Thank you, Adam Carolla

I’ve been thinking about Adam Carolla’s recent rant about OWS. In case you haven’t seen... rather, heard it... (the “view” is merely a still picture of Carolla during his audio rant) here’s a link. But you’ve got to read this BEFORE you listen to his diatribe. This isn't because I want the first shot per se. No, my request is based on a far more practical rationale. Carolla's piece goes on for over nine minutes, and statistically speaking, our collective attention span isn't long enough to read my words AND listen to Carolla's rant in a single sitting. So please, for the love of God, read my stuff first, and then, by all means, go listen to Carolla. (And dammit, I keep wanting to write Corolla... as in the Toyota economy car. Nothing against Adam... that's simply a slip of my fingers.)

Since I've asked you to read my article before listening to Carolla's take on life, I should give you a quick summary, which is my interpretation of what was said. Essentially, he asserts that the Millennials are a bunch of self-entitled whiners who were all brought up to believe that they were unique and wonderful. Now that they're adults, the millennials, who have entered the real world, are crying that life isn't puppies and rainbows, and the OWS movement is a result of this trend.

I'm going to start out by saying that I agree with Carolla -- to a point. When I was a kid, we played dodge ball, red rover, and tackle football. We rode bikes without helmets and rode in cars without seat belts. In school, we were even judged based on (gasp!) our academic achievements. Some kids earned their way into advanced placement classes, and others actually failed. Believe it or not, I know a couple of kids who were held back a year. And, you know what? We turned out okay.

Based on what I've read, Carolla and is only a few years older than me. We're both part of Generation X. We came of age in an era that required a lot of self-reliance, but society made a radical shift in its child-raising technique shortly after we became adults. Somewhere along the line, adults decided that declaring a winner and loser in competitive sports was damaging to the self-esteem of the losing team. They determined that dodge ball was too aggressive. They figured that holding back an illiterate child was counter productive.

Over time, this mentality grew to ludicrous proportions. The fat kid who took 30 minutes to walk 100 yards because he couldn't put down the f*cking twinkie long enough to concentrate on the race was labeled "equal" to the track star. The Mathlete was placed on the same plane as the kid who couldn't correctly answer "2+2." The young Shakespeare was placed in the same class as the kid who struggled to read "See Spot run." Everyone was a unique snowflake in a beautiful, unspoiled winter meadow.

This is an area where I agree with Carolla. The side-effect of this was that mediocrity and failure were celebrated, and excellence was downplayed -- nay, ignored. The best and brightest were stifled, and the slackers were rewarded. Now, in adulthood, they've entered the real world. The laziest of them, thinking that they're wonderful and special, are demanding their due, not realizing that they're actually receiving it... because WE brought them up to think that they're better than they are. The best of them seem to understand this, but have been raised to believe that striving for more yields no rewards.

To use a crappy parallel, this is a microcosm of Communism. Communism, in its theoretical form, is great. "From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs." It's a wonderful idea. In practice though, it sucks. Communism drags everyone down. If we're all treated equally, then nobody excels, because there's no reward for excellence... intrinsically or extrinsically.

But with that said, it's time to diverge from Carolla's point. In order to explain MY position, I'm going to start with a different Carolla piece. Roughly three to six months ago, I heard a different Carolla monologue. I assume that it was a podcast, but I can't find it. In that monologue, he used an analogy that discussed pushing a car. The point was that the top 1% of wage earners paid about 50% of America's taxes. So, picture the economy as a stalled car. In his discussion, the top 1% is already pushing half of the weight of the car, and he cries that it's not fair. And not only is it not fair, but some of the other half -- the ones that aren't carrying their weight, are screaming that they're tired, and that one percent isn't doing enough... that they should push more.

On the surface, Carolla makes a great point. If all things were equal, everyone pushing that car would be putting an equal amount of force into getting that car to move. What Carolla ignores though, is the fact that those pushing this theoretical car don't all have the same amount of strength. Some of the people pushing this car are old women. Some are in wheelchairs. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some of them are bodybuilders. To take this loose analogy a step further, some of the people involved are quadriplegics, and their only place is inside of the car. Let's say that there are 20 people pushing a 2000 pound car. If all things were equal, everyone would push with 100 pounds of force, and the car would move. (Okay, my physics is off, but the analogy remains.) But the fact of the matter is, two or three of the guys are quadriplegic. One guy is an Olympic power lifter who could theoretically push half of the car himself. The remaining seventeen of the people pushing this car are a few fifty-somethings who are past their prime, a couple of kids who haven't reached their potential, a couple of 90-pound weaklings, and a few average Joes. While it's reasonable to expect that everyone do their fair share, it's not reasonable to expect the quadriplegic to push with the same amount of force as the Olympic power lifter.

THAT is the idea behind asking the rich to pay more in taxes than the poor. During Carolla's discussion of the car analogy, he went back to the money issue. He basically said that he makes a lot of money, and he resents that he should be asked to pay for the poor. I'm not disputing what he's saying. In fact, I agree with what he's saying to some extent. But at the same time, he shouldn't expect the quadriplegic guy to push the car beyond his physical ability. That's just not reasonable. In fact, the quadriplegia should be sitting IN the car, and everyone else should push the car with the disabled dude inside of the vehicle. I agree with his assertion that there's a 20-something guy, in his prime, who's giving lip service to moving the car. These people do exist.

But reality is far messier than the analogy. We basically have two choices. We can either acknowledge that we won't tolerate people not carrying their weight, and screw the legitimately disabled in the process, or we can help the legitimately disabled, acknowledging that some people won't carry their weight. That's the reality of the situation. What that means in practice is that we don't assist everyone who genuinely needs it, or we agree to help everyone in need, with the understanding that some people will play the system and receive assistance that a moral person would not accept. In a pure capitalistic society, we are willing to let the least of us fall through the cracks. In a highly socialistic society, we allow the lazy to sponge off of the system. This is the crux of the moral dilemma we're facing right now. Personally, my best hope is for some sort of middle ground. I am willing to accept that some of us will fall through the cracks, while acknowledging that a few undeserving, immoral individuals will receive aid that they don't deserve. Realistically, that's the only answer that I can find. I just hope that whatever we come up with -- something that's open to refinement along the way -- will minimize abuse AND collateral damage.

In the end, it seems that the best answer will come from average, everyday citizens. When I am elected as your President, here's what I'd like to do... assemble a group of 50 to 100 Americans who will be tasked with the goal of implementing a sustainable economic agenda. They will propose an overall policy, in plain language, that will be forwarded to Congress for approval. This will have many ramifications. 1) It will show the public at large that finding a real solution to our current problems isn't as easy as it sounds. 2) It will accurately reflect the will of the people. 3) It will prove that average Americans from disparate walks of life are able to work toward a common goal. 4) It will reflect the will of the people at large. 5) It will expose politicians who are more concerned with their personal quest for power and wealth, those who are focused on the will of lobbyists, and those who genuinely care about the will of the people. 6) It will consider the reality that we need to live within our means... something that our current elected officials are unable or unwilling to understand.