Jul 26

3rd Issue New Voice For Politics

3rd Issue New Voice For Politics

In this Issue
Diamonds or Water – Should you use a glass of water or a diamond ring to propose marriage? Marginal utility tells all.
Fair Ball – Something is quite foul in baseball today: a progressive view towards making things “fair”.
Hoo Cares – The majority of young people are ostriches, sticking their heads in the sands of YouTube as political predators are about to jump their bones.

Diamonds or Water

by Stacy Keyes

When your special man goes down on one knee to propose to you, what should he have in his hand, a diamond ring or glass of water? If he truly cares for you, he should have a glass of water. Some might doubt the sincerity of my choice, but I stand by it. Women do not need a diamond ring to survive. Many of my friends have been living for years without one, but try living without water.

So how many women are willing to pass on the diamond and pick up the water? I am willing to guess that most women would choose the diamond ring over the water. Why would women make this decision, choosing a diamond over water? Do they have a death wish? No, most women do not have an unconscious desire to die from dehydration. What most women have is an intuitive understanding of marginal utility. In the aggregate, water trumps diamonds, like rock beats scissors; not even close. The total utility of water, the usefulness of all water on the planet, is more valuable than all of the diamonds on the planet. Water can be used for drinking, bathing, cleaning, and a host of other very useful activities. In comparison, diamonds are not necessary to live. A person could live their whole entire life without ever utilizing a diamond.

We all know that we need water, but humans do not make decisions on the basis of total utility, because we do not need the total supply of water. After we have our thirsts quenched, additional water is no longer necessary; this is why the first sip of water on a hot summer’s day is worth so much more than the 80th sip. When humans are making a decision of what they want, their choice is guided by marginal utility. How much will an additional diamond make you happy compared to an additional glass of water? Most would agree that an additional diamond would make them significantly happier than an additional glass of water. This occurs because water is plentiful, diamonds are comparatively rarer. You can receive as much water as you want for free at a public water fountain; there are no public diamond fountains.

The gift of a diamond ring when your suitor proposes signifies that he values your relationship, because diamonds are very rare and, for this reason, very expensive. A glass of water, on the other hand, suggests that your beau is an idiot or really does not care that much for you; either way, a young lady should usually reconsider her relationship with those who come bearing water.

Marginal utility also explains why school teachers receive less money than professional athletes. The total utility of grade school teachers is significantly more useful than basketball players. If you want to get ahead in life, you need to know how to add and subtract. In comparison, you do not need to watch a person who can shoot three pointers or even know what a three pointer is to be successful in life. Without doubt, teachers are far more beneficial than basketball players, but, despite this fact, they are paid far less. Why does this occur? You can thank marginal utility. There are tens of thousands of grade school teachers that can teach a child addition and subtraction. In comparison, there are very few individuals that can compete in basketball at the professional level.

Diamonds and basketball players are not very useful, but they are rare. As long as there are different supplies of materials and skill level, there will be differences in what people are willing to pay in order to gain access to what they desire.

Now for those who still believe that grade school teachers should be paid more, I have good news. There is a simple solution to decrease the income inequality between the two professions. First, you can spend millions of dollars on programs to increase the basketball skills of tens of thousands of today’s youth, so they all become as good at basketball as Michael Jordan. By increasing the supply of professional basketball players their salaries will drop. The alternative would be to significantly decrease the number of grade school teachers in the United States by deporting them to foreign countries. If the supply of individuals that could teach grade school were reduced from tens of thousands to two hundred, the competition for the remaining teachers would significantly increase, which would result in increased salaries. Until we spend millions of more dollars on basketball training or deport tens of thousands of grade school teachers, the discrepancy in pay will continue.


Fair Ball

By Progressive Pete

Nothing is more American than baseball; it is one of the country’s most endearing traditions. When most people reminisce about America’s favorite past time, they recall competing on the diamond or sitting in the stands while they enjoy a nice hot dog, bag of popcorn, or box of crackerjacks on a fine sunny day. But not all is sunshine and lollipops; there is also a dark and sinister side to baseball.

The seedy underbelly of baseball is cratered with greed. Major League Baseball is a den of inequalities, where the rich abuse and take advantage of the less well to do teams. Greedy teams, like the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Dodgers, and Boston Red Sox, are ruining the game with their ravenous hunger for more money. These teams sully the game by throwing more money around than baseballs. They win game after game by acquiring all of the talent in the league with their large bags of cash, while other deserving teams, like Cleveland, Kansas City, and Houston, are left woefully out in the cold begging for players. For those who doubt the impropriety in the system, ask yourself is it fair that one player on the New York Yankees makes more money than the entire roster of the Houston Astros.

Baseball has turned into a sport of the haves and have nots. Those who have the cash can acquire the talent to win games. It is not fair that the top three spending teams have won 40 World Series Titles, while the three cities of woe have won three. Something must be done to even the score.

I think all fair minded people can agree that drastic steps need to be taken to level the playing field. Right now, the Cleveland Indians will never win a World Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers unless interventions occur. At this time, several suggestions are under consideration to make things right. Propositions have been floating around to provide poorer teams, like the Indians, with an opportunity to earn their fair share of victories against major market teams, like the Yankees, Dodgers, and others. The Cleveland Indians, for example, are not the best hitters; therefore, it is not fair that teams that spend millions of more dollars on superior pitchers have to attain only three outs in an inning. Under the new proposed system, the Cleveland Indians’ hitters will keep batting until four outs occur. Many people have pointed out that this may still not be enough. When your team has Mark Reynolds leading the league in strike outs is it really fair to require only three strikes to attain a strikeout? I think not. The Indians will now have to earn four strikes to be out. In a similar vein, to assist their pitching, Cleveland pitchers will only need two strikes to strike out the opposition.

Despite all of these interventions, concerns remain that this might not be enough for the Cleveland Indians. If the rule changes are not enough, sources have said that an alternative “Restore Fairness” program is being discussed. Under the “Restore Fairness” program, a redistribution of wins would provide less victorious teams with a fair share of wins. If any team starts to be more than two wins ahead of second place, their next win will be credited to the last place team, which tries hard but cannot help their losses, due to the unfairness of the system. Some have hinted that the ultimate goal is to move away from the barbaric concept of a “World Series Winner” or “National Champion”. Instead, a more harmonious end to the season would be for all of the teams to end the season in a tie for first.

Some have asked; where did this enlightened view of victory redistribution come from? Apparently, college football has been at the forefront of fairer competition discussions. Over the past decade, many alumni from Michigan, including myself, have stated that it is unfair that The Ohio State University has repeatedly humiliated Michigan on the football field. Many Michigan football players have suffered from low self-esteem, academic difficulties, and hurt feelings as a result.

Already, enlightened businessmen and government officials have embraced the tenets of the “Restore Fairness” program. It is not fair that certain companies make more money than other companies. If a company is more profitable than another, it can surely share some of the money it has earned with another company that has been losing customers. It is un-American for the most successful company to make the most money. Baseball needs to become more like our income tax system. Those making the most money, the top 1%, need to have their money taken away from them and redistributed to those in the bottom 99%. The top baseball teams need to have their wins taken away from them and redistributed to those baseball teams that are in need. Some might argue that the successful are such because they work harder, but should effort or skill really be used to determine who wins a baseball game?

Hopefully the time has come when we can move away from competition in sports and hold hands as we cross the finish line together. If professional baseball refuses to adopt the “Restore Fairness” program, I am personally calling upon Occupy Wall Street to occupy the Yankees dugout.


Hoo Cares

by William Roberts

What is the proper role of government? What economic policies will benefit society? Will pursuing actions for the greater good be good for you? The answers to these questions could possibly perhaps almost potentially play what may or may not be a significant role in some aspect of your life; however, most people neither know the answers to these questions nor whether it is even important for them to know. They simply act like ostriches. That is right; I just said the majority of people you know are giant birds. What are you going to do about it?

You might disagree and say that the majority of Americans do not resemble overgrown flightless creatures, but I stand by my original accusation. When it comes to politics, it is hard to distinguish these creatures from the average college student. Go ahead and ask young adults about the effects of ever increasing national debt and you will start to see the resemblance. Will these individuals grow curious and try to seek out information or even a way to solve the problem? Nope. They will try to ignore the situation and delve into mindless pursuits; such as, googling what the new reality star was arrested for or watching a new YouTube video where a kitten does something cute. The majority will simply stick their heads in the sand and ignore any actual threat that might be around the corner.

Should we blame people for trying to ignore scary things that they hear about on the news? Is it so bad to tune out those incompetent politicians, who are more inclined to point fingers than point out an actual solution? To answer these questions, I return to my fine feathered friend, the ostrich. How does his strategy work for him or her? Well, if Mr. or Mrs. Ostrich sees a lion, it is likely to become quite distressed, and for good reason: the lion might try to eat them. So what can they do to reduce their stress and regain a pleasant outlook on life? Fighting is pointless, because they would most likely lose. They could run, but that is hard work. The easiest solution is to simply stick their head in the sand and chill. In the short-term, this strategy is highly effective. The removal of the negative visual stimulus results in a significant decrease of distressing emotions. From a long-term perspective, this plan has a few drawbacks; chief among them, being eaten to death by a lion.

What am I saying? Will you be eaten to death if you do not pay attention to what the politicians are doing? Most likely, you will not be mauled to death by large carnivorous beasts, but you will not know for sure unless you are paying attention. Politicians can be slipperier than eels lathered in grease and more conniving than a James Bond villain living in a hollowed out volcano. If you do not watch them, you could be eaten by a lion.

Well, if ostriches are out, what should you be? You should be an owl. First off, they can fly, which will make it harder for the lions to eat you; however, there are other characteristics of this fine feathered creature that are significantly easier to emulate. Their night vision is a definite advantage, since it is necessary to keep an eye on politicians and government in general, even at night. Also, we should imitate owls, because they are very inquisitive creatures, always asking who.

In conclusion, do not be an ostrich. Their ignorance of their surroundings will be their undoing. Eternal vigilance is needed; be an owl.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>