Sorry Folks...John Galt you ain't.

So, John Galt, or Going Galt, has been popping up a lot lately. I myself have only recently learned of him. I should know who he is from back 17 years ago, when I was supposed to read Atlas Shrugged for a philosophy class. I couldn't get past chapter one. But I DID learn of him more recently, thanks to a video game: Bioshock.

In Bioshock, a brilliant industrialist builds a city under the sea and takes all of the world's most brilliant people there with him. The rule of the city is pure capitalism. To the point that NOTHING is free. Including the air. Everything has a price and you only get out what you put in. Of course in the game, everything collapses. Pure selfishness also breeds violence. Why spend a bunch of money when I can just TAKE what I want?

The game is HEAVILY based on Ann Ryand's novel, Atlas Shrugged. Still haven't read it. But from what I have gathered, basically all of the worlds biggest figures in business start disappearing. As a result, the world collapses. All because this guy, Galt, essentially organizes a strike. A strike of the producers and creators. All that is left are those that basically used those people. Most of us, as it were. These captains of industry were tired of being labeled villains and evil. So, as Galt puts it, they are no longer going to subject you to their evil. They left. And now no one is building anything new or running anything well. Collapse.

So, you have the novel saying the greed is what makes mankind grow. Then you have the game saying that greed causes decadence. And, right now, you have people (largely Republicans) evoking Galt's name against what the Democrats are doing.

Now, in the book, the Dems (and quite a few Reps, actually) effectively are the people that get left behind. They are the people whose existence is largely dependant on the 'successful'. And, honestly, there IS a layer of truth to this. My job exists (and many of yours) because someone else had the foresight and resources to start my company. They were good enough at what they do to grow this place up enough that they needed an IT guy. Here I am. I have no illusions about what I am. Without OTHER creators, I starve. Galt would not have me. Or if he did, it would only be to have someone that facilitated things for him.

The Reps have started evoking Galt. This is actually funny. Galt would have not taken many of them either. For one thing, the GOP is very socially Conservative. They are imposing morality. Galt was VERY against this. He believed that religion and the morality that surrounded it was false, and largely what caused the problems in the first place. Secondly, John Galt would be insulted that these guys are claiming to be "Going Galt". Because Galt DID something. He looked at a world that hated him (look at the wealth envy we have right now) and said 'Really? Well, I don't have to put up with that." So he took his toys and left. Problem is...people that blame the wealthy and successful don't realize that if the wealthy all left this country would die. Because the wealthy pay the VAST majority of the taxes. Forty some odd % of folks here don't even PAY taxes. Galt was willing to watch the world burn so that the over abundance of useless people and complainers or just people who don't appreciate things would be wiped out or at least learn a lesson. But the Reps aren't REALLY doing anything. They are basically pouting. And the ones pouting...Rush? Beck? If those people disappeared tomorrow the world would move on just fine.

Thing is...Galt wasn't a Rep or Dem. At best he was a Libertarian. He beleived it was a person's own responsibility to decide if they lived or died. That selfish rich guy has every moral right to be selfish. And that rich guy also has the right to donate his money to charity (yes folks, Rich people have been giving away billions of dollars of their own free will, forever). But he hated the idea that one man could force another go give away their hard earned resources by threat of government (which is what the Dems want economically speaking). He also hated that the government could tell a man what to do or how to live or think on a moral level (which is what the Reps want on a social level).

Personally I support the ideal behind Galt. I don't know that the outcome of the books is right. At the time it was written more companies were being run by the guy who started them. It was their brilliance (whether that be from creativity, cunning, charisma, or just hard work) that made the company what it was. Many of our mammoth companies now simply have the reigns handed over to some CEO type. For some, it is hard to tell what would happen if their CEO (and other higher ups) disappeared. If the entire senior staff of Microsoft left, and took every brilliant programmer at MS with them, Computers wouldn't suddenly shut down. We could keep using (and making) current product with none of their help.

Also, there is no telling how many new people could possibly step up. Some guy with great ideas that just didn't have the drive to surpass some go-getter. But with the go getters gone, he actually rises up. Also, we all know that not every boss is a capable "do-er". As an IT guy, I have worked for plenty of high ranking people who couldn't create a google account even with printed instructions. If THOSE people left to join Galt, they'd probably die. Mind you, Galt would be fine with that, as it prooves that didn't deserve to be there.

In the end, though, as with most things, I think the truth is probably in the middle. The 'best' way is probably that most of us need to realize that people that are rich OFTEN worked their asses off for it. And the rich need to remember that all those little 'poor' people are the ones working in their factories. The thing is, Government will NOT bring this about. All our current system is doing is playing us against each other. Tearing us apart economically and morally. Is it really fair to take money from me and give it to someone else? Can't you just teach your kids about Creationism at home and leave the schools alone?

But neither party wants you to think this way. Because the more you simply take responsibily for your situation and take CONTROL of it, whether it be working harder to get ahead or pull yourself up from a hole or taking social resposibility and donating your extra resources (time, money, goods) to those in need...if people do this of their own volition...they no longer NEED most of the government. Then all of those government powermongers are out of a job. better to keep you riled up, scared, and under their thumb.

Charles used to be in charge...now Sarah totally is!

I used to be a big fan of Charles in Charge back in the day. And I guess I still am. So much so that during our Super Hero RPG campaign I sent the players to an alternate earth. One of the players asked what event did or didn't occur that makes it different from ours (this is what happens in comics. An example would be in Red Son where superman lands in Russia instead of Kansas=Commie Superman). My answer? In that alternate world Charles in Charge continued being produced into the year 2000. It finally ended when Willy Ames (Buddy)was elected president. That Earth was then dubbed 'Earth CnC' (a joke on Earth C from DC comics).

Now, around the time when they changed the family out and brought in the Powells was around the time that girls started to be a bigger factor in my life aside from being annoying. Enter Charles in Charge; a show I regularly watched and it had two girls who were around my age. First you have Jamie, played by Nichole Eggert. She was the 'popular' one. And thanks to Baywatch, we all know that she turned out to be pretty hot. And then you had Sarah, played by Josie Davis. She was the bookworm and the quiet non-popular one.

Now, as someone who has always had an active imagination, I have always placed myself or a character I created into shows I like. In my head I have a character that is a member of the Watch from Discworld. For the show 'Chuck' I created a character whom is an assassin who happens to also be a long time online gaming friend of Chuck's. I have actually started a story where I inserted my character Jester into the JLU cartoon. It's just something I do.

So, at the time I actually would put myself (not a created character) in the show. And despite Jamie supposedly being the hot one, I always ended up liking Sarah. I would work in little scenarios where we dated and other sad things. She was the cute one to me. For one, she was taller. I like taller. Second, she was the smart one. Smart is a very underrated trait for women. Most models lose a great deal of appeal to me once they actually speak. Most of all, she seemed approachable. Jamie would never give a guy like me the time of day.

At any rate, I had a bit of a crush on her. Nicole Eggert goes on to be a hottie in Baywatch and the movie with the Coreys. And I never heard from my Sarah again.

So, I told you all of that to tell you this: Josie Davis is alive and well and is in fact HOTTER than Nicole Eggert. I submit the following as proof.