Jason's Jargon

In Defense of Capitalism

2009-02-20T11:52:00.003-06:00

Below is an email, presented chronologically, between myself and several colleagues. Names have been redacted. The final part of the email is my response in defense of capitalism. As always, your thoughts are welcome.

From: Lundell,Jason
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:57 PM
Subject: My thoughts exactly!

From Drudge Report:

VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE...

See this link for the video from CNBC. Worth the 5 minutes to watch.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

From: XXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: My thoughts exactly!

Here is something almost as stupid!

I realize that the mortgage relief will be used in many different ways, but the simple math makes no sense!

75,000,000,000 / 9,000,000 families = $8,333/family

I could hardly refinance my home for $8,333.

My opinion, Obama claims that he tried to save us from the melting housing market, it fails, and he blames Bush for it all. Obama can then claim that he tried. Bush is to blame for a lot of this mess, but I thought we elected the person who was going to save us from this mess.

From: XXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:45 PM
Subject: RE: My thoughts exactly!

Couldn't agree with you guys more. The stupid plan also wants to reduce montly mortgage payments to a more manageable recommended 31% of monthly income. Are you freaking kidding me! Ours is less than 16%. That is ridiculous. Everyone always has to max out!

Like Wilbur Ross says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Ross ) even if they reduce it to 2%, (heck I say no interest) the idiots still can't afford the payments. These idiots can barely even afford the tiny teaser rate or no interest that is about to reset.

I want a piece of the American fraud pie.

We have no debt but mortgage. I should open new lines of credit daily. Max it to the sky, write those convenient checks to offshore accounts, declare bankruptcy. [Redacted] sees it all the time at the credit union. People completely obilterate their credit and years later they have high scores again. She mentioned to me the other day it pisses her off. Why be responsible? I'm better off joining the fleecing of America. Might as well start with my Bof A and Citi credit card since they are about to be nationalized anyway. BAC and C going to 0.

Think of it as getting my social security benefits now before the coffers are completely empty!

Best Regards,
Stanford Madoff Capital
"We guarantee you 100% returns or your money back"

From: XXXXXX
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:48 AM
RE: My thoughts exactly!

I don't know who the rebel rouser was in the video, but he's an idiot!

This entire problem is due to the mathematical illiteracy in this country, in combination with the materialistic greed that can be found every where from Wall St to Main St. The combination of these two have lead us here, and the only way to prevent this from ever happening again is to properly educate the next generation! I'm not talking about educating them in the funny math that is played on wall st, but basic math and science that will lead to new discoveries; which has continuously proven to be the greatest economic drivers in modern history. The new ways of making money out of nothing, that seems to be the way of the bankers and financers on Wall St, is not economic growth or development, it is fraud! That is what caused us to arrive to this point!

Step away from your credit cards and credit lines, and get back to the basics of ingenuity and creativity driven by curiosity! That is what will get us out of this problem, not government spending, not bankers and not the automakers, those are the [redacted] that caused all of this!!

So quit your [redacted] and get to work!

From: Lundell,Jason
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 11:52 AM
RE: My thoughts exactly!

Interesting proposal and I agree with your general idea. Excess greedy capitalism got us into this mess and I think, ironically, it will be excess greedy capitalism that will get us back out.

The basic problem is this: the economy is in a recession because of decreased consumer confidence, lack of consumer spending, lack of sufficient money flow between willing market participants, and increased unemployment. All four fundamental concepts are interconnected. If one falters, the others will eventually collapse. Conversely, if one is bolstered, eventually the others will tend toward improvement. Excessive greed brought all of the fundamentals into complete disarray. If the common people and citizens can't be trusted with allowing the market forces to correct this problem, then who can best fix the alignment of these fundamentals? Government? What can government do best? Spend money--your money, by the way. Government spending doesn't significantly impact consumer spending or consumer confidence. By the very nature of spending anything, you can impact the money flow regardless. But the government forcefully takes away money from its constituents ("We the People"), and allocates or redistributes it in the form of spending. Clearly, government is not a market participant in the capitalist sense. Government may impact unemployment marginally so long as the unemployed are hired permanently by the government and the government maintains this new higher level of spending to keep the previously unemployed in a continuously employed state. As Ronald Reagan emphatically stated in his first inaugural address, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Our economy is capitalist-influenced, but heavily regulated and restricted so as to not make it purely capitalist. The government seems to (inappropriately) take credit whenever the market forces of capitalism prove correct and wealth abounds. However, at an instant when this supposed version of capitalism begins to sway towards failure, the government quickly points the finger of blame and says, "We knew this would happen! This is why we need dramatic reforms and quickly!"

The dramatic reforms being proposed today in Congress and among so-call informed pundits on 24-hour news channels sound more like socialism than anything else. If you'll correctly recall there was a 60-year dramatic scientific experiment with socialism that proved disastrous (e.g., USSR). Even in the backyard of America you'll find Cuba (also a socialist country) still driving cars manufactured in the 1950s, the very era in which Castro came to power and ended capitalism. Interestingly, China recognizes it can't fight the forces of capitalism and has made significant reforms to adopt some of the powerful principles of capitalism. Capitalism is the real source for the wealth of all nations.

Fraud is not a byproduct of capitalism. Evidence of fraud is found in every economy type or political structure since the beginning of politically-organized economic entities. From totalitarian to fascist regimes, fraud is pervasive and difficult to counter. Fraud will happen regardless, even if America (forbid) becomes more socialist. Clearly some of the reforms touted today are intended to fight fraud, which is thought to have originated with capitalism. Socialism, it is thought, allows the government to run business and dictate the terms of market behavior. If the government dictates the terms, then there will be no fraud. How sad will be the day when America the beautiful finds fraud in a socialist-driven economy. Then will begin the slippery slope slouching towards communism, where even individual identity, personality and personal preferences are run by the state!

We need to fight back! Capitalism has been proven to work better than any other man-made market theory. Enough with the bleak and confounded dissensions about the doom and gloom of capitalism! America is stronger than the rest of the world thanks to capitalism. We need to bound together right now behind the very principles the founding fathers fought hard to provide and protect. The American people are better than this; they deserve better than this; they can work hard to achieve better than this!

Respectfully submitted,

Jason

A Dooms Day Test for the Obama Presidency

2008-10-22T11:44:00.002-05:00

Less than two short weeks before the presidential election of 2008, it appears momentum has held steady or waxed in support for a nation-wide referendum on the passionate hatred and utter contempt for the current Bush presidency. Why? Summed up in one dirty, four-letter word: Iraq.

This election isn’t really so much about the nation wanting to elect its first African-American president or asking for change (whatever that means). This election is about Iraq and the pivotal political role it has played. Every imaginable forum in America is a sound stage of contempt, from the biased news media, brutal political campaigns, idle workplace conversations, debates by the intelligently-deceived on college campuses, and in sacred places of worship, we have all been overcome with conspiratorial emotion in Iraq’s unenvisioned effects.

Iraq may yet continue to haunt Americans and the rest of the world even after Obama becomes president.

Soon-to-be President Obama has promised to begin the immediate withdrawal of American solders from Iraq. Sounds simple enough. No more American troops in the way of harm. Stability and prosperity for the Iraqi people without Saddam in power. Win-win, right?

But let’s play out this scenario further. What will happen to Iraq and the Middle East? The obvious yet ignored answer: Iran.

The CIA World Factbook entry on Iran states, “During 1980-88, Iran fought a bloody, indecisive war with Iraq that eventually expanded into the Persian Gulf and led to clashes between US Navy and Iranian military forces between 1987 and 1988.” This battle has the potential to be reignited if the United States surrenders and completely pulls out from a substantially weakened Iraq. Iran can seize the opportunity to finally win the war started nearly 30 years ago.

Do you think this may sound a bit unrealistic? Many of the same leaders presiding over Iran at the start of the Iran-Iraq war are still in significant positions of power and persuasion and may still hold a grudge. For example, Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei, in power since 1989, was president of Iran from 1981 to 1989, and a close confidant of the Grand Ayatollah and Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran’s 1979 revolution. Khamenei is an outspoken critic of the United States and Israel. Iran is also a state sponsor of terror and endorses Islamic extremist views without restraint. (Parenthetically, might I add, it is unfortunate how many of the world’s wars were started or fought over because of unrelenting religious views. We’re all human beings with a need to connect with Deity and reach our divinely-established potential. God never intended religion to be the root of war but finite-minded foolish and fallible men made it such.)

Iraq is in a state of confusion over its political identity and military prowess. Iranian-trained and sponsored insurgents have successfully caused psychological turmoil and inflicted pain on two of its enemies simultaneously—the United States and Iraq. The insurgency has subsided, to a degree, thanks in part to the “surge” for which John McCain takes credit. But a withdrawal from Iraq means the surge will be permanently suspended and a ripe breading ground for trouble will resurface, much like pesky weeds in a lawn which come back, time after time, despite non-dramatic attempts to control the problem.

Logically, the insurgency and sectarian violence will eventually rise due to the withdrawal of American troops. The Iraqi people will be hurting even more as a result. Under Obama, the United States will have committed itself to some other endeavor rather than helping Iraq. At a moment when problems couldn’t get any worse for the Iraqi people, Iran will make its bold move and overtake Iraq. The haunting images of an Iranian invasion will be eerily reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Without the restraint of the United States so boldly and overwhelmingly present in Iraq, there’s no barrier for war from Iran’s perspective other than self-restraint. If you’re already a rogue nation not liked by many, how much more damage to a bad reputation will an invasion cause?

By the way, America’s presence in Iraq and the perceived and persistent problems as exploited in a biased media has taught the Middle East (and other nations, for that matter) one lesson: the United States of American supposedly makes serious blunders and frequent mistakes and cannot function without the public’s support for war (which begins to evaporate after the first reported casualty). Thanks to the know-it-all impeccable media, the United States has lost its perfected image as an awesome and untarnished mighty military power. That image, incidentally, was created not because of some carefully crafted and consistently coordinated public relations stunt, but because Americans really do care about their country and cherish freedom and want our country to succeed. Pointing cameras aimlessly and shoving microphones in anyone’s face, the media happily provide the political spin machine in another country direct influence and control, to an extent, in directing the affairs of our great country, including managing our own wars.

The image of the United States is tarnished because its constitutionally protected, profit-motivated free press makes it appear tarnished. Gone are all those years of dedication, ingenuity, persistence, and sacrifice by countless unsung American heroes because of a very un-American media in America. The media ought to be singing the praises and celebrating every day the freedoms they enjoy and building up the American image. Instead, they are leading the awful cause of our beautiful nation’s demise.

To continue, as you can plainly see, it’s quite easy for Iran to show no hesitation or restraint in acting aggressively against Iraq. The United States won’t jump in and save the world. They’ll be busy with other things (and if not busy, Obama will find excuses or give a speech since he’s good at it). Iran’s infiltration and domination of Iraq will undoubtedly call the attention of other nations and somehow the United Nations will get involved. But Iran, hardened by its resolve, will not care. Their next target, now much more easily reached, is Israel. With such foresight, this is probably why Israel recently requested permission from the Bush administration to launch a pre-emptive attack and take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

An Iranian conflict with Israel will mean other nations will come to the defense of Iran. Nations in the Middle East will declare holy war against Israel. Other nations will eventually join in the brouhaha against Israel. The United States will be forced to honor its commitment to protecting and assisting Israel. Thus begins World War Three.

Obviously, the extreme dooms day scenario I spelled out is riddled with logical assumptions, most of which I would deem not entirely far-fetched but likely improbable.

I worry about the next four to eight years. Obama’s supposed brilliance is ideologically handicapped and does not have the foresight or ability to logically predict consequences by taking such a hard-lined political position on Iraq. Nor can the American people be asked, by way of the statistical poll, to make an informed decision because they lack the right information and patience.

I’m perplexed at the delicacy of foreign affairs. One wrong move, something misspoken, or a statement misinterpreted can have serious and long-lasting repercussions. I am even more baffled at how foreign policy does not play a more important role in American elections. Instead, we’re caught up in a candidate’s promises of change, peace and financial prosperity without understanding the full consequences.

Ironically, earlier this week, Senator Joe Biden predicted at a fund raiser in Seattle:

“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.

“Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

“And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right.”

Obama’s unyielding resolve to withdrawal troops from Iraq could prove to be the starting point of the so-called crisis Senator Biden predicted. How far and to what extent this crisis will play out is the great unknown but it makes me nervous.

Ban Incentive Compensation Now!

2008-10-01T16:00:00.000-05:00

Starting in 2001, fraud has been a watch word on Wall Street, although more recently ignored until the current financial crisis. Descending from the heavens as shocking financial revelations, the multibillion dollar scandals at Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, Nortel, HealthSouth, and Waste Management all have served as a reminder that corporate greed drives corporate profits and it ought to be stopped.

Almost every public company in America has executive compensation tied to earnings performance. On the surface, encouraging executives and employees to meet certain profit targets appears reasonable. The argument goes: if earnings are up, the stock goes up, and so should compensation.

As an accounting and fraud prevention professional, I worry about the unbridled misbehavior of some executives who do not make good long-term strategic decisions based on the best interest of companies and employees. Our American society and money-dominated culture views events in 10-second sound bites, memorable catch phrases, and biased, combative news reporting in a 24-hour news cycle. America’s ADHD attention span is short and certainly short-sighted.

Corporate America is run the same way. Boards and executives want to quickly develop easy compensation they can lavishly spend now and leave questions regarding viability and fraud to the next guy. By ignoring the inevitable and surmounting problem of using an unethical incentive-based compensation system, they foolishly have convinced themselves there is no problem, while concurrently stealing money from corporate coffers and deceiving Wall Street.

Wall Street encourages such behavior, though. Greed is rampant on Wall Street—they’re out to make a quick buck just like corporate executives. A number of Americans are just as caught up in this “get rich quick” scheme. Wall Street turns a blind eye on borderline criminal behavior—nay, the Street encourages the behavior, so long as cash continues to gush from Old Faithful greed! (But don’t get caught, right Martha?)

The obvious fact is this: the current form of corporate incentive compensation has been and will continue to be manipulative and deceptive. Greed is an expense, not an asset.

Since many presidential candidates tout the reformist image by incessantly chanting “change” without truly comprehending the word’s origins, meanings and ramifications, I propose a fundamental change to the current corporate compensation structure. However, this kind of change really is necessary, not a pithy campaign slogan.

Congress needs to make illegal the granting of (1) stock options, (2) stock appreciation rights, and (3) other forms of compensation directly tied to meeting profit targets, analyst expectations or projections, or certain stock market performance measurements. All forms of compensation should be transparent and blatantly reflected in a company’s income statement, not cleverly buried elsewhere in the ofttimes unreadable financial statements. (Under the current accounting rules, stock options appear under equity and not as a liability or an expense.) Compensation ought to be fair and reasonable, without the threat of fraud or other illegal and unethical influences in making corporate insiders and executives ridiculously rich.

Congress already has the authority to make such a bold move. Constitutionally, this radical new law can be justified through the commerce clause, which reads, “[t]he Congress shall have power . . . [t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” (U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, 3).

Left unchecked and unchanged, the current corporate compensation structure will continue to foster fraud and manipulate market mayhem. Accounting frauds happen with much greater frequency because of enticing incentives to make profits look impressive and artificially drive up stock prices.

In times of recession or downturns, when markets and companies suffer, some greedy corporate executives will undoubtedly go to great lengths to ensure economic prosperity for themselves by fudging a few numbers here and there, or forgetting to book expenses in the appropriate period, or just flat out booking entries to the corporate ledger without competent, trustworthy supporting documentation. Whatever the means of deception and fraud, the temptation is enormous when times are good and bad to steal and devise a strategy for unfair compensation.

Pardon me for sounding socialist in this novel approach. I am not communist, nor Marxist, nor even left-leaning in most of my views. I am strongly in favor of allowing free markets to function freely but without manipulation and deception—free markets not fleece markets. From my point of view, I perceive potential or undiscovered accounting frauds and some of which is directly linked to an improper incentive structure. The best way to advert and prevent disasters is to deal with the issues straight-on, directly, and without deviation or attention to other external influences.

Compensation needs to be determined on individual effort and not stock market effects. Money in corporate America is corruptive and tying executive compensation to earnings is a financial formula for fraud and fundamentally un-American. Americans deserve real reform and banning incentive compensation now will begin the dawn of an improved free market system.

As always, comments are welcome.

The Mighty Vice Presidency

2008-07-24T10:50:00.001-05:00

Most unastute and incorrectly informed political observers (a.k.a., 24 hour news cycle media types) candidly endorse the notion that vice presidential candidates are important.

This is a lie!

Any ignoramus trying to sell a story will want you to believe their perception of the world is correct. Apologetically, my discussion here is not on the oxymoronic approach of the profit-driven media in selling disasters, crises, scandals, miseries, and hatred (among other things), while appearing compassionately degrading and the supposed moral authority and unquestioned expert on all matters incorporated. Sensational or biased news reporting is not really news at all—it is capitalism trapped in totalitarianism, masked with ridiculous stories teetering on the mundane and meaningless, exploited to the point where reality becomes inconsequential.

Instead, my focus is on the hype of presidential candidates selecting running mates and why all the ensuing fuss is nothing to be concerned about anyway.

Deep within the confines of the United States Constitution, you will find very little mention about the role and importance of the vice presidency. The founding fathers were more concerned with the powers granted to Congress and the role of the President. The Vice President and the Supreme Court were intentionally left weak and ostensibly insignificant in terms of power in the newly established federal government.

Only the Supreme Court has been able to emerge from the faded ink of the Constitution with more unbridled power and overreaching influence, thanks mostly to the implementation of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, an unquestioned exoconstitutional power created for the benefit of the court and written by the court in 1803. As Dan Jones, my former political science professor at the University of Utah, would proclaim: "The Constitution is nothing more than what the Supreme Court says it is." And if the Supreme Court says the judiciary has more power and it's somewhere in the Constitution, apparently there's no checks and balances to keep the federal judicial system from running amuck. (Curious observation: Merriam-Webster defines "amuck" as "a murderous frenzy that has traditionally been regarded as occurring especially in Malaysian culture." If you replace Malaysian with American in the definition and speak figuratively of the frenzy, I think you get the picture.)

But the vice presidency hasn't had as much luck. From the early days of John Adams, our nation's first Vice President, it was immediately obvious there is very little power and responsibility. One of the Vice President's delegated constitutional responsibilities is to preside as President of the United States Senate. Unsuccessfully and with much resentment, Mr. Adams frequently tried to interject his views into the debates of the Senate. The only real power, it was found, was the Vice President casting tie-breaking votes. Other than breaking tied votes and mere ceremonial responsibilities, the Vice President does not participate in debates, introduce or sponsor legislation, or sit on Senate committees. Even though the Vice President is the President of the Senate, he does not enjoy any of the powers and responsibilities of the Senate. Mr. Adams, speaking from personal experience, said the vice presidency is "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

The only other constitutional power belonging to the Vice President isn't really a power until such person ascends to the presidency. If you recall, the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, was implemented to clarify what really happens to the presidency upon the death, incapacity, or impairment of the President. Prior to the 25th Amendment, the Vice President held an ambiguous position, not really certain where or what he should do in certain cases, even in cases involving incapacity of a President.

Historically, the vice presidency used to be the red ribbon given to the guy in second place--some sort of consolation prize for running for president. Over time, the process of electing a Vice President changed. Yes, over the years, past Presidents have chosen to include the Vice President on certain matters (or leave them completely in the dark) and Congress has granted the Vice President additional responsibilities. However, from a purely constitutional perspective, the office of the Vice President of the United States is insignificant and is merely ceremonial. Harry Truman, who served as Vice President to President Franklin D. Roosevelt for three months until the President's death, remarked that the job of the vice president is to "go to weddings and funerals." In other words, the vice presidency still isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.

Besides, voters don't really vote for presidential candidates because of the other person on the ticket. Voters want discussion and promises of resolution on issues important to them in their small spheres of unattended influence. Promises are exactly what voters get—lots of them. Although it would be a complete waste of my time, I would still find it fascinating to find someone who has conducted an unbiased study on politicians’ promises and how successful they were in, first, trying to implement what they promised and, second, if they were triumphant. I would suspect the number of promises made compared to the number of promises attempted and number of promises fulfilled would be staggeringly low.

Back on topic--Given the discussion thus far, is the vice presidency really all that important? I can't find any competent, sustainable evidence in the Constitution to show the importance the vice presidency. Congress has granted some responsibilities, but those same responsibilities are redundantly placed in other positions within the federal government, too. Example: when Dick Cheney was hiding in the cave in the days following September 11, did the government collapse or cease to function properly?

Let me pose this question: do you honestly think the selection of a running mate is far more important than any policy position pertaining to international relations, military matters, national security, the domestic economy, judicial appointments, the role and growth of the federal government, the rights of individual Americans, and your personal tax burden and how your tax money is spent? The vice presidency is essentially (and intentionally) a purposeless, trivial position. Why place such a profound importance on something pointless?

Why does the media think any vice presidential candidate is really important in determining the direction of politics and policies in America? The only real reason: it doesn't, but at least it makes money!

My Censored Article

2008-07-13T09:09:00.001-05:00

In my previous blog entry, I paid homage to my censored article. Riddled with satire, revelry, and provocation, I conjured up some very strong reactions, both good and bad, in the student body and faculty. In fact, my math teacher was also the high school basketball coach and got upset at me (you'll see what I mean when you read below). I wish I could have re-emphasized that the article was based primarily on my poll results.

As always, your comments are welcome. Please tell me why you may or may not think the school's administration was justified in recalling the newspaper.

Have a splendid day!

Jason

Spanish Fork Persecution
What bothers students most!

Jason’s Jargon
By Jason Ray Lundell
(c) 1994 Lundell Enterprises

WARNING: Due to the sensitive nature of the following material, the SF Surgeon General advises that those with serious heart conditions, digestive disorders, weak constitutions, or yellow teeth, must not—I repeat—must not read the following!

SUB-WARNING: Because of its scandalous nature, Dooby (better known as Dave Esplin—our splendid student body pres) has asked me (or kinda threatened me) to not blabber deleteriously about our school spirit (as if we had any).

SUBWAY-WARNING: In doing Dave a favor, I will not say anything as such. Therefore, if anyone gets the crazy idea that I’m saying we have no school pride or spirit, Davey Boy will personally send out for you!

Top 10 things wrong with the school in the students’ eyes:

10 – “No Hats” Policy: Common responses: “It’s dumb. It’s stupid.” Hats are still and probably always will be a Top 10 problem for students.

9 – Assemblies: “Not enough,” or they’re “too dumb.” Many have stated that during pep assemblies, we should be allowed to get rowdy, shout, and have full-class competitions, not just competitions between a few representatives from each class. An egotistical sub-intellect stated proudly, “I hate the assemblies being in the afternoon.”

8 – Single-Minded Coaches: Coaches who can only coach, but who don’t have any real teaching skills. Floods of responses came in saying they hate it when a teacher is hired as a coach and then doesn’t focus on his classes.

7 – Bud’s clipboard: The administration has finally decided to crack down on the truancy problems in this school. Students express that this idea “sucks!”

6 – Time: Students want more time to get to class and less time in class. Some have also announced that they want A and B days like Payson.

5 (golden rings) – Bathrooms: “They’re disgusting!” Our bathrooms need to have cleaner mirrors, bigger sheets of toilet paper (or better yet, how about toilet paper rolls), soap, air fresheners, and an atmosphere you can really concentrate in.

4 (calling birds) – Victory dances: Billions of students (well, not that many) said we need more dances, longer dances, and security needs to tighten up on letting drunks attend these magnificent social gatherings.

3 (french hens) – Our “beloved” U Policy: Students seem to be outraged at the decision to keep them from graduating just because of a few U’s. Plus, as other have commented, some teachers appear to be taking advantage of the policy to get at students they don’t like—four tardies and you’re almost guaranteed a U. The U Policy nearly made it all the way to #2 on the list!

2 (turtle doves) – Lunch: Chow time is just too short! “We need more time to hork down our food and chat with friends!” said an anonymous socialite, who apparently doesn’t know his fork from his shovel.

1 (partridge in a pear tree) – The Biggie: “We need more water fountains!” (Just kidding!) Actually, the number one concern among students is parking—parking in general! Students have a number of complaints in this area:

* Absolutely no place to park!
* Senior Honor is too dang expensive.
* Disgust with the “grizzly gang” that hangs out at the ever-so-cherished North Parking Lot.
* Parking tags (that identify those who park in the wrong place).
* Or basically anything that involves parking.

So, now we know what bothers students the most. What bothers me the most is the following:

It’s clear to me that the students may know what they’re talking about—but they just don’t know how to articulate their emotional responses to issues that are too complex for their shallow minds to fully fathom. As I see it, the main problem at the school is diction and usage—for you juniors, that means correct rhetoric and grammar—for you there sophomores, it means “to taalk gud.”

For hundreds of years, the Greeks and Romans ran rhetoric schools that taught people how to speak and write correctly and persuasively on important community issues. They would have been appalled at the modern focus in writing on organization and definition, which allows discussion of trivial issues, so long as they are well organized and well defined.

What this survey really reveals is that students at Spanish Fork High School could stand to learn a thing or two from the ancient orators. They could learn how to distinguish between trivial issues and important ones. They could learn how to come up with proposed solutions. They could learn how to argue persuasively to get their solutions implemented.

It seems like the only real skill many of them have developed so far is the ability to heave out that boring, ineffective, and oh-so-predictable grunt: “This sucks!” (Maybe we should make this the school slogan.)

Where will such a response get you in life? How can that solve anything at all?!? My cheap advice is for students to take their English skills more seriously so that they can express themselves more forcefully. They should take their math skills more seriously so that they can think more logically and solve problems more quickly. They should take their history skills more seriously so that they can be familiar with the current issues and acquire better judgment. And so on and so forth ad infinitum.

As long as our students content themselves with such shallow, unproductive responses to their problems, they will continue to live in their dark caves of discontent, hitting their heads against the wall and never achieving anything worthwhile. Amen.

(The article above originally appeared in the February 25, 1994 recalled issue of the Spaniard Sentinel, page 4.)

A New Beginning

2008-07-09T11:26:00.000-05:00

In August 1992, I started high school in Spanish Fork, Utah as a junior. I was new to the Spanish Fork area and decided to make a difference in a bold way--I joined the newspaper staff of our seemingly insignificant student newspaper, the Spaniard Sentinel. I wasn't entirely certain what direction I would take but expressed a desire to use "big words" (in an effort to sound complex although I didn't know what some of the words really meant) and evoke strong emotional reaction in my teenage audience (a feat easily accomplished, I might add). Thus began my humble column, "Jason's Jargon."

My column was widely read and had its fans and foes. I discussed such controversial topics as Girbaud jeans and their meaningless and over-rated place in high school fashion, the lack of high school parking, the school's stupid ban on hats, and masterful, timely piece on what I predicted to be the disastrous presidency of the newly-elected Bill Clinton (the day of the article’s release, my AP History teacher, a staunch Democrat, spent the first 15 minutes in the front of the entire class telling me how I was wrong and how Bill Clinton is our presidential knight in shining armor. Yeah, right!).

My most famous (and infamous) article during my professional high school newspaper career was on the top ten things high school students dislike the most. I conducted a written poll and found, out of nearly 300 responses, most students stated "this sucks" or "that sucks," etc. I hoped to find something new and controversial to discuss from the poll. After reviewing the poll results, I decided to take the article in an entirely different direction. I first reported the results of the poll then moved on to a masterful discourse on diction and proper usage of the English language. This article was indeed controversial! In fact, after it was released to the student body, the Vice Principal came storming down to my classroom, yelled something to the effect of, "Jason, this is ridiculous!" and stormed off. Next thing I know, he's on the intercom asking all the teachers to gather the newspaper and bring it to the front office. (I was censored!) You could almost hear an audible gasp from the collective student body as they rushed to grab a copy of the paper as they immediately knew I had pushed things too far.

I eventually discovered it wasn't the poll results or my commentary that got me in trouble but some remarks in the opening paragraphs about how I promised our beloved student body president I wouldn't speak ill of our school spirit (as if we had any). Then, the kicker that caused the entire ruckus, was the statement that if anyone thought we didn't have any school spirit, then "Davey Boy was going to send out for you" ("Davey Boy" obviously referring to the student body president).

I moved on to college to the grandiose institution formerly known as Utah Valley State College and, for a brief time, was on the staff as the opinion editor of the College Times. I started a new column, “Diplopia,” but never really liked the name and wished I would have used “Jason's Jargon” instead. In my estimation, the column never blossomed probably because I never gave it a chance.

Nearly 16 years later, I have decided to reinvoke the dreaded spirits from the past and begin anew by blabbing deleteriously and providing commentary on a wide-range of issues, politics likely one of my favorite subjects. Admittedly (and quite proudly), I consider myself a conservative with concerned sympathies and attraction to other issues not traditionally held by conservatives. For example, I am concerned about the environment, domestic violence, appropriate care for children, and ensuring the government provide the protection and resources to accomplish an altruistic and utilitarian means.

I reserve the right to discuss whatever I see fit and take any affirmative or contrary position for the sake of argument. However, more often than not, I may actually be advocating the views I present and I always welcome feedback. I think I spent enough time in philosophy and political science classes and working in national politics to learn how to enjoy a good debate and how best to evaluate arguments.

Stay tuned (hopefully) for future posts.