What "Everybody" Thinks

The most annoying thing about pundits and politicians (regardless of ideology) is how they presume to speak for "everybody".

These kinds of comments are, of course, fallacies of the "gross generalization" variety, but they happen with a frequency that is both alarming – and predictable. They're alarming because you'd think these people would know better. They're predictable because, without resorting to a gross generalization fallacy of my own, most people tend to fall into the same trap that ensnares these individuals. That trap is what I call environmental complacency.

This particular trap is based on the herd mentality most people have. They herd together among like-minded (and looking, sounding, believing, etc) individuals who share the same values, behaviors, traditions, customs and language. Most importantly, they often share the same OPINIONS. This in and of itself isn't unusual. Mankind did, after all, evolve in tribes and we have an evolutionarily reinforced impulse to seek out our "tribe". Google calls them "circles". And I've mentioned this predisposition before.

But, this isn't environmental complacency. That's when people begin to think of the rest of the world as being part of the same "tribe", when, clearly, it isn't. At least, not insofar as those opinions go. That's when the gross generalization fallacies start blooming. Because the people these individuals surround themselves with all sound, look and think alike, those individual begins to think that "everyone" else does, too. Opinions are stated outside of the tribe that aren't well received. Attitudes, behaviors, traditions, customs and other such stuff that is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, in one group may be all but evil to another. And it's that lack of awareness that one is dealing with others that are NOT in the tribe which causes the most difficulty.

These speakers get complacent. They think because everyone they normally talk to has the same opinion, then it's okay to share that opinion with others they don't normally talk to. Those people are outside of the speaker's normal environment. How what's said is interpreted by those outsiders varies widely depending on the tribe to which the outsiders are speaking.

For example, a group of football fans getting together will be pretty focused on what they have in common and speak in football terms regardless of what "tribe" they otherwise belong to. But you get the same group talking about something else, and all of a sudden, they all belong to different tribes. Democrats and Republicans, wealthy and poor, Religions galore. They can sit down together and have a great time talking football, because they all have that interest. As soon as football goes away, bam, you have totally different, often diametrically opposed tribes eyeing one another warily ready to start a war over a difference of a cherished opinion.

They forgot they were talking to people outside of their tribe. That's environmental complacency.

As for agreement, the point isn't making everyone outside of your tribe agree with you. The point is being aware that this difference in tribe exist.

Obviously, I'm aware of it.

And that's where WHY one puts stuff out becomes important. Saying moronic things like racist remarks or speaking as if one expects others to act in a positive manner isn't even remotely going to be taken well. The expectation one should be feeling when speaking to non-tribal members is hostility. As long as that's understood, great. Often times, though, it isn't understood that hostility to what one says is expected. Many a pundit and politician has had to spit his or her foot out after expressing thoughts or ideologies whose approvals are exclusive to the tribe to which the speaker belongs.

Most people don't put out opinions that are intended to do any good. Most people express opinions because they want to feel better about themselves or express their rage, hatred, intolerances, etc. Some do it well. Most don't. And the whys of it are usually quite selfish.

As for me and my environmental complacency, there are a few things I will never be able to wrap my head around but they all reduce to one thing: Irrational thought.

I just don't get it. I don't get how people can be so self deluded as to think they have the "only" way to think, act, believe, etc. It just doesn't compute to me. And most people who are the most guilty of succumbing to environmental complacency are those who are the most irrational to begin with.  Their environment reinforces their irrationality because everyone around them are equally irrational.  Cults, terrorists, extremists, Evangelical Christians - they all pool together and begin to think that their way is the only way and then commit the biggest sin of trying to ensure everyone else becomes members of that tribe whether they want to be or not.  (Yes, to me they're all the same thing mentally speaking.  They differ only in tactics.)

But you can usually tell who they are.  They'll say the most outrageous things (and not in a good way) and be very surprised when most other people react negatively to them.  Arguing with them is pointless because their environment (usually) doesn't allow for dissent.  Extremism like that causes a closed-tribe mentality.  They should be left alone, or killed, depending on the amount of danger to society they exhibit.

My opinions, I've often stated, are MINE. They belong to no one else simply because I arrived at my opinions in my own way and no one else has taken that exact same path. They share similarities with other people's opinions, but the foundations and nuances often differ.  (Most people's opinions are equally unique, assuming they're founded on available facts and not simply parroting other people because the person wants to "fit in".)

I express them freely here, to those who aren't in "my tribe" mostly because I think they need to be put out there. Not to make anyone believe them, or to verbally bludgeon anyone into complying with my environmental expectations. I put them out there as kindling. Some will gather it up and light a fire of rational thought in their heads. Others won't. That's fine by me. But one sin I can't be accused of is environmental complacency. I NEVER express an opinion expecting anyone to agree with it. I express them to tell others where I stand and if they agree or disagree, fine. The former proves one has fallen victim to environmental complacency. The latter proves they have risen above it.

So the next time you see shocked faces over an opinion you expressed, and you didn't think it would happen because of what you said, at least you now know what social sin you've committed.

An Apology For All The Insults

There does come a time in everyone's life – at least those who bother to think about these things or who learn about them the hard way – when they are informed about the utter futility of name-calling.

Having done my more than fair share of this to those on the right and to a much less extent those on the left, I now offer my sincere apologies. My apologies go not toward my intended targets, of course. But to those who were alienated by my attitude toward my intended targets.

You see, the epiphany one learns is that when one is trying to convince others of one's viewpoint, one is not preaching to the choir, or to the pitchfork and torches-carrying mobs. The Choir is already on your side and it's always satisfying to them to insult those who hold differing opinions. The howling mobs you're insulting aren't going to listen to you anyhow whether you insult them or not. But when one gives in to the visceral satisfaction of the insult, one forgets that the world isn't comprised solely of the choir and the howling mobs. There are the silent ones off to the sides who don't know whether to agree, disagree or simply remain silent a bit longer.

These silent ones aren't howling for your blood or singing your praises. They are the majority fence sitters who haven't quite decided whether to go left or right or camp where they are, break out the popcorn and watch the left and right bash each other. As one who passes out napkins in the center, it should have come as no surprise to me that centrists aren't really looking for a fight. They'll WATCH it, they have no choice but to watch it, but they aren't necessarily as entertained by it as I am, nor do they really want to get into fights.

These folks know what the problems are. I've often highlighted them here, and the fact is, all I'm doing is reiterating what the moderates in the center know while I'm beating on the left or (more commonly) the right. And though I do offer insights and solutions, it's usually done with a jab at those who haven't figured it out yet in a tone that can be (and probably usually is) off-putting to those who are just looking for solutions instead of fights.

I could explain it and rationalize it but the fact is I'm as guilty of the brainlessness I accuse the other side of having as the other side believes me to be. I focused on the wrong politics to persuade and ended up descending to the level of a toddler in a kindergarten shouting match. I should have focused on the potential allies the center needs to enlist in order to bring sanity back to our government and country. By thinking I could convert the left or the right to the center, I alienated the center.

This epiphany came as I was looking at the actual organizational efforts of the center. I was not impressed. Much of it is amateurish. Even more of it is disorganized and vague. None of it is big enough to be a threat to either the left or the right. At least not as individual organizations. But together, they could be a major threat. The trick is giving up proprietary positions.

Here's why.

Dogma is the death of a political party. Look at the right for that example. Platforms should be established, but they should be based on what the needs of the country are. This means updating the platforms. Is that "wishy washy"? No, that's accepting the will of the people. Society changes. Our collective needs change. Shouldn't our policies change with them? Leftist and rightist policies are pretty well defined and don't really change that much.

How well is that working out for them?

So, policies and platforms need to be responsive to the will of the people. And when I realized THAT, I realized how awful I sounded to the people who would support this idea. My political position hasn't changed that much, but the country certainly has politically. My positions were always based on negotiation, compromise and everyone coming away mostly happy with what they got. You can’t always get what you want in a democracy, especially one as diverse as our country. That truism has been lost in today's political climate. And in the ensuing storm, I raged as much as the next guy, believing that my rage expressed my passion for my cause and never realizing that my rage was undermining my cause.

Now, I don't bother apologizing to those I pointed my finger at in an effort to convince others of the validity of my efforts. It would likely be construed as a "surrender", which this most emphatically is not. I wasn't wrong in my goals, or my point of views. I was wrong in how I went about expressing them. Those I insulted aren't going to ever join in the center. Arguments or insults toward them are pointless. But the center needs to organize, to unify, to become one political party instead of a myriad of them if it is to wrest control away from the hegemony of the left and the right to steer a relatively center course. And insulting others is what the left and the right do. The center shouldn't. And for that, I apologize profusely to my centrist colleagues for my behavior.

From now on, I will endeavor to present positions and insights without regard to the rightist and leftist positions. The center needs to organize, as I said, and to come together. We know what the problems are on the left and the right. We need to decide on how to address them from a centrist point of view. We don't need to antagonize each other with "centrist rhetoric" directed at each other, the left or the right. We already have the interest of the majority of Americans. What we need to do is get their attention, and that isn't done with insults. It's done with building a coalition of centrists, working together to drive this divided nation back into one and to bring renewed meaning to the name UNITED States of America.

I may be one tiny voice in the wilderness, but instead of shouting in anger, I'll try to whisper in invitation. Whispers get people to shut up and listen. And today, that's really what it will take to bring the center together.

The Death of Windows

Once upon a time, there was a little company called Microsoft. They made Operating Systems. They sold these operating systems to businesses, who liked them. They like them because it helped the companies be more productive. The workers, liking the operating systems at work, brought them home with them because it was better to use at home what they used at work. In this way, the world of the personal computer opened up to the masses and the PC became as ubiquitous in the home as the television set.

The operating system in more than 95% of the PC's in the world was called "Windows."

For twenty years (and more) Microsoft was a company that specialized in providing businesses (and by extension all computer users) an operating system that was geared toward productivity. But there were other things people wanted to do with PC's so Microsoft helped make Windows the defacto OS of choice in gaming, and even more people bought PC's just so they could get some blob of pixels from the bottom of the screen to the top. Of course, gaming has evolved over twenty years, too, and that blob now is usually some scantily dressed, buxom, long-haired, thin-waisted, wide hipped, pointy-eared, white-haired realistic looking avatar running through a near realistic looking world spraying blood in all directions with a sword three times bigger than she is. But I digress...

With gaming on Windows, the PC was firmly cemented into the homes, places of employment and lives of the general public. Other improvements came and were added to the experience, but overall, productivity at work is what started the movement, and gaming made Windows the choice of operating systems world-wide.

And now, all of that will go away.

It seems like a stretch to say that the most popular operating system on the planet will die a horrible death of attrition, but it will because the makers of Windows apparently forgot why Windows became so popular in the first place: Business productivity. At the heart of every business lies the (not unreasonable) motive of profit. Profit is improved when employees are more productive, and decreases when they are not. It's a very basic, very straight-forward notion and is the foundation upon which businesses (at least SMART businesses) operate.

For decades Windows was designed around generally the same idea – a button that would give the user access to all of the things that made Windows go and all of the programs that could be used on Windows, all without cluttering up the screen. A cluttered screen is a distracting screen. Even though an icon can be right in front of you, if you have to search for it (and you do if you have a ton of them on your screen) that takes time away from actually doing work than if you can find it more quickly and far more easily through a guided effort. That's what the Start button was all about.

Now, back when the start button first appeared, it was reviled. It was hated. People loathed it. All ten of them. The others, who heard the new Windows (the first with the start button called Windows 95) was better, didn't much care about the contradictions of clicking Start to turn the thing off. They learned the new system just fine because for the most part, there wasn't really anything else VIABLE or AFFORDABLE out there. The few who grumbled were drown out by the many who came after and the PC took off. Especially when gaming came to Windows in a big way.

Over the years, the look and feel of Windows operating systems have changed, but the start button was a reliable consistency in how it gave access (sometimes better than others) to everything. And over the years, those ten people who bitched about the Start button became billions who loved it and were used to it. The PC sales started dropping off, not because people weren't buying them anymore, but because they already HAD ONE. This is called market saturation. You can't sell them to "new" people because there aren't as many people who don't have one as there are those who do. It's a replacement-level sales trend. It's not up or down. It's relatively consistent. One would think of this as an excellent and reliable source of revenue for the company that makes it, and one would be right.

But we live in a world where businessmen have become so delusional as to think that revenue has to INCREASE all the time, quarter over quarter. They're not content with a reliable, if flat, revenue stream. Windows was selling, but not selling with spectacular multi-digit market gains year over year. And for some insane reason, the folks who ran Microsoft saw that as a bad thing. So they kept putting out new operating systems in the hope that by doing that, they'd see market growth and revenue increases.

Then along came a tempting fruit from the Garden of Cupertino – the APPLE STORE!

This was basically something called "multimedia". Music and video. You don't get a lot of productivity from workers playing music and watching videos. But you do get a lot of people who like to watch videos and listen to music, so Apple's proprietary (and crappy) little iTunes program evolved into the Apple Store.

The Apple Store arose to prominence because of things called "smartphones". Smartphones were devices that relied on touching the screen and a thing called "finger painting" to start programs (now renamed "apps"), to move things around and to dial. Shortly thereafter came devices called Tablets. These were basically smartphones that didn't make calls over a cell phone network, and were larger. They, too, were designed for multimedia – videos and music mostly. They essentially replaced the primitive "media players" of the time because they could do things like simplistic games and e-mail that the media players couldn't do. But they were also horribly inefficient at tasks involving productivity. They were slower, had less capacity and the way one used them (touch) was slower and had more mistakes than using mice and keyboards.

In order to make these devices run, a new way of dealing with a touch screen was developed – actually several of them were. While the touch screen worked well for the smaller devices designed for things like watching videos and simple touch games, they weren't so good for things like writing reports, detailed e-mail, rendering video, burning DVD's and CD's and other things that most people were still doing on their PC's at home, and most especially at work.

Don't forget about businesses, here. That's important.

All of the focus driving businesses changed to the mobile user. These are the brain-dead dweebs slack-jawed and drooling at the videos they were playing on their smartphones and tablets and walking into fountains and poles and raising the cost of healthcare for everyone else who pays attention to where they're going. The mobile market was hip and cool and more importantly, had massive sales increases year over year. This is where Microsoft wanted to play, and hadn't because they stayed focused on businesses. They didn't get into the Smartphone revolution that heavily and only did it begrudgingly because they saw little return for the investment.

And then Google created Android – another OS designed for the tablets and smartphones – and, more to the point, created the Google Store to also sell "apps". And this was wildly popular because most people don't really like Apple. Pretty soon, Google was making a pretty penny because it takes a cut of profits for every app sold. So does Apple, and Apple becomes the largest company (by revenue, not user base) in the world. This is mostly because Apple takes a mandatory 30% of the sale price of everything it offers, and they cheat people illegally to boot (the e-book scandal), but the example was set in how to monetize mobility.

App sales and ad revenue.

This is actually a part of something recently called a tech company "ecosystem" whereby the maker of the operating system sells their own devices (or licenses them), hosts its own development system and its own distribution system for the content they deliver – content like music and videos and advertising. They charge for services as well. And it's all practically free of overhead once the initial investment in the infrastructure is made. Other people make the content. The company skims off the top in getting that content to the end user.

Now, Microsoft, with its eye on business, is kind of hampered in this. But because stockholders want unreasonable things, they decided to give it a shot and instead of going slowly and doing it right, they went quickly and did just about everything they could possibly have done wrong.

First they created the tablet called the Surface. There were several flavors of them, including an offering called the "RT", which given it's reception, seems to stand for "Rejected Tablet". But note that these were all TABLETS. Note, too, that some of them had the power of a laptop. It all sounded good in principle and maybe even on paper, but let's look at a tablet set up like a laptop and a laptop.

The Surface has a touch interface. A laptop doesn't. A Surface needs a stand to stand up. They had to build a stand in. If you touch the screen, it falls over. A laptop doesn't need its screen touched and stands up all by itself. A Surface has a detachable keyboard that can get lost or stolen or more easily broken. A laptop doesn't. A Surface comes with a limited variety of component options. A laptop's component options are much greater. With one exception (the more expensive one), the keyboards for the Surface suck when it comes to typing. Laptop keyboards are optimized for typing.

In short, the Surface was basically a crippled or at least handicapped laptop – all for the cost of a much better (specification-wise) laptop. Who the hell would want one? And the Surface RT didn't even have the dubious advantage of the full operating system's capabilities.

Now, we could go around and around about the prudence of making something like the Surface when there are much better tablets out there for less. But it's just a byproduct of the problem. The problem is that Windows is no longer focused on business.

Microsoft created Windows 8. And that's why Windows will go the way of the do-do bird:

• 1. Windows 8 is designed primarily for smartphones and tablets. It has a touch-centric user interface.
• 2. It has no start button (at least not like the one all previous versions of Windows had since 1995).
• 3. Microsoft's smartphone has a market share that is negligible.
• 4. Microsoft has very few offerings for apps, for either Smartphones OR PC's.
• 5. Windows 8 (and 8.1) are all you can get for a PC these days due to Microsoft dedication to the idea of creating its own ecosystem.
• 6. Most Windows users don't use Windows 8 or 8.1.
• 7. There are a hell of a lot more Windows users now than in 1995.
• 8. Valve is creating a SteamOS based on Linux.

None of these factors, by itself, spell the death of Windows. It's the combination of all of them that will do it. Like the perfect storm of happenstance, market pressures, short-sightedness, user expectation and business needs all will conspire to make Windows extinct no later than the end of the service life of Windows 7. And like a perfect storm of disaster, the combinations recombine in thoroughly predictable ways to become a disaster that is far, far worse than the sum of its influences.

This is how it works.

Microsoft sought to leverage it's billions (yes, billions with a B) of Windows users into nearly instant customers of the "Microsoft App Store". They did this by creating an all-in-one user interface for all devices – tablets, smartphones and PC's alike. They marketed it as being "easier on the end user to have them use the same operating system in all of their devices." By doing this, they could make up in their PC customer base what they lacked in variety of apps and low smartphone and tablet market share. It seems reasonable just as long as you don't ask anyone in Enterprise what they think of being forced into that "ecosystem" that is designed around DISTRACTION and ENTERTAINMENT.

And in this strategy, the seeds of the destruction of Windows were sown.

They utterly ignored the fact that NO ONE was demanding this all-in-one "convenience". People were used to using different (and more optimized for mobile) operating systems on their mobile devices. There was no call whatsoever for an all-in-one solution. The mobile devices significantly differed in form and general function. People naturally expected to have to interact with each in their own way. Creating an all in one solution for all different devices is directly analogous to putting the control system of a glider into the cockpit of a 787, and telling the pilots that the rest of the controls are in the restroom.

What's worse, they put a user interface optimized to deliver and display content that is distracting and entertaining into a device that has always been intended to be a productivity tool. Business didn't take to Windows like candy at an orphanage because employees could play games and watch video and listen to music and waste time. They did it because Windows focused on PRODUCTIVITY. Windows 8 isn't about productivity. It's strictly about delivering distracting and entertaining content to users at a fee. In this case, the fee is advertising – which is distracting to say the least.

So this undermines the entire purpose for having a productivity-based OS. That, businesses might get over, but the lack of the Start button's previous functionality will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. And again, it goes to productivity. In all OS's there has been a learning curve. But with the basic functionality drastically altered between the previous five Windows OS's and Windows 8 and 8.1, productivity will suffer greatly in the short term – and more in the long term. Yes, people can get used to doing things differently and that is the great suffering of productivity in the short term. Training end users to use it. But over the long term, the way it's been revamped, each thing that they used to do takes MORE CLICKS TO DO IT. It's not a lot of time for each instance of having to do it, but multiply it out and it will cost millions, if not billions, of dollars each year. If a million users take two seconds longer each day to do what they did before because of the design of the operating system, that's two million seconds wasted each day. That's 555 hours of lost productivity per day per million users.

There are billions of Windows business users.

Toss in the higher cost of Windows 8 and you have a perfect storm of Enterprise discontent.

A lot of businesses will turn to Linux. Linux is a free operating system that, like Windows, users must pay for any support they get. Linux is open source. Open source software is generally free or have considerably smaller license fees than their commercial counterparts. And those programs replicate to about 99% what all of the other programs that Microsoft (and other companies) can do. This means that, today, Linux is a viable replacement for Windows.

And Linux has the equivalent of a start button, so the learning curve is actually lower for the end user.

But it's Valve's SteamOS that will destroy Windows.

Enterprise is already upset with Microsoft Windows 8 and 8.1. The distractions they provide will negatively impact productivity. There is already a high capital cost in licensing, implementation and training for ANY new OS. Microsoft has proven itself unreliable in providing a consistent user interface experience, while Linux has maintained one at least as well as the pre-Win8 versions did. The adoption of Windows OS was initially based on what workers at work experienced on their computers, and as more businesses start shifting toward a less costly, more productivity-oriented OS than Windows 8, more and more end users will want to not have to switch between one and the other at home. They, too will start to switch to Linux, because, like before in the Windows adoption days, they'll have been taught how to use it at work.

That's where Valve's SteamOS will nail Windows. The ONLY thing that Windows has going for it is its gaming experience. It's the defacto gaming OS. Or it was until Microsoft decided to compete directly with the gaming industry by creating a distracting, entertainment-oriented OS to be put on productivity machines intending to absorb gaming revenue. Microsoft wants a cut of that revenue. The gaming industry isn't really excited about that.

Gaming will go rogue so they can maintain control over their games, and their wallets. Now, this may seem like a non sequitur. Windows 8 is, arguably, a better gaming platform. And it probably is. But if the gaming industry isn't selling games for Windows 8 (and given Windows 8 market share, they'd be idiots to do that) and as Enterprise embraces the distinct advantages of Linux in the face of growing disadvantages by sticking with a new Microsoft OS product, and as people start using Linux at home and finding out it's pretty much the same thing as they're used to, and they can play games, too, then Microsoft Windows is in major trouble.

There is no longer a distinct advantage to having Windows. It's not a productivity OS anymore (though it can be with more effort that takes away more productivity than what Linux offers today). It's not the exclusive gaming OS anymore (Though admittedly, SteamOS isn't live yet, but they're coming, and other gaming producers are coming out very interested in this model). It's less expensive than Windows. It's generally more secure than Windows. And software in open source is always less expensive (and works just about as well and in the same way) as anything commercially offered for Windows. Linux has the advantage of being the defacto choice in servers for a large part of the world, making integration into an existing infrastructure a snap.

In short, all of the disadvantages of having Linux have been (or will soon be) gone and Microsoft has shot itself in the testicles by trying to turn itself into another Apple or Google without making DAMN SURE that Enterprise was happy with them.

Worst of all, as Windows sales drop, their market share in tablets and smartphones will drop right along with it because it isn't large enough to sustain itself.

Microsoft took their eyes off of their roots, then cut them off to please their shareholders through a short-sighted, poorly reasoned business strategy. And like any plant deprived of its roots, Windows will surely wither and die.

The moral of this story is, always look ahead, but never ignore your roots.

The end.

Eugenics For The Modern Age

Eugenics For The Modern Age

For those who read my blog (all three of you), this post won't come as much of a surprise (other than the fact it's been a while since I posted ANYTHING).

I hate stupidity.

Now, before people start ragging on me about how some people are born stupid and can't help it, or how it's not politically correct to beat up on the mentally challenged, let me define stupid. Stupidity, in my book, isn't about IQ, although there's some correlation to it in my definition. I define stupidity as "willful ignorance". Willful ignorance is having the facts right in front of a person, but refusing to believe them. Not that because the facts are unbelievable. But because they don't want to or because these inconvenient facts will upset their applecart of life and they'd rather not deal with them or because they go against everything they were taught or (and this is especially stupid) because not believing in them takes advantage of other people who don't either and that person benefits from the other's continued ignorance. Those who spread disinformation to foster or support willful ignorance aren't necessarily "stupid", but they are evil and should be put down if they refuse to change their ways.

Facts are facts and "intelligent" people will accept them – eventually. Hey, people are human. Some facts are hard to believe, but if one is at least open to that belief, then one has at least SOME modicum of intelligence. And it's not like I'm telling people they have to believe down is up. Facts speak for themselves.

Global climate change, evolution, man walking on the moon, Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter of JFK; these are all examples of facts that many people refuse to believe. And many more go out of their way to foster that disbelief with speculation and disinformation disguised as "fact". Now, I'm not going to argue with anyone pea-brained enough to try to dispute proven facts. The conspiracies didn't happen. Things are happening you say aren't happening. End of story. The point is you're disputing them (if you are) instead of researching them to see if it's possible that people who are a lot smarter and more knowledgeable about such things than you are might be on to something you didn't understand in the first place.

Yes, the implications are shattering to some. Christians have to find a religion that hasn't been proven to be unfounded by evolution (and genetics, too, by the way). Oil company magnates have to find better reasons for continuing to use fossil fuels than simply saying that climate change isn't man's fault or "If China won't stop polluting, why should we?" while raking in trillions of dollars (Yes, trillions, with a T) in profits over the years. But those rants are for different posts.

The subject is what you do with those facts. Do you eventually accept them or do you refuse to look into them, educate yourself about them and instead "disbelieve" them because of an unwillingness to explore reality outside of the narrow limits you have placed on it (or, more typically, someone ELSE has defined for you because they cater to your prejudices, hatreds, intolerances and fears)? Or are you personally profiting from promoting disinformation about facts you know exist, but it's more lucrative for you to deny them? If you have an open mind, even if your opinions are misinformed, congratulations, you are not stupid. It may take you a while to get there, but understanding of facts is always better than reflexive denial of them. You'll live longer that way.

If you are among those who reflexively deny them or actively promote that denial in others for personal profit, you win the stupidity kewpie doll and get to have your picture next to the hyphenate "dumb-ass" in the dictionary for a while. I believe that this adequately describes who is stupid in my book. The question now moves on to, "What to do about them?"

While lining them up against the wall and shooting them has its appeal, it's not terribly humane and it was tried (though not necessarily based on stupidity) to get the human race to be better overall with no success and much condemnation. I propose something somewhat more humane, and not necessarily quite so hard on people.

Since not being stupid is based on whether people are willing to entertain the notion that they may be wrong about things and are willing to check it out and then accept it regardless of the preconceptions, that seems to me to be a good litmus test for implementing my idea. This is called "sensibility". It used to be called "common sense", but sensibility is based on reason and fact, not tradition, hearsay and rumor, as it so often used for these days. For example, stopping at a red light while driving a regular vehicle is sensible. Running the red light in a regular car because your spouse is having a baby is stupid. Babies have been born outside of hospitals for most of human history and while that did tend to be hard on women and babies more often than today, chances are pretty good that your family will successfully grow by one whether the hand spanking it has a glove on it or not, unless, of course, you run red lights and get all of you killed in which case it will be moot and you've done the world a favor by taking your stupid ass and your out of the gene pool.

My idea about how to fix stupidity sort of runs along the same line. And I base this idea on the notion that humanity is growing more stupid as time goes on. There is some foundation to that notion. A recent small survey indicated the likelihood that westerners have lost 14 IQ points on average since the late 1800's. To put this in perspective, back then, there were politically incorrect psychological terms for sub-average IQ types.

0 Coma

10-19 Idiot

20-49 Imbecile

50-69 Moron

70-80 Deficient

80-90 Dull

At 86 for the AVERAGE today, and assuming a standard bell curve based, that places average at 86 which means that most people fall below the dull level instead of most people being ABOVE it. Change the numbers in the chart above by the average 14 point loss in IQ and you'll see:

>145 = >131 = 0.1%

130-145 = 116-131 = 2 %

115-130 = 101-116 = 14%

100-115 = 86-101 = 34%

85-100 = 71-86 = 34%

70-85 = 56-71 = 14%

55-70 = 41-56 = 2%

<55 % = < 41% = 0.1%

This means instead of half of the people (50%) being 100 IQ or above today, only about 20% are (possibly as low as 18%). The rest are at or below 100 and the MAJORITY are at Dull to below average.

"How could this be?" you wonder. The answer is pretty simple. We let morons breed. And morons (and those below them) tend to breed more than people who aren't morons. Now, again, this is merely a trend. IQ and sensibility have some correlation, but I've met some pretty moronic geniuses and some pretty sensible morons, so it's not a direct one. What someone DOES is far more important in how they impact society (and by extension, the rest of humanity) than what their actual IQ is. If people's actions are mostly sensible, then they're not stupid. If their actions aren't, then they are. It's pretty cut and dried.

"Isn't "sensible" a value judgement?" you ask. Of course it is. But there has to be something seriously wrong with a society that enjoys the Jackass movies, that gives a damn about Honey Boo Boo (let alone wants to watch that mental sewage) or that tunes into any of the "Bachelor" or Bachelorette" series with even remotely enough numbers to let it go beyond one damn show, let alone multiple seasons. Entertainment caters to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. And based on what's considered "popular" (or at least what's reported as being so), the lowest common denominator is pretty damn low already. It isn't sensible to watch that tripe, and yet people do – in droves. They give a shit about things that affect them not at all and will never impact them in any significant way. They've lost all sense of perspective and, at the heart of it, that's what sensibility is really all about – perspective.

So, again what to do about it? If someone acts phenomenally stupid due to a lack of perspective, there should be consequences, major consequences, for acting stupidly. Among those consequences should be mandatory, non-reversible sterilization.

This may seem inhumane, but let's consider the facts (subject to interpretation, of course).

1. You don't get a silk purse from a sow's ear.

If someone does something phenomenally stupid, they have ALREADY demonstrated unfitness for propagation of their genes. Humanity rose to dominance on this planet because we were smart and could adapt. Stupidity lowers that ability, leading to major mistakes that, with today's technology, could kill billions, if not all life on this planet. The person’s genes aren't capable of making silk purses. Let's keep them from trying.

2. They've ALREADY demonstrated their stupidity.

This isn't randomly going around, testing people for sensibility or perspective and then cutting their balls off if they don't measure up. The person has to pretty much demonstrate on their own that they aren't deserving of contributing their dead-end genetic traits to the future of humanity. There's no test, no exam, no one with a clipboard and a disapproving expression standing over them. They do it to themselves (and frequently others) all on their own.

3. Evolution says we have to.

As I mentioned, Humanity managed to take the planet because we were smarter than anything else and we adapted better than anything else. We were SENSIBLE. And back then, the egregiously stupid DIED OFF. The weak died off. The unfit died off. Now, I'm not saying let's kill off the weak (or sterilize them) because today, physical strength isn't as important as it was when we were slugging it out with mastodons. Nor should we put the unfit down. It ain't fittin'. But stupidity gets us killed just as dead today as then, there are a hell of a lot more stupid people today than then, and the potential consequences for that stupidity are far greater today than then. If mankind is going to survive in a technological world, being SMARTER is the only way. Certainly, being stupider isn't going to help anyhow.

But today, we let the stupid breed. That is a major mistake, a major impediment to long-term human survival and the demonstrably stupid should be prevented from doing so.

Alright, we've established why we need to do this, and what we need to do. So how do we go about it and who gets the Lorena Bobbitt treatment?

First of all, what constitutes stupid enough to merit mandatory non-reversible sterilization? This is also a judgement call, really. And for judgement calls, let's look at our judicial system. A jury of your peers will decide the issue. They'll be presented with what you did and decide if your genes are still worth adding to the human race. There's no hard and fast rule here. What may be egregiously stupid to some may not be to others. But the jury will be selected and screened to contain only sensible people. That means if you're a moron who runs around with a bunch of other morons acting stupid and you act stupider than others, none of your moronic friends will sit in judgement of you. Likely, it will be the people you pissed off, injured and/or killed because of your stupidity.

There will be no appeals from this. And if you are put on stupidity trial a second time (after being exonerated the first), it's pretty much a slam dunk that you're being exceptionally stupid so don't expect lightning to strike twice.

The next thing to address will be how one is "charged" with egregious stupidity. That's actually simple and self-regulating. Anyone can charge anyone else with egregious stupidity, but keep in mind that any act done in malice can be construed as egregious stupidity as well. So the accuser has the burden of proof. That accuser can be the state or any other person. It's kind of like a lawsuit. Anyone can file, but unlike a lawsuit if it goes against you, you can be put on the spot to face the same charges. That's not necessarily going to happen ALL the time. But it's possible. The jury will decide if you, or them, or both are dumb-asses and hand down that judgement. Then it's off to the clinic for a shave and a snip-snip and no chance at parenthood.

You can still adopt, but if you've been found to be egregiously stupid, you're going to have to prove that you're still fit enough to RAISE a child, if not be their biological parent. After all, stupidity doesn't NECESSARILY extend to a spouse and he or she may actually be sensible enough to raise a kid. But anyone stupid enough to have sex with (let alone marry) an egregiously stupid person probably shouldn't have kids (and definitely not with their spouse) in the first place.

So that pretty much covers it. It's not QUITE a judicial process in that laws don't have to be broken to face a jury of sensible people who will decide if what you did was spectactularly stupid enough to merit the loss of the ability to have progeny. And, yes, the brighter among us may actually stop to think before acting spectacularly stupid, which is part of that correlation. And as Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does" and if someone is stupid enough to "do" enough to piss off a jury, they don't get to have anyone biologically related to them to call them a parent. It's not a perfect solution. It does nothing about kids ALREADY born to a stupid person. But it's based more or less on behaviors, which is really all that counts when it comes to survival. It doesn't matter what a person thinks, as long as what they do doesn't grossly violate the boundaries of sensibility.

We have to do something to start smartening up the human race, or we'll end up killing all life on this planet because we bred ourselves into a level of stupidity where we can no longer survive as a species.

I Spy With My Little i(Phone)

With grudging apologies to Apple for the pun, I think it's time to set some people straight about the recent revelations about the acquisition of phone meta-data and e-mail account access on the part of the FBI and the NSA.

For those of you who don't bother watching or reading news, one Edward Snowden, a CIA contractor for three months, revealed the existence of two major investigative tools on the part of the U.S. Government to a foreign news agency – the Guardian. The first revelation was the FBI's use of "secret courts" to issue warrants to acquire phone meta-data records – times, numbers, lengths of calls, etc. The other revelation was the disclosure of a program called PRISM managed by the DoD (Department of Defense) and run by the NSA (National Security Agency) which has access to many major "public" e-mail servers to read people's e-mail.

Massive public shock, dismay and outrage ensued.  Some claim he's a hero and should be pardoned.  Others want a public trial so we can find out of the man's claims (that the NSA did what it did illegally) are true.

My take on all this "invasion of privacy"?

Meh... I was underwhelmed.

OF COURSE they're doing this. These programs were authorized by congress almost 12 years ago as provisions in the Patriot Act. They were strengthened over time. They've been doing it for more than TEN YEARS. The biggest shock I had was that anyone was actually shocked, let alone outraged. How could they NOT know this was going on? It was debated ENDLESSLY then and today. The provisions were highlighted by privacy advocates as questionable to terrifying (Depending on the advocates level of paranoia), and they ALL SAID THIS WOULD HAPPEN.

What the hell, people? Were you DEAF?

I didn't like what was happening then. I'm not exactly happy about it now. I don't like Mondays either, but there's not a damn thing I can do about either this program OR Mondays so I nut-up and deal with both of them like an adult. It's legal, it's been vetted by the Supreme Court, so it's constitutional. There's really nothing to bitch about.

But here's the thing I don't get, or maybe I get it too well (It depends on how much of a conspiracy nut you might think me to be). The loudest voices against this have been the RIGHTISTS. You know, the brainless, diaper-wearing, peeing-their-pants-in-fear fucktards who demanded the government DO SOMETHING after 9/11/2001 and didn't seem to mind the concept of universal spying THEN. After all, they were only going to spy on terrorists, right?

How the hell do you think they were going to FIND the terrorists in the first place? Ouija boards? Smoke signals? Tin cans and a string? You need to find them before you know they're terrorists. That means going through a lot of data to find them. That means access to that data. And you HAVE to do it LEGALLY because if you don't, your case is tossed. So that means do things in secret. They passed a law that lets them do that.

So why are the rightists so pissed about this? Yes, yes, I know that they think the "liberals" are taking over and this is how they do it. But what gets me is that the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR was trusted by them when the rightists were in charge.

Let me repeat that: They were fine with rightists legally "invading the privacy" of everyone but not fine with leftists legally "invading the privacy" of everyone for exactly the same reasons with exactly the same results and exactly the same techniques.

Now, one, I suppose, COULD chalk it up to the inevitable outcome of years of demonizing the left by scapegoating them for 30 years, but let's look a touch closer at the subject.

Back in 2009, in February, I believe, the DHS put out a report on the threats to the security of the United States and declared that domestic "patriot groups" (Link is to the declassified DHS report) were at the top of the list.

Ever since Obama was elected there have been those who openly talk about secession, revolt, riots, death threats, revolution – all apparently in response to liberals (or a black man) being in charge of government. Bills were introduced to create an official "state religion" in defiance of the first amendment. Districts have been gerrymandered in states where the majority of the votes were for leftists but the majority of the representatives elected were rightists. They are even arming themselves (admittedly with pop-guns, but hey, they think they're Rambo).

It would appear that rightists are not exactly taking the results of democracy like good Americans. Quite the contrary, in fact.

So, what do we have? We have rightists who are the number one threat to the nation talking about revolution, secession, even civil war. Back in 1861, the U.S. didn't have the Internet or phone meta-data to find out who was conspiring with whom and to arrest the leaders of the revolt before they had a chance to start it. Doing so would have saved more than 700,000 American lives.

But today, we DO have the ability to ID ring-leaders before their rings can do much damage. And rightists have shown no regard for life or limb – other than for themselves, of course. So why are rightists so pissed about these newly revealed programs?

Because chances are really fucking good that they're part of a conspiracy to undermine or destroy the democratic foundations of the United States of America through civil war. I don't expect it's a coordinated effort – yet. But I do think it's happening.

Yes, these spying programs are going to filter out terrorists, but the fact is, the timing of the phone records searches indicate a summer offensive. Waging insurrection is best done during good weather (never mind that the U.S. military has all-weather capability) and they figure it will all be over before winter sets in because the rest of the nation will rise up as one and join them. They'd be wrong, of course, but they live in their own world as is evident by the fact that their chief flag waver – Karl Rove – lost it when Obama won the election ON NATIONAL TV. He couldn't believe it. He was so lost in his own little, made-up world that he didn't see the reality that was right in front of his nose, and refused to believe it until his nose was rubbed in it.

And this was a guy who was supposed to be on top of things? Imagine how deluded the rank and file are! So they actually believe they'll be joined by all the other Americans out there in waging war against their government despite the fact that a solid majority of Americans voted FOR that government, and a gigantic number of Americans were so put off by the rightist rhetoric that they didn't vote at all!

So, yes, there are a lot of highly deluded people out there in America who are now screaming about the invasion of their privacy by the government because they have been actively planning to attack it and now realize that they are basically fucked.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

As for the spying, deal with it. It's going to happen whether we want it to or not. Revolution isn't going to stop it. But consider this: If the terrorists can get us to fight among ourselves, why bother trying to kill us? Yes, this whole thing was masterfully manipulated by the enemies of the United States to get Americans to fight with their fellow Americans. From the unity we had on 9/12/2001 to the talk of secession and civil war on 6/10/2013, American unity has been shot to hell.

The moment any American shoots another American over a difference of political ideology, the terrorists have won.

Beating The Economic Horse - Again

ECONOMICS 101 - Class in now in session.  Turn off your cell phones.  Turn on your brains.

A healthy capitalist economy has a set amount of money circulating in it.  Taking money away from the system is supposed to increase the value of the money remaining.  Putting more money into the system devalues the money.

This should be obvious.  But only the latter happens.  The former does not.  The value of money remaining in the system does not go up when money is removed from the system.  That means there is less money available in the system to buy things.  Where did the money go?  Into the pockets and "investments" of the wealthy.

"So what?" you ask.  "It's their reward for working hard."

Taking money out of the system and parking it in bank accounts, investor accounts and such reduces the amount of money left behind.  Without a concurrent INCREASE in the value of the remaining money, the money flowing isn't enough to sustain a healthy capitalist economy.

"Okay, prove it," you say.

In 1980, the wealthiest 20% of Americans controlled approximately 65% of the nation's total wealth.  This left 35% or so for the remaining 80% of Americans.  Today, the wealthiest 20% of Americans control over 93% of the total wealth of America, leaving a paltry 7% at best for the other 80%.

"Again, so what?" you say.  "The wealthy got wealthier.  The money's still there."

Ah, but it is NOT there.  And in order to understand where "there" is, we need to look at how the money flows in a healthy capitalist in order to actually understand the ramifications of this shift in wealth. (Which, by the way, was the largest shift in human history).

Money only circulates when it reaches all levels of the economy from consumer to business and back to consumer, with some going up the tree to the wealthy to eventually come back down.  So Joe Average American, who spends the majority of his income, has to spend money.  That money goes into a business for their goods and services.  That money then goes into the pockets of another Joe Average American in the form of wages, to be recirculated again.  Toss in a few hundred million Joe Average Americans, and you have a healthy capitalist economy.  The money that goes up the tree is used to improve the business model to make things cheaper and more affordable.  (This is the THEORY behind supply-side economics and ideally what's supposed to happen.)  That then presents a boon for the Joe Average American's wallet and spending is stimulated.  The more people spend, the more demand is generated and the more demand is generated, the greater the chances of having new jobs open up, thus creating more wages to be spent and the great circle of Capitalism is put into action.

It's important to note one more thing: Although the wealthy do spend quite a lot (comparatively speaking), they do not spend enough in enough places to maintain the economy.  The overwhelming majority of their income is banked or invested.  Neither circulates money inside the economy by creating any substantial demand across a wide enough spectrum of businesses to impact overall economic growth.  It never has in the past.  It never will in the future.  The wealthy just aren't spenders like Joe Average American is.  If they were, money would be circulating and that wealth inequity would be a lot less unequal than it is today.

Let's now go back to what's happened in the last 33 years and how that impacts our capitalist model.
The money has been moved up the tree.  It isn't coming down.  The investments made in business mostly only pad the profits, or were used to off-shore jobs - especially in manufacturing and product support.  That put a lot of JAA's out of work.  They don't spend money because they have none.  Instead they rely on the unspoken third tier of OUR capitalist economy - the government - for unemployment and other public assistance to survive.  While this has a positive effect on the economy in the short-term, taxes are used to pay for it, and with more people out of work, taxes are needed most when there are fewer who can pay.

Except the wealthy, of course, who have been taxed as much as 96% during times of national emergency.


Without money circulating in the system, the system as a whole withers up and dies.  Austerity further cuts taxpayer assistance, reducing the money circulating in the economy. it keeps money that would otherwise flow in the system locked up because the vast amount of that circulating money is now not circulating the same way in the hands of the wealthy, who, as has been pointed out, aren't spending enough of what they have to do any good for the economy.  Increasing taxes across the board takes money away from those who actually do the spending, leaving them with less to spend and further locking up more funds in the accounts of the non-circulating wealthy.    In today's dollars, the difference that 28% of total national wealth which went up the tree from the 80% to the 20% and stayed there amounts to about $54 trillion dollars that Joe Average American no longer has control of to spend.  That's a lot of money not circulating anymore.  If you put even 10% of that into the pockets of Americans, the economy would take off like a rocket.

Let's face it, if businesses actually hired more people when they have money to do it, we'd have no unemployment problems today.  Right now, it's an unsustainable circle-jerk where the wealthy gives money to businesses for investment returns and the businesses basically give it back to the wealthy.  Howsoever you care to envision it, that money is NOT being spent in a way that generates demand.  The money doesn't flow that way in investment or even banking.  Unless it's paid out in wages to be spent, it never circulates in a way that helps the economy.

And without money being spent to generate demand, this economy will not go.

This is why austerity is not a sound economic principle.  And all evidence proves it.  Further, the prime "evidence" conservatives have been endlessly using that austerity is better than deficit spending in an unhealthy economy has been busted.  It had a major math error in it.  And this has caused a lot of consternation among the Europeans who have been using that evidence upon which to base their economic policies while watching the EU disintegrate around them.

The other side of the coin here is that if people have a lot of good, well-paid jobs (which are NOT opening up these days), and with reasonable government spending, deficits can be eliminated by prudent budgets, and debts can be paid off, because more taxes than ever before will be generated.
As it appears, "tax and spend" is a much more sound economic policy for a capitalist economy than cutting taxes or advocating austerity.  But it must be done with proper moderation in both who and what you tax and how and where you spend to be most effective. Putting money into the pockets of the primary spenders on a reliable basis will do it best.  The best proposition is, bluntly, wealth redistribution.  Take the non-circulating money and put it back into circulation - likely through an increase in capital gains for above a certain income and by eliminating the maximum taxable income cap on social security, while concurrently lowering taxes on taxpayers below the upper 20% threshold.  Business are cash-flush now.  They don't need the investments.  Capital gains can be increased massively to help put more money in the pockets of the WORKING poor, and stimulate the economy.  As for the elimination of the Social Security caps, call it helping your fellow Americans who have also paid into that and, by getting paid from it, helped the wealthy become wealthy in the first place through their spending.

This ends the class.  You must know and research this material on your own time.  There will be a test in the future.

I now offer for your consideration, the following observations:

Whether future congresses will be responsible and pass socially progressive, fiscally responsible budgets is arguable, but best evidence is that if we get a moderate like Clinton (Bill, not Hillary), during times of prosperity, the deficit can be eliminated and the debt reduced.  He did it twice in his presidency.

What makes me wonder about the conservative commitment to the idea is why the conservatives haven't done it - ever - in the history of the nation.  Maybe because when you eliminate sources of spending revenue through austerity, and favor tying up circulating (as in spending) funds through favoring the less economically helpful wealthy, you kill a capitalist economy.

This is, however, reminiscent of another kind of economy - a dictatorship.

Extra credit will be given for anyone who can successfully, and intelligently, refute any idea or theory posted above.

Good luck with that.

Class dismissed.

Why The "Terrorists" Have Won

Once upon a time, I used to live in a country of laws and rules that were supposed to never be broken. Then along came some rich, white men who re-wrote the rulebook to in effect say that the rules don't apply to anyone whose net worth is above a certain amount and who only acquire their wealth by fixing the game and taking from the poor. (As Bernie Madoff learned, not manipulating the system first and just taking from the poor will get you prison time.)

Then along came an airplane (or four) and suddenly life became much brighter for these Wealthy, White Men. On 9/11 the wealthy, white men of America had a chain orgasm. They suddenly had a tangible scapegoat upon which they could heap all sorts of justifications to create the perfect master/surf state in the country which used to be based on laws and rules that were supposed to never be broken.

Before the "terrorists" struck, the scapegoat was the evil "Liberal". This is all well and good, but it required a major and laborious spinning of the liberal policies to make them sound evil. "Terrorists" had a built-in lingo that sounded pretty evil without the bother of spin. After all, you really had to work at it to spin "We want to give people a hand up" into "Death to America!". But the terrorists were skipping the spinning part and going straight to the "Death to America!" part. Even BETTER, the other groups already IN the country of laws and rules that were never supposed to be broken that were saying "Death to America!" (which were made up of people who tended to support the professed agenda of the Wealthy, White Men, mostly because they didn't have a damn clue what the Wealthy, White Men were REALLY up to) – the Timothy McVeighs and others who plotted to destroy the country – began to drop off the radar because the "Terrorists" were of a different race (which really isn't true), from a different country, and, more importantly, were of a different religion! That could bring out all sorts of hatred and fear!

After 9/11, the evil "Liberal" was mostly replaced by an even more evil "Terrorist".

The Wealthy, White Men who, by that time were almost impossible to be rid of, embarked on a new tactic: To make America afraid. Fear is an important thing, both to life and manipulation. Catering to prejudices works in manipulating people, but making them AFRAID, then seeming to offer them solutions that almost, but not quite, addresses that fear, turns crafty, scheming politicians (who, of course for anyone who's read my book, know are merely the lapdogs of the Wealthy, White Men) into "war heroes" who can do photo-ops in front of gigantic "Mission Accomplished" signs which proclaimed things that weren't true.

"Terrorists" think creating fear will work by bombing and shooting people. Well, if Palestine and Israel (or any two sides) are any example of how well this works to actually influence things positively toward one's goals, terrorists should have spent more time in History class. France notwithstanding (because it almost never did in the last century or so), when applying violence to a society, they don't react with fear. They get angry and unite.

This is a Very Bad Thing to the Wealthy, White Men of America. A united country is impossible to control without stripping away all of the framework upon which the country was founded – liberty and democracy. While this IS a goal of the Wealthy, White Men, it's further down the road once they own everything and the rest of us own nothing.

Unfortunately for the Wealthy, White Men, the United States was united in the months following 9/11 in a way it hadn't been since World War II. The Wealthy, White Men (Hither-to to be known as WWM's because it's getting tiring typing out Wealthy, White Men all the time) had the perfect scapegoat, but had to deal with this whole "unity" bullshit standing in their way of USING that scapegoat to their own ends and seizing ultimate power over all of us.

What better way to bring about a fear mentality than to declare "War on Terror", as if dropping GPS-guided munitions on an emotion was POSSIBLE, let alone practical? But we have a long history of saying if you hurt us, we will hurt you back even more, so it seemed like the thing to do at the time. War means fighting which means money pumped into the military-industrial complex by the trillions while the fear-mongering propaganda machine churns out stories and reports that are designed only to instill terror in the hearts of the average (VERY average, even BELOW average) American.

Of course, one of the main WWM goals in seizing ultimate power over all of us is the suspension of all liberties and freedoms, but it can't be done overnight, even though they made their first steps toward breaking the laws and rules that should never be broken. The extremely inappropriately named "Patriot Act" comes to mind as an example of this.

No, violence isn't necessary to instill fear in people. Just the threat of violence. Making it SEEM like your life is about to be suddenly and senselessly taken by some angry stranger at any second, driving that point home over and over and over and over and over again, creating useless "Terrorist Threat" systems that can be easily manipulated for political gain (Remember who the politicians work for!) to keep the fear going. Putting out news as propaganda designed to keep people afraid helps. THAT'S what creates "terror".

So, why fear?

Simple, fear makes it easy to make people do really, really stupid things. And when you're dealing with a large minority of abysmally stupid people to begin with, it makes the job that much easier. Now, truth be told, this group is already afraid, even though the cause is indoctrination (environmental) rather than genetic. Recent physiological studies have proven that most conservatives have a high reaction to fear and tend to seek simplistic answers. The more of a part of a brain that is stimulated, the more it tends to develop, apparently. Historically, the United States has been center-right politically, which means there are a lot of conservatives out there who have a high reaction to fear and tend to seek simplistic answers. They are a ready-made resource for manipulating.

Why terrorism?

The WWM's of the country recognized one major thing about the 9/11 attacks: They were directed at the financial centers of the world – the World Trade Centers. They also targeted the Pentagon and, likely, the White House (or possibly Congress).

Let's look at these acts from a somewhat different perspective – that of a terrorist. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that terrorists are actually fighting AGAINST the WWM's of the world. Yes, yes, I know they say they aren't, and almost certainly aren't, but let's just go there for a second. We CAN go there because the WWM's are supported by a bunch of frightened people who wouldn't DISBELIEVE the possibility of them being specifically targeted by "terrorists" because terrorists hate WWM's. But on the off chance that it's true, what would be the result of WWM'S being targeted by terrorists actually be?

Well, a combination of things, actually. First of all, saying that we must rise up and combat terrorism so that a privileged few can contune to suck the financial blood of the world doesn't play well in Peoria. It's hard to get behind putting life, limb and conative ability on the line for a bunch of wealthy people who have never done the same and only want to get more wealthy. So make it about the country and protecting the country. Call it Patriotism. Try to shout down the people who rightly point out that it's nationalism, not patriotism.

Secondly, the WWM's want to keep their lives and toys, so they'll push trillions of someone else's dollars toward the Defense industry to create machines of war and armies to do their fighting. Why spend your own money doing that to keep your skin intact when you can make money by making other people spend their money and lives and reap the profits? Alright, step two done – take fiscal advantage of the situation.

Third, make sure to take other advantage of the situation. Play down the "Death to Wealthy Corporations and American Influence Here In Our Country!" rallying cry (which has been mentioned as a reason why terrorists hate us) and play up the much-simpler chant "Death to America!". This distracts the basic conservative from what the WWM's have been doing all along even better because they can get angry liberals to go along with it.

Fourth, keep an eye on the goal. The ultimate making lemonade out of lemons situation is that by putting this in terms of "national security", they can start to erode our civil liberties and rights without the bother of revolutions, insurrection and civil war. Do it an inch at a time and eventually they will have full control over everyone.

(But make sure those pesky liberals don't get any credit for anything good! God forbid THEY get anything done. It's important that if anything is to be done, it's the conservative way or no way at all! After all, if the liberals actually did something GOOD, the country would probably notice and it would make the conservative spin machine have to work THAT MUCH HARDER (remember, they're only good with simplistic answers) to spin a good thing into a bad thing.)

So there you have it, boys and girls. The WWM's of the world, who want to dominate the whole world, the are fighting the people who want to tear them down. The terrorists have won because they turned you into a fearful people willing to sacrifice your liberties and freedoms all for the sake of "security". They have turned the population of the United States into a bunch of simpering cowards "sheltering in place" with a whole city "shut down" because of ONE MAN, and who have the pitifully minuscule mindset of chanting "USA, USA!" when he's caught as if a whole country looking for one man INSIDE THAT COUNTRY was a challenge worthy of cheers.

And then, the pawns of the WWM's in this nation of laws and rules that should never be broken urges the President to break the most fundamental laws and rules for this one man – a citizen, no less – because they're afraid he's working with someone else who may hurt us.

A strong nation doesn't need to say it's strong. It proves it by adhering to its laws and rules that should never be broken. It doesn't change its way of life, its rules and laws that served for more than 225 years, for the sake of meeting a new challenge. EVERYONE will die, sooner or later. Whether in a bombing in Boston or crossing the street without looking both ways first, death comes for us all. People who are afraid shelter in place. They cower behind the illusion that if they are safe, so is the nation. But a nation is more than a chunk of land and a bunch of people. It is a collection of ideas and needs, of strengths and weaknesses and above all of laws and rules by which everyone abides. Those laws and rules give us the freedom to have ideas and needs and strengths and weaknesses. Without them, we have no country. Without them, we have anarchy. We can not abandon them and retain anything resembling a national identity.

Now, remember this all started off with the words "Once upon a time..." That means this is a fairy tale. But it doesn't mean it's entirely untrue. Every fairy tale has a moral. And the moral of this fairy tale is never let fear tell you what you think WE should do. Always think first and then do what's best for all of us. Expediency paves the road to hell and we're preparing the bricks to lay it now. And when we get there, the Terrorists will be grinning at us, knowing they won because we danced to their tune.