Hard Luck 2

I have to differ with the president's comments regarding success. We'll have to assume that we're on the same page in defining the word, although I wonder if we are.

His comments indicated that he believes those who have achieved success in terms of finances and a good standard of living did nothing different than the person who works a job which barely covers rent all his life. They were just lucky and only got there because others put them there.

It is true that such fortune can't be done without others somehow being involved. For one thing, you don't get rich unless others buy what you have to sell, or in someway enter into trade. A hermit can make a fortune trading stocks or futures or whatever on line, but without the others who work at the companies touched by the stock or commodity, he's in a vacuum.

Beyond that the hermit only gets rich because he's smart at trading and puts in the kind of work which yields results. Not everyone can do it, even if they want to. I don't know how or I would do it.

I've known several wealthy people in my life. People who made their money in the private sector, lived stable lives and supported reasonably stable families. I never totally itemized all their common traits, but they did have some that stood out.

For one thing, they did not throw money away on things they couldn't afford. They seemed to have a different attitude from most people. I did not notice them contemplating their bad luck and looking to blame others when things out of their control went wrong. Not that they wouldn't fire employees who proved to be more liability than asset. The "why me?" syndrome was largely absent among those of whom I am speaking.

I know that some people inherit, appear successful because they have money and the other trappings people think marks success. But I do not consider a gangster successful. I'm speaking of people who have done things honestly and methodically.

To diminish the credit they deserve is not even rational. These people provided much for those around them, employed people, contributed something positive in the market. And I do think some of them are smarter than average, and work harder than average. Plus they have an attitude and outlook that serves to direct the work and thought in such a way that the goals are achieved. I have fallen short in those regards most of my life, but I have sense enough not to belittle those who have done better. That would be petty jealousy and small minded envy.

I'm not sure where he's going with this, but he's wrong to encourage idiots to think that successful people somehow stole it all from them. I guess when all you've done is involved with government, you really don't understand where the wealth of a nation is generated, or what life is like in the real world.

I was stunned at this effort to pander to those who refuse to accept that some people will find a way to success under all kinds of roads blocks, and that it is not at the expense of those of us who have more difficulty seeing reality in such a way that we can identify, and capitalize on, our talents and abilities. For one thing, it is rare that you will build much of an empire if you spend all your time at the corner bar, or at home watching TMZ. Unless you know how to turn cheap gossip into gold--like the TMZ people. Or worse, turn the lowest of life forms into gold, like Jerry Springer.

Anyway. That whole bit offended me because it was demeaning to those with special vision and work ethic, and it rang of the rhetoric which preceded many totalitarian, nightmare regimes.