I'm Not a Social Media Bigot

Column Notes: This is a follow up column I decided to do after receiving some wild responses to the previous week's. There's another response in the comments section on the paper's website to this one that makes one wonder if people actually read an entire column before composing a comment.

Harbeson: In Other Words

>>SOUTHERN INDIANA — Last week’s column caused some readers to think I am somehow against social media. Upon reflection, I have to agree that the headline sure made it sound like that could be the case.

I rarely write my headlines because I enjoy the suspense of seeing what the newspaper staff will create. Plus, I don’t want to hog all the fun. So I didn’t write it, but I certainly take responsibility for the result.

I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to insert a provocative wordplay that popped into my head. I figured the newspaper staff wouldn’t be able to pass it up either, so it’s my fault if the headline overshadowed my actual points.

But now that I’ve been accused of having discriminatory feelings about social media, I feel I must respond. I am not a social media bigot. Heck some of my best friends are in social media. I think I even dated a social media proponent once.

If I was truly full of hate against social media as a form of communication I certainly would not have helped Mr. Crum promote the voluntary private side of his business by mentioning localshoutouts.com. Oops, I did it again.

Which reminds me — did you know that Britney Spears has more than 4.6 million Twitter followers!? (Oh, sorry, my attention span seems smaller lately.)

Someone also suggested that if I don’t think the city of Jeffersonville should use government funds to learn about social media then I should get out there and help the city myself. So I’ve decided to share the most valuable thing I’ve learned this past week about effective communication:

To grab the attention of a populace bombarded with information 24 hours a day, word choice is vital. Therefore, to hook your audience, I highly recommend including the word “socialist” in your message. It definitely grabs attention and should be easy for a government entity to do.

At least I think it would be easy. But I might be wrong because another result of last week’s column is that I’ve been accused of being ignorant about socialism. Some say I have no idea what socialism means. They are absolutely right.

The term has stumped me for a long time because people define it and use it in so many different ways. But this is very common with abstract political concepts created by humans.

Socialism seems to be one of the most hotly debated topics ever. Many books and articles have been written about the theory and ideas contained within socialism since the early 1800s. We’re talking billions, maybe even trillions of words.

Why, there have probably been more words written in reference to socialism than dollars spent by the federal government to bail out failing businesses. You know, companies that used to privately own and control their means of production and distribution.

So, yeah, I’m pretty darn confused about socialism.

The funny thing about socialism is that in its original theoretical essence, all of us would agree that it’s a fine thing to do, as far as people voluntarily working toward a common goal. But good ideas like this get all jumbled when people start using force as a means to the end.

So that’s where I prefer to focus my energies. It doesn’t matter to me whether something is labeled socialism, capitalism, anarchism, or whateverism — what matters is whether one individual or a group of individuals is initiating force on others in order to get what they want.

I’ve found that when I think about human behavior this way, abstract political theory becomes much simpler and for a simple-minded person like me, it works well.

SIGLINE: Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson never hogs all the fun because it’s more fun when others are in the slop with her.

What Say You?

HARBESON: Readers writing about my writing

>>SOUTHERN INDIANA — I just returned from Bristol, Tenn., where I watched fast, loud, colorful cars turn left 3,200 times. This has left me feeling dizzy, so I’ve decided to let my readers do the talking today while I clear my head.

First, this letter from Dave: “Compliments on your column in The Evening News last evening. It has always amazed me when I hear people say, ‘it won’t cost us anything because it is a government grant.’ People must someday realize that government has no money — they use the people’s money, it is called taxes. Never did understand why people can’t figure this out. Good luck and keep writing. I enjoy reading, well at least most of the time.”

A reader in Sellersburg wrote a couple of times after becoming quite upset at Sellersburg officials forcibly annexing his property. Then he sent this: “Hello Ms. Harbeson, … I feel I owe you an apology for venting my frustrations to someone I don’t even know. It’s just that after reading your past columns, I feel we’re riding on the same train when it comes to government, whether it be big or small. So please accept my apology and keep on writing to keep them honest and I’ll keep on reading.”

He didn’t need to apologize. I understand his frustration, so if it helps to write me, then I’m glad to do it for him and anyone else out there. So vent away!

After my column concerning the city of Jeffersonville’s bench advertising ordinance, I heard from the family who was directly harmed by this government action.

Sue wrote: “... We have planned for 15 years to retire soon now on partly what the bench business would have comfortably supplemented to our income. Not so now. We surely will now work more years than intended …”

How rotten is this? A family who was trying to be financially responsible and plan for later years now has to completely alter retirement plans. I guess the most valuable lesson here is to be very careful when planning your financial future, study your plans and see how susceptible they may be to controlling government officials.

Take a look at this lovely letter from Larry: “I’ve never really liked newspapers or ‘journalist.’ This Christmas my in-laws got us a subscription to The Evening News as a present. I was less than thrilled. So today, I actually read it — yours was the first real opinion piece I’ve ever read. I’m amazed, I’m shocked, I really liked it! I even agreed with most of it, really all of it. I guess I’ll have to thank my in-laws after all, and I can look forward to reading your column. Thanks!”

That was in January, so by now I’ve probably said something Larry’s disagreed with, therefore I can’t be sure he’s still so pleased. If not, I hope he doesn’t blame it on the in-laws.

And finally, this from David: “Ms. Harbeson, I wanted to take a moment and let you know how much I enjoy your writings on NewsandTribune.com. Like most people I read, I don’t always agree, but most always find it leads to thought.

“Your article on Mr. Bayh was spot on. I won’t tell you which way I tend to lean, left or right. I have seen politics from the local, state and national level. I think each party wants so much to demonize the other side ... I just wanted to take a moment and say thanks for writing, please don’t stop.”

And I would like to say the same, thanks for writing and please don’t stop.

SIGLINE— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson likes turning left if it means she has the chance to run a government control-freak up against the wall.

The Problems of Creating Jobs With Government Grants

I have a friend, Christa, who often has interesting stories to tell in response to my columns and she's given me permission to post any of them here that I think my readers might enjoy reading.

In the past, before she knew better ;), Christa was a government school board member and here's a story she tells in response to my column asking whether increased government jobs are the answer.

Creating a job with a government grant is one of the worst things any government official can do. It will come back to haunt everyone involved.

Say the government wants to give you a grant to hire a Reading Recovery teacher for two years. That sounds fine and dandy, right? Free services for our kids (at least that's the way everyone looks at it 'cause that money grows on trees and all).

So what happens at the end of two years? You have a bunch of parents used to getting Reading Recovery for their kids, and now they suddenly think their children can't survive without it.

And inevitably that teacher who you hired with the grant just happens to be one of the good ones (maybe the only good one you can find in your entire district), but she also happens to be the lowest person on the seniority scale. You have to let go of the only decent teacher you've come in contact with in 10 years, and ALL the parents are furious. You're the horrible, mean board that can't manage to find the money to keep the pleasant Reading Recovery teacher once the grant runs out.

But you're still stuck with those 30 grumbly NEA-militants who just won't go away.

And of course everyone knows you could come up with that Reading Recovery teacher's salary if only you cared about the children. Or what's even worse is when over half the board just can't stand to be accused of not doing all they can "for the children" so they keep the Reading Recovery teacher and just keeping spending your local district into oblivion with no regard for the local taxpayers because it's "all about the children."

Just saying what could happen if one were to create a job with a government grant.