/problems created by their monopoly position and lack of price allocation. 

It's funny to hear those that can't name any truly efficient/effective (even trustworthy) government organization, yet long for government run healthcare, for example.  The real healthcare issue is too much government involvement now, not too little.  

But why stop there?  If the argument is the critical nature of healthcare, why not have government run all housing?  Why not "free" food and water for everyone? 

Just what are the criteria used to decide when full government control should be the answer?

When do we operate with the presumption of innocence?  And when of guilt?

We presume innocence in legal cases - to the point where we claim we'd rather have ten guilty men go free than one innocent one jailed.  And we presume that the poor are innocent - that they are poor through no fault of their own (which clearly may or may not be the case).  

But then, we turnaround and presume the rich are always guilty, and therefore pressured to "give back" and always forced to pay taxes at a higher rate than their fellow citizens.

Likewise, many presume guilt of the organizations that they disagree with (as discussed previously).

This move from presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt should give us pause.  We need to think really hard about the implications of violating this core premise of our free country.

The ideas that underlie this thinking (that we can know and that we should judge the motives of others) need to be rejected.  (Since we can't.)

What is the difference between slavery and 100% taxation?

We treat slavery as the great evil that it was, but then the left keeps arguing for more government intervention/control into almost all areas of our lives.  They argue that justice demands government provide for the housing, health care, education, food, and other basic needs (by taxing those that can provide for themselves). 

How is that so different from slavery where your (in that case non-governmental) master provided all those things in the interest of his investment in you?

And while slaves were held against their will, it is very sad how many free people today seem to want to choose the same fate.

While obviously an extreme comparison, it really should make you think about the tradeoffs made when you cede economic control to some other, because the reality is that you will be beholden to them.  When you advocate for higher taxes (or greater regulation), you are implicitly arguing for higher trust in, reliance on, and control by government.  Hopefully a nicer master, but one nonetheless.  And an inefficient one at best. 

You have to understand that politics (and political correctness) become increasingly important the more that goods and services are allocated by politicians instead of prices.  Please remember this the next time you advocate greater governmental control (through either taxation or regulation).

When is it alright to threaten to ignore a law that you don't like?

All of us have laws that we disagree with (and hope to ignore when no one is watching).  When that's a ridiculously low speed limit, it's one thing.  When it's an issue over life or death - like abortion - then it's another. 

While we can all disagree about when it's more important to respect the mother's right to not have a child (rape/incest versus convenience?) or the child's rights, it's clearly a tradeoff.  When abortion restrictions (like for late term abortions) are contemplated and hysterical women vow to just use a coat hanger in a back alley, it really struck us.

So while comments about coat hangers are frequently invoked by abortion proponents, imagine if the pro-gun crowd threatened to react to new, proposed limits by just ignoring them?  Gun ownership is clearly a more established right in our country than abortion. 

The parallel of course would be during any proposed increase in handgun restrictions to just say, "I'll just use my rifle."  How would that fly with those who blame all gun violence on the guns rather than the criminals who use them illegally?  I think you know the answer.

When and why did we lose the word "murderer" (in favor of gunman) and why is he included in the death total that he wrought?

So what if they use a knife?  Should they be called a knifeman?  And was there no murder before guns?  Was there less murder?  Of course there was murder (and certainly more if you factor in population rates), so clearly guns aren't the cause of crime and describing a murderer as a gunman would be incorrect at best.

(Or perhaps a way to highlight the negative side of guns by those who refuse to understand/admit their overwhelmingly positive impact on society.)

Do we refer to an abortionist as the "forcepman" or "scissorman?"  Of course we don't. 

And you really should consider the implications of including the criminal in the death toll - why did that start?  Is it because they aren't held responsible for their actions (due to leftist/naturalistic beliefs in excusing crime either through poverty or uncontrollable physical reactions)?  Seems to us to be incredibly "unfair" to the real victims to even remotely honor the murderer in this small way.

Do you only show love and gratitude when the object of such is perfect?  What percent of the time do you provide negative versus positive feedback to those you love and/or want to change?

Seems like obvious answers, like "no" and "more positive than negative."  Since all of us are flawed, clearly we can't just love those that are perfect (though with the rise of narcissism in our society, there might be one person that is perfect enough to love). 

And the idea that positive reinforcement is generally a more useful way to correct behavior, let alone deal with loved ones, is almost universal.  

So all reasonable people agree that it is necessary to have a balance in critique and a positive tone in giving feedback, especially to a loved one. 

So those who continually tear down America with the worst kind of accusations and then claim to be doing it out of love for country would seem to be disingenuous or clueless.   Either they know they don't love America or they don't know how to love anything.  Very sad either way.

When is it acceptable (or even productive) to personally belittle someone else?

We think the answer is never.  And you would think that any mature, caring person would agree that there is little to be gained by attacking someone through name-calling. 

So when we hear angry, personal attacks like Bush is an idiot (or Hitler), Cheney is Satan, McCain is old, Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom, we wonder why that seems to be acceptable to what you would hope were otherwise reasonable people. 

And our favorite, "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing their idiot" on cars of fat, ugly women (driving cars that would certainly put their ability to productively use their presumably high intelligence in question) who you know would find it utterly inconceivable and offensive to be treated similarly. 

Yet there is no push back when this is done today, at least to the right.  Would that be the case if the shoe was on the other foot?  

The point isn't to whine about the "politics of personal destruction," but to examine ourselves and make sure that we aren't conflating our disagreement with our personal dislike, and feedback/debate with insult. 

That's the point of this site - to debate the issues realistically and dispense with the name calling.  We can and will disagree, but you must win the argument on its merits (and we don't care if you're ugly).

Are there any laws that don't promote "some view of right and wrong conduct" (i.e. the definition of morality)?  Can you think of an issue where "legislating morality" is applied to the political left?

How often do we hear about the right "legislating morality" in some way or another?  Yet we never hear about how the left does the same.  (Wonder why?) 

But any law that promotes some view of right and wrong (i.e. all of them) do just that - from seat belt and helmet laws, to food and smoking restrictions - they all promote some view of wrong conduct that must be limited by the state.  And they overwhelmingly come from the left - like government considering dictating/managing your thermostat temperature.

So, while we can't agree on whose morality is superior, the point is to understand that both sides are doing their best to promote their view.

And next time you hear this, at least be honest with yourself and know that you are hearing a purely demagogic response that is utterly devoid of usefulness and that the person delivering the message about not wanting or being able to legislate morality is either ignorant or disingenuous.  Not good either way.

Why do we only seem to hear about the obnoxious/righteous religious person?

People range from humility to arrogance with most of us somewhere in between (often depending on our areas of perceived strength and expertise).  But this is no different if you're religious or non/anti-religious. 

So think about why there is only a picture of the self-assured, righteous religious person in the media, while the equally obnoxious atheist is never found.  Would almost seem to be an inability to appreciate (dare we consider fear of) the one, and/or agreement with the other...

Since wisdom by definition increases with age (for any individual), when and why is age criticized? 

The infatuation with youth and health has caused our culture to jettison the one critical positive that comes with age, wisdom.  This glorification of youth (and devaluation of wisdom) has been an ongoing theme for more than forty years. 

Note the special emphasis on youth of those on the political left - what does that say?

Of course there is a point where age becomes a physical liability, so when do we pass from useful concern about health and become guilty of "ageism?"  

It really is impossible to tell just based on age, but please notice who the criticism is applied to the most... Is it Senator Byrd (Democrat, DOB 1917), Kennedy (Democrat, DOB 1932), Murtha (Democrat, DOB 1932), or McCain (Republican, DOB 1936)? 

Why is legal precedent absolute on some issues (i.e. abortion) and irrelevant on others (i.e. slavery)?

Stare Decisis is the Latin term for the legal concept of precedent.  Interestingly, sometimes it's inviolate and sometimes it's not. 

Merriam-Webster formally defines it as: "a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice." 

So, there's the problem!  As if we could ever agree on what the "ordinary principles of justice" are!  

Without a hard and fast rule, you can see why its invocation will never be the end of any intelligent argument - so beware of anyone using it as the linchpin (as opposed to one aspect) of theirs.  

When is dissent allowed/encouraged and who is really silenced?

It's fascinating to hear about how many (nameless) people in America are somehow "silenced" for their dissent or opinions.  And yet we consistently hear their dissent/opinions!  Actually more than those who agree.

So have the war or Bush opponents really been silenced?  Of course they have not.  Clearly, way too many "kids" don't know what real oppression is - this is the key part of the problem.

We have completely lost the distinction between being silenced and being criticized for what we say.  Why shouldn't I be just as free to criticize your comments as you are to make them (and criticize mine)?  

The idea that freedom of speech is somehow threatened (or even reduced) by the criticism from those who disagree should strike any reasonable person as silly - as if those critical voices shouldn't be just as free to speak. 

When is personal experience required to have an opinion and/or speak out on a topic?

The idea that you need personal experience in order to intelligently comment on a topic is very inconsistently applied. 

Frequently, you are actually silenced (or at least very pressured to be silent) on abortion if you're not a woman, race if you're not a "minority," homosexuality if you're not gay, or war if you're not a veteran, for example.  At the very least, an opinion from someone "outside" the group is devalued.  (Though somehow it's possible for everyone to always know what a straight white male is thinking, but we digress.) 

Compare that to the man on the street's thoughts on economics or the great actors' knowledge of politics and world affairs, which are somehow given great weight in the media.

While we shouldn't be unduly swayed by expert claims (especially as becoming a real expert often entails such a narrow focus as to limit knowledge in other areas), but come on!  How can someone with vast knowledge of a specific subject not have more weight than someone with none?

And yet, how can someone who is human, not potentially have something valuable to say about humanity?

The criteria for getting a voice in the media appears to be how much you agree with their point of view.  Don't know anything about economics, who cares if you help me make my point.  

So as grown ups, we must consider the source and not be unduly influenced by either non-experts on technical topics or "experts" outside their area of expertise. 

When is science "settled," and who decides?

We increasingly hear how the "science is settled," whether it's global warming or evolution.  But science by definition is never settled - all advances involve at least additions to, if not outright invalidation of, previous thought. 

Of course, being for (or against) the prevailing understanding or status quo on any issue does nothing to prove whether it's right or wrong.

So those who claim to speak as the final arbiters on science should be viewed with deep suspicion - as either fools or charlatans, for they are one or the other. 

And again, the value of experts on any topic is in their specific expertise, not in their opinions on unrelated (and even to some extent, semi-related) matters.

True science involves operating on the best current understanding, but always being open to follow the evidence where it leads.  The search for which is a process that never ends.

Since all people are unique, why would you expect them to turn out equal?  And if you appreciate excellence, why would you want equality?

We continually hear (and would agree) that we are all unique, with unique skills and interests.  Some of our uniqueness is natural (to a great extent our looks, athleticism, musical/artistic talent, intelligence certainly are) and some of it is "nurture" (from environment and parents).  But all of it is heavily impacted by our choices and our effort. 

It is the rare individual who can truly succeed in many activities simultaneously (and certainly it is impossible to be as good as you could be at any activity if you spread yourself across others).  If I choose to spend my time watching television instead of studying, then should I expect to be my best at school?  Is it somehow unfair/wrong that those who study more do better in school?

So why would you ever expect that excellence would be spread evenly in proportion to race, for example?  

The claim of discrimination whenever a minority race is underrepresented in some activity is silly - we'd actually argue it might be the exact opposite.  That any activity where the racial composition always matches the population at large would more likely be influenced by racism - where someone is actively discriminating against some based on skill for some based on race.  

We should value excellence over equality, and that's why no one complains that the NBA is 90% composed of black athletes.

When am I supposed to be my brother's keeper?

We always hear about the interconnectedness of our society and world - how we're all in this together and need to help our fellow (wo)man.  Though not in Iraq because that's too expensive (but we digress).

But the reality is that everyone wants to do what they want, and not necessarily listen to your opinion (and whatever good advice you may have for them).

So if we don't want anyone to tell us what to do before we do it, what right do we have to expect them to take care of us afterwards?  The answer is none.  Really, it is none.

The idea that people complain about (or worse, sue and win for) their own mistakes (even despite prior warning) is disgusting.  And a direct cause in the decrease of personal responsibility that negatively affects us all.

Why do the people we take from need to be villainized?  And the ones we give to glorified?

It is very interesting that whenever we take something from someone else, whether it's blatant theft or taxes (and no, we're not saying there shouldn't be taxes), that we tend to justify it by demonizing the victim. 

They didn't deserve it in the first place (whereas I do, or someone else does), or they are a big bad corporation (so I can shoplift), or they just inherited it (so I can create more stringent rules for them than me).  

So Robin Hood's a hero, since he decided the rich didn't deserve it.  May well be true, but again the point is the necessity to rationalize.

It seems likely that we need a villain to justify our actions since we subconsciously know we're wrong.  Our inherent sense of justice requires us to rationalize why it's alright to forcibly take from some to give to others.  This is also why we tend to glorify the recipient (as if their poverty is always due to someone else's oppression, as opposed to fate or choice). 

Of course we rarely have to confront the actual people we're taking from (or giving to).  Otherwise, we'd have to really compare their "goodness" in order to justify the transfer. 

The fact that there will always be someone in need is obvious.  But the idea that those who want to take from others (as opposed to give themselves) to relieve that need are somehow the virtuous ones is just wrong.   

Should we treat thoughts, words, and actions differently?

Obviously the great, thoughtful elite should be able to distinguish between the three - especially with their vaunted ability to avoid "black and white." 

But somehow we often conflate them, and then even fail to distinguish between those expressed in private and in public! 

Apologize for the sarcasm, but the difference between someone's private thoughts and their public actions is enormous!  And the idea that anyone can know anyone's real thoughts should be clearly ludicrous.  

But what really matters are the thoughts/words you choose to act upon.  If this isn't obvious, please turn on your brain. 

Actions speak louder than words, and if memory serves there is a road paved with good intentions (not acted upon).

Are any thoughts/words/emotions/actions always good (or bad)?

Think of this when you hear the rhetoric about using fear to motivate people.  Aside from the fact that both sides use fear all the time for that purpose (whether Islamic terrorism or global warming), the point of fear is to warn you and therefore heighten your defenses. 

So the real question is whether your fears are properly based.  If you're trying to be useful (or honest), you need to argue whether the fear is justified, not that fear is used as a motivator. 

Likewise tolerance - we shouldn't tolerate the murderer or rapist, right?  So tolerance is not a universal positive. 

And pain is negative in the sense that it hurts, but it's positive if it helps you remove your hand from the fire before it's burned.

So why would an appeal to emotion ever be considered controversial?  All advertising is based on using some emotion to get us to take action.  It sure seems to be tied to whether your emotions are in line with the media/left.

And speaking of emotions, we would argue that greed (where you are overly concerned with accumulating stuff for yourself) while bad is better than envy (where you expect someone else to provide your stuff).  It is worse to expect/demand others to take care of you than to want to make/keep too much for yourself.  

For the record, our favorite, most generally positive emotion is gratitude - there is nothing as disgusting as the ungrateful.