Byron York has an actual history of what Obama did. Jim Geraghty has some related thoughts:
...note that Obama and his supporters speak a great deal about Obama's choice to be a community organizer, and not so much on what he actually did. We're continually expected to applaud the decision to try instead of asking about the results. We never hear, "because of his work, Factory X reopened," or "because of Obama's creation of job retraining program Y, the community's unemployment rate reduced from A to B."
Yes, with so-called "liberals," it's always about the good intentions, and we're not supposed to pay any attention to actual results.
Lileks has some thoughts as well:
We're having a block party tonight - yes, another block party; damned community can't stop organizing itself (if I may repeat something I said over at Tim Blair's place - successful communities, or those on track to becoming successful, organize themselves; if you need someone to come in and do your organizing for you, he might as well call himself Mollusk Wrangler or Sloth Herder. I say this as a former community organizer myself, but that's another story) so we'll all stand outside and chat and eat pot luck.
If your community needs an "organizer" it's probably not much of a community. It's just a lot of people living in close proximity.
And just a hint for some in comments: given Obama's image problem with his messiah complex, it's probably not politically helpful to compare him to Jesus...
I am not surprised Rand is not writing about the
Nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
A Trillion dollars of Tax dollars are being committed to
bail out Foregin investors and Wall Street.
Of Course Rand didn't write about the $30 Billion dollar
bail out to Bear Stearns either.
Say what you want about those Community Organizers they
sure don't cost me any money
They will if elected.
I am not surprised Rand is not writing about the
Nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Not that I really care what "surprises" you, but why do you think that this subject has anything whatsoever to do with this post? Are you just trolling, as usual?
I figured John Smythe would have his own blog, so he can blog about topics that interest him.
From my atheistic Jewish perspective, one of the biggest advantages Christianity has over Judaism, in my opinion, is that Christians have given the world a really great role model.
And so, Rand, from one non-Christian to another, I think you're misunderstanding the comparison to Jesus.
I thought the idea was that everyone was supposed to compare themselves to Jesus, in the sense that everyone would be wise to ask themselves "How can I be more like Jesus?"
"How can I be more like Jesus?"
Grow your hair long. Maybe a beard. Walk on water. Wait! I know! Turn water into wine. That's the one.
Rand,
I don't believe the links go where you intend them to go. As a matter of fact, the 2nd link on the comments page doesn't go to the same location as the one on the main page.
I don't believe the links go where you intend them to go.
Proving once again that people love to comment on links without reading them.
Thanks, fixed now.
"I am not surprised Rand is not writing about the
Nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
A Trillion dollars of Tax dollars are being committed to
bail out Foregin investors and Wall Street.
Of Course Rand didn't write about the $30 Billion dollar
bail out to Bear Stearns either.
Say what you want about those Community Organizers they
sure don't cost me any money"
well, we can thank starwalts like Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo for the above failures due theo the policy changes they pushed that loosened lending requirements.
I wonder what party those two are members of?
You know, "community organizer" is another name for "businessman" or "entrepreneur." A guy who coordinates and leads the work of an association of "volunteers" which does work of value to the larger community, right?
Since you can't get something for nothing, the Second Law of Thermodynamics being what it is, traditionally the "community organizer" asks the general public to voluntarily rebate part of the savings they realize from the "community service," and these "donations" are used to pay "stipends" to the "volunteers." Which is to say, the entrepreneur sells the products or services to people, who buy them because they are valuable, and these proceeds are used to pay the salaries of the employees.
But the Democrats would argue a traditional businessman is not a real community organizer -- because his company makes a profit, i.e. the community is actuall willing to pay for the "community service" enough to pay the salaries of the "volunteers."
So, really, what the Democrats mean by a "community organizer" is a failed businessman, an entrepreneur who tried to sell a product or service for which no one is willing to pay enough to cover its cost of production.
Weird to make a virtue of being a failure, but there it is, that's the modern Democratic Party, the party of losers, I guess, both figuratively and literally.
Carl, I have to admit I don't think about the economics of community-minded organizations much, so I found your post interesting. I have some questions. They might sound snarky, but really, I'd rather arrive at the truth than be right, so feel free to correct me if my questions reveal a fundamental misunderstanding.
Do charities, non-profits, and churches count as just failed businesses in your analysis of the way things work in a community? Are priests and ministers just losers?
And what about civic political activism? Are people who stage a protest to stop the construction of a local abortion clinic, or organize a main-in campaign to keep their city free of restrictive gun laws, or encourage people to put up signs, en masse, to keep the village sales tax from going up, are they just failed business men and women?
I know a guy who took it upon himself to organize a bunch of ACV owners into an emergency auxiliary unit to respond to floods and for ice rescues. He didn't make a dime, but I don't think he is a failed businessman. Is he a loser?
If a charity receives a large donation from a wealthy individual (for example, I think the Salvation Army received a boatload of money from the widow of McDonalds founder Ray Kroc), and it uses its gift to hire a bunch of do-gooders, are its ranks necessarily filled with a bunch of failed businessmen and losers?
As a businessman, let me try to respond to this:
I think Carl overstates the case slightly - often, charities and NGOs are "profitable" to society. Their "employees" and managers can be excellent, etc. The problem arises that there is virtually no feedback mechanism - so they can easily go from a net asset to a net liability with no one noticing, and very often do.
That said, on to your questions:
1) Do charities, non-profits, and churches count as just failed businesses in your analysis of the way things work in a community? Are priests and ministers just losers?
As I state, they may, they may not. Mother Teresa was very likely a net gain for humanity. Some priests are definitely a net loss - remember, they are not competing with you, they are competing with themselves... so the question you need to ask yourself is: "can this man do more for society as a priest, or in some other occupation?" The question is not, for example, "Are priests good?"
2) And what about civic political activism? Are people who stage a protest to stop the construction of a local abortion clinic, or organize a main-in campaign to keep their city free of restrictive gun laws, or encourage people to put up signs, en masse, to keep the village sales tax from going up, are they just failed business men and women?
Probably most of the time these are "failed". If the group is representing the majority of citizens, or protecting the majority by protecting minority rights, then possibly there is a net benefit to society. In my experience though, activists are either being used or are using others - they do not benefit society, because their goal is power not benefit.
3) I know a guy who took it upon himself to organize a bunch of ACV owners into an emergency auxiliary unit to respond to floods and for ice rescues. He didn't make a dime, but I don't think he is a failed businessman. Is he a loser?
Unknowable, probably not. I would note, though, that if he had "made a dime", others would have copied him and the world would be safer.
4) If a charity receives a large donation from a wealthy individual (for example, I think the Salvation Army received a boatload of money from the widow of McDonalds founder Ray Kroc), and it uses its gift to hire a bunch of do-gooders, are its ranks necessarily filled with a bunch of failed businessmen and losers?
Probably - it takes twice as many volunteers as employees to perform an action. Perhaps they were gifted individuals with not enough time, but at least in larger organizations, economics leads you to volunteers not being the best later employees.
Carl, entrepreneur and organizer are not remotely alike.
The entrepreneur is:
1. Profit oriented (for himself)
2. Needs employees who are willing to work for money
3. Needs paying customers
4. Doesn't care about the larger community's opinion
The organizer is:
1. "Social good" oriented and does not expect personal profit
2. Needs donors & volunteers who do not expect dollar profits
3. Is trying to help a plurality of residents within a geographic area achieve non-market outcomes.
Fundamentally, the organizer is a political animal and the entrepreneur is a market animal. There are certain similarities (intelligence, leadership, strong personal motivation, etc.) but those are extremely general traits found in all successful human beings.
It's also inaccurate to say "the Democrats are" any particular thing; they (like the Republicans) are a coalition of lots of different kinds of people. The only thing they all have in common is being a Democrat (or Republican). The faction you refer to though don't "make a virtue of being a failure" but rather believe that it's the effort that deserves the reward, not the outcome. If you "try really hard" you "deserve" the laundry list of human rights of the day. The virtue is in the effort, and the failure to achieve is a null.
I think that this "only work has merit" faction really hates innovation & technological advance because they tend to make what used to be really hard easy. It sucks all the virtue out of manual labor.
I don't agree with that, but there it is.
The faction you refer to though don't "make a virtue of being a failure" but rather believe that it's the effort that deserves the reward, not the outcome. If you "try really hard" you "deserve" the laundry list of human rights of the day. The virtue is in the effort, and the failure to achieve is a null.
I think that this "only work has merit" faction really hates innovation & technological advance because they tend to make what used to be really hard easy. It sucks all the virtue out of manual labor.
It's called the labor theory of value. I recall how Bill Clinton used to whine about criticism of him, when he "had worked and worked harder than he ever had in his life." It also brings to mind the old quote about it being easier to fight evil than stupid, because at least evil takes a break once in a while...
Smythe might want to take a look at who Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been paying off. The top 5 are Dem senators, including Obama.
Biden (D-MBNA) is further down the list because he gets his money from the credit card industry. Those folks just happened to pay his son millions of dollars to make sure that their concerns are heard at his dinner table.
Remember the bankruptcy bill that was supposedly going to screw the little guy? That was one of Biden's accomplishments.
Small mistake. While the top five are Dems, only four are senators. Three of the four were Dem candidates for president this year (Dodd, Clinton, Obama) while the fourth was the past nominee (Kerry).
The non-Senator Dem in the top five just happens to chair the House subcommittee with oversight.
When Obama says "Change We Can Believe In", he's not talking about taking small change. He's talking about raking in serious amounts of folding money.
I thought the idea was that everyone was supposed to compare themselves to Jesus, in the sense that everyone would be wise to ask themselves "How can I be more like Jesus?"
The problem is that Obama's True Believers are comparing him favorably to Jesus. They think that Jesus wears a "WWBHOD" bracelet.
It's called the labor theory of value.
Damn it. Every time I think I've had a good observation it seems some "intellectual" has beat me to describing. I'll just have to get back at them by being commercially successful. That'll show 'em.