It's been said of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates that they are abysmally stupid. Their use of facts is scant, inaccurate and always misleading or self-serving. But the blatant nature of these misuses is what troubles most people.
Granted, in the information age, it's a lot easier to look things up and do fact checking than in times past. Playing loose and fast with the facts isn't terribly new. But we're talking facts which they SHOULD KNOW without having a little gnome whispering them in their ear. For example, Rick Perry blasted Obama over withdrawing our troops from Iraq, saying that Perry would send them back. He lambasted Obama as catering "to his liberal leftist base." and suggested that the U.S. could have negotiated staying.
Obama tried on several occasions to negotiate that but was firmly rebuffed by the Iraqis. Any goodwill credit the U.S. had saved up with them for freeing them from Hussein had long since been spent and the Iraqis (not to mention the majority of the American People) wanted us out. Bush negotiated the original treaty and it was Bush who established the timeline that Obama was required to follow.
No one is sorry to see Iraq fade in the rear-view mirror of American history - except the oil companies who were certainly frothing at the mouth at the thought of exploiting their oil (until they, too, were kicked out of the country). Perry, being from Texas which is huge in oil and whose campaign has been driven by oil company funding, is certain to want to go back.
But the American people aren't. Anyone with two functioning brain cells would know better than to say, "I'll send the troops back to Iraq." For a governor trying to get elected in Texas, that may fly. Texas is a reliably right-wing state and no one loves killing people more than Texans do (Except, maybe, Florida, another reliably right-wing state). But this isn't the Texas governorship he's running for. By saying something that retarded, one may as well shoot themselves in the head politically speaking if they want to get elected to the PRESIDENCY. And yet, he said it.
This is merely one of many examples of stupidity among the GOP candidates. Michelle Bachmann finally dropped out after setting a record low for foot-in-mouth disease. Herman Cain dropped out when his lecherous background caught up with him. Both should have known better than to run in the first place.
But why did they?
One could shrug and claim stupidity, but I believe it goes deeper than that.
There is a dichotomy in the Republican party. The "old school" republicans are getting on in years. They were the ones who mouthed the same rightist rhetoric, but they usually knew to put the needs of the country first. They weren't fundamentally stupid enough to actually endanger the stability of the United States.
Then we have the tea partiers. I don't dignify the name with capitals. These are generally younger people who have grown up listening to the poisonous rhetoric the Republicans kept spouting. But rather than taking it for the hyperbole it was, they began to actually believe it. It was never meant as anything more than talk. Campaign promises were famously ignored in Congress. They were whatever needed to be said to get into office. Like saying people would have two chickens in every pot and two cars in every garage (yes, a campaign slogan from the past), it was hyperbole: a thing that was not meant to be taken seriously. Most of us know better than to believe them. But apparently, other things got in the way of that message and the rank and file right-wing fringe didn't get the memo.
Religious manipulation of right-wing followers created people who can't think logically or rationally. To them, the facts are whatever they want them to be, because that's what their political leaders have been telling them. Things like "Evolution is just a theory", or "Gays marriage will undermine the the institution of marriage", or even "If we give the negro the right to vote, the whole country will go to hell." These lies were repeated and passed on as facts. These "facts" were blatant catering to the right-wings' prejudices and preconceptions strictly for the purposes of getting elected, of course, but they started to be believed. In believing this kind of nonsense, it creates nonsense thinking. People believe the lie. We call them "sociopaths". Those people grew up and became voters.
And THAT is what caused the schism which happened in the GOP. The younger right-wingers, believing things that weren't intended to be taken to their logical conclusions, having been manipulated by their religion and politics to ignore reason and embrace ignorance, have finally entered the political fray as political leaders.
The politically retarded, and socipathic, are getting into office.
And they can get in simply because they believe their rhetoric - the same rhetoric the right-wing has been spouting all along. Only now, they're seriously into it instead of treating it as a means to an ends. The long and short of it is that we have a bunch of sociopathic people who can't think willing to destroy the country in pursuit of unrealistic and impossible goals trying to become the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth.
And you thought things couldn't get worse?
If someone wonders why the right-wing is out of control, this seems to be a reasonable explanation for it. And this decay, the radicalism of the hard-core right-wing, will eventually destroy the party. It's a terminal cancer within them. They need to either cut it out or be consumed by it. And given that even moderate Republican candidates insist on cleaving to the GOP while simultaneously trying to cater to this increasingly radical - and more importantly more insistent that their elected representatives actually fulfill their unrealistic, impossible campaign promises - fringe instead of telling them to go pound sand and put the good of the country ahead of the radical right's agenda, I believe the GOP will go the way of the Whigs and fade from the political scene as a political power. They will be marginalized, isolated and finally ignored (or arrested as they become increasingly radicalized).
In either case, the fact is, the GOP is fracturing into the old-school conservative pragmatists and the new far-right radicals. Neither can, in and of itself, sustain a political power larger than a small minority (which may be why they make uneasy allies). But if they want to retain any chance at being part of the political process, they will have to divest themselves of the far right and move toward the center to pick up right-of-center former GOP members who no longer recognize their party.
To put it bluntly, the GOP must move left toward the middle in order to remain a viable political power and leave the tea party fringe to fend for itself. If it doesn't do that, a new, centrist party will arise and will continue to draw disaffected Republicans from the old party, leaving behind nothing but radical idealists with no allegiance to anything but their own ideologies as the inheritors of Lincoln's party.
They have sown the whirlwind, and are now reaping a harvest of pain.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Revisit: Why Taxing The Rich Will Save The Economy
Back in September 2011, I wrote a bit about how we should tax the rich in order to save the economy. I still think that's a good idea, but there are other issues that are out there which need to be addressed, too, and I think I know how to do that. Whether anyone in power has the will to do it (which is like saying whether there are belly dancers on Mars) remains to be seen, but my idea is relatively simple, addressing complex issues in what I think is a realistic and workable manner.
The plan is this:
1. Impose a surcharge on the top 20% of income earners so that they, collectively, pay off the national debt, plus today's interest on that debt, over a 5 year period.
2. Reduce taxes on the bottom 80% of income earners by the amount of that interest payment.
3. Remove the maximum taxable income cap on social security.
This will result in a massive transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the rest of us. I realize how socialist this sounds, but bear with me for a bit while I explain how this will work both short and long-term.
First of all, paying off the debt entirely has a multitude of impacts across the financial spectrum. We can buy back our debt (much of the debt is actually bought by the government), meaning the government gets more money to use almost immediately through that investment (preferably to fund education at the collegiate level).
The credit rating of the United States will go way up because there is a viable plan to fund repayment of the debt. We won't have to worry about raising the debt ceiling cap ever again, assuming Congress acts wisely and doesn't spend more than it takes in again. (As if that's going to happen, but that is down a much longer road). The value of the dollar starts to stabilize and grow against world currency, meaning oil gets cheaper. Part of the price of oil has to do with the value of the dollar rather than the oil itself. If the value of the dollar is high, the price of oil is lower.
That could have some negative effects on green tech development since money tends to be put into that only when the price of gas is high, but there will be these kinds of fluctuations in the economy as this plan is implemented. Also, the price of oil isn't going to go down that much since it's a finite resource and the straw is beginning to hit the bottom of the barrel there, so the overall impact may well be pretty low. With European markets being stupid, it's hard to say where the value of the dollar will head, but it can't hurt (except in American exports - which usually runs a gigantic deficit compared to imports) to have a strong dollar.
Still with me? Overall, it's a good thing to have a plan to get rid of the debt. The best thing about it is that we don't have to saddle our great-grandchildren with paying off OUR stupidity.
The reason it's done over 5 years is to reduce the detrimental effects of pulling that much money out of the economy. The wealthy invest rather than spend (see my previous blog for how that works), but if one pulls gigantic amounts of investment out of a company, the company tanks, followed by the economy if enough companies tank. A reduction of invested capital over five years which amounts to about 2% of their total wealth should reduce that impact.
And that doesn't include any potential GAINS a rebounded economy may have.
The second point there is basically letting the people get money to spend. The top 20% don't spend ENOUGH to make a difference in demand. The bottom 80% certainly do. By transferring that amount from them (through shifting the tax burden back onto the wealthy who can best afford it) to the people who spend that money, the economy is stimulated to a slight degree each year.
I don't want to over-state the case, because the interest owed on the debt today is about $200 billion dollars. That may seem like a lot, but to stimulate the U.S. economy, it will take a lot more than that. However there is another component to stimulating the economy - or at least getting people to spend their money. That is the attitude of the people toward the economy.
Even if the economy shows all the"on-paper" indications of health, if the people think times are bad, they don't spend as much. Previous stimulus packages were one-time tax breaks. One-time infusions don't create the kind of attitude boost a permanent tax cut can create. Permanent means the extra money will always be there, even if that extra money isn't a lot. Extra money will be spent, even if people save it (which in itself will help strengthen the economy and ease up credit for businesses and start-ups).
And over 5 years, that mounts to one trillion dollars of spending power. THAT is a lot of spending power. Toss on the positive effects of tax cuts for the POOR (instead of the wealthy as is usually the case) and you get a much brighter picture.
Finally, the thing about social security is that we don't tax everyone ENOUGH. Shortfalls are expected very soon and they will grow as the large minority of the population - the baby boomers - age. So cut out the cap.
No, the wealthy don't need social security. I agree. But without a lot of us minions supporting their wealthy life-styles, their wealth would never have happened.
Is it taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? Yes.
Do I have a problem with that? No.
Is it unfair for the rich? Not really.
Without a hell of a lot of poor people, they wouldn't be rich in the first place. It's time to pay that back once these poor can no longer work, or have reached the age where they shouldn't have to continue to work so stay in cat food and kitty litter.
It's called being humane.
The amount of new funds coming in should be sufficient to fund social security for the foreseeable future. The wealthy may not LIKE it, and call it welfare, but their lifestyles are supported by those people. Those people paid into it, too, and they didn't get the lion's share of their income exempted from it.
The most important point in this is that the wealthy can AFFORD TO DO IT. An extreme example is that the SIX family members of Walmart founder Sam Walton, between them, have more wealth than the combined wealth of 90 MILLION of the poorest Americans. It takes the combined wealth of the next 2.1 million richer Americans to equal it. (Their wealth is equal to the wealth of the poorest 30% of Americans, with a population of 307 million people, that means these six people have the same total wealth as the poorest 92.1 million Americans do combined.)
They will not miss meals, worry about whether they'll have a roof over their heads or wonder if they can buy clothes for their kids. They may not be living as large as they might want to, but the inconveniences will be comparatively nonexistent to the troubles facing the vast majority of Americans. And it's not as if they'll lose their money in the long-run.
Longer-term the wealthy will do fine. As the economy grows, so, too, will their fortunes. It may not grow as much as it would have had the economy recovered like that on its own, but indications are that the economy won't be stimulated enough to do that on its own now. So the upshot is that the wealthy will pay a lot to get a lot more, or they pay nothing and get a lot less. My bet is once it's explained that this surcharge is a one-time thing, that funding social security will also help the economy and that both will stimulate the economy generating greater wealth for them in the long-run, they may be a lot more willing to come on board for it. If they think of it as an investment in the future, rather than a burden, they'll be in a much better frame of mind.
In short, everyone wins in the end. That's the kind of solution to a problem I like.
The plan is this:
1. Impose a surcharge on the top 20% of income earners so that they, collectively, pay off the national debt, plus today's interest on that debt, over a 5 year period.
2. Reduce taxes on the bottom 80% of income earners by the amount of that interest payment.
3. Remove the maximum taxable income cap on social security.
This will result in a massive transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the rest of us. I realize how socialist this sounds, but bear with me for a bit while I explain how this will work both short and long-term.
First of all, paying off the debt entirely has a multitude of impacts across the financial spectrum. We can buy back our debt (much of the debt is actually bought by the government), meaning the government gets more money to use almost immediately through that investment (preferably to fund education at the collegiate level).
The credit rating of the United States will go way up because there is a viable plan to fund repayment of the debt. We won't have to worry about raising the debt ceiling cap ever again, assuming Congress acts wisely and doesn't spend more than it takes in again. (As if that's going to happen, but that is down a much longer road). The value of the dollar starts to stabilize and grow against world currency, meaning oil gets cheaper. Part of the price of oil has to do with the value of the dollar rather than the oil itself. If the value of the dollar is high, the price of oil is lower.
That could have some negative effects on green tech development since money tends to be put into that only when the price of gas is high, but there will be these kinds of fluctuations in the economy as this plan is implemented. Also, the price of oil isn't going to go down that much since it's a finite resource and the straw is beginning to hit the bottom of the barrel there, so the overall impact may well be pretty low. With European markets being stupid, it's hard to say where the value of the dollar will head, but it can't hurt (except in American exports - which usually runs a gigantic deficit compared to imports) to have a strong dollar.
Still with me? Overall, it's a good thing to have a plan to get rid of the debt. The best thing about it is that we don't have to saddle our great-grandchildren with paying off OUR stupidity.
The reason it's done over 5 years is to reduce the detrimental effects of pulling that much money out of the economy. The wealthy invest rather than spend (see my previous blog for how that works), but if one pulls gigantic amounts of investment out of a company, the company tanks, followed by the economy if enough companies tank. A reduction of invested capital over five years which amounts to about 2% of their total wealth should reduce that impact.
And that doesn't include any potential GAINS a rebounded economy may have.
The second point there is basically letting the people get money to spend. The top 20% don't spend ENOUGH to make a difference in demand. The bottom 80% certainly do. By transferring that amount from them (through shifting the tax burden back onto the wealthy who can best afford it) to the people who spend that money, the economy is stimulated to a slight degree each year.
I don't want to over-state the case, because the interest owed on the debt today is about $200 billion dollars. That may seem like a lot, but to stimulate the U.S. economy, it will take a lot more than that. However there is another component to stimulating the economy - or at least getting people to spend their money. That is the attitude of the people toward the economy.
Even if the economy shows all the"on-paper" indications of health, if the people think times are bad, they don't spend as much. Previous stimulus packages were one-time tax breaks. One-time infusions don't create the kind of attitude boost a permanent tax cut can create. Permanent means the extra money will always be there, even if that extra money isn't a lot. Extra money will be spent, even if people save it (which in itself will help strengthen the economy and ease up credit for businesses and start-ups).
And over 5 years, that mounts to one trillion dollars of spending power. THAT is a lot of spending power. Toss on the positive effects of tax cuts for the POOR (instead of the wealthy as is usually the case) and you get a much brighter picture.
Finally, the thing about social security is that we don't tax everyone ENOUGH. Shortfalls are expected very soon and they will grow as the large minority of the population - the baby boomers - age. So cut out the cap.
No, the wealthy don't need social security. I agree. But without a lot of us minions supporting their wealthy life-styles, their wealth would never have happened.
Is it taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor? Yes.
Do I have a problem with that? No.
Is it unfair for the rich? Not really.
Without a hell of a lot of poor people, they wouldn't be rich in the first place. It's time to pay that back once these poor can no longer work, or have reached the age where they shouldn't have to continue to work so stay in cat food and kitty litter.
It's called being humane.
The amount of new funds coming in should be sufficient to fund social security for the foreseeable future. The wealthy may not LIKE it, and call it welfare, but their lifestyles are supported by those people. Those people paid into it, too, and they didn't get the lion's share of their income exempted from it.
The most important point in this is that the wealthy can AFFORD TO DO IT. An extreme example is that the SIX family members of Walmart founder Sam Walton, between them, have more wealth than the combined wealth of 90 MILLION of the poorest Americans. It takes the combined wealth of the next 2.1 million richer Americans to equal it. (Their wealth is equal to the wealth of the poorest 30% of Americans, with a population of 307 million people, that means these six people have the same total wealth as the poorest 92.1 million Americans do combined.)
They will not miss meals, worry about whether they'll have a roof over their heads or wonder if they can buy clothes for their kids. They may not be living as large as they might want to, but the inconveniences will be comparatively nonexistent to the troubles facing the vast majority of Americans. And it's not as if they'll lose their money in the long-run.
Longer-term the wealthy will do fine. As the economy grows, so, too, will their fortunes. It may not grow as much as it would have had the economy recovered like that on its own, but indications are that the economy won't be stimulated enough to do that on its own now. So the upshot is that the wealthy will pay a lot to get a lot more, or they pay nothing and get a lot less. My bet is once it's explained that this surcharge is a one-time thing, that funding social security will also help the economy and that both will stimulate the economy generating greater wealth for them in the long-run, they may be a lot more willing to come on board for it. If they think of it as an investment in the future, rather than a burden, they'll be in a much better frame of mind.
In short, everyone wins in the end. That's the kind of solution to a problem I like.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Everyone Needs To Come Out Of the Closet
This post is a touch different for me. At least based in the last year's blogs I've done, that is. This post is for everyone out there who keeps their peccadilloes bottled up because they think no one else feels the same.
We, as individuals, have been placed in a position where we feel obligated to uphold social expectations because society tells us to. Society tells us kids are the be-all and end-all of existence. Society tells us we're all either right-wingers or liberals. We must believe in a God, because society tells us we must. And above all, we must believe that every American is well above average.
Look, if you agree in whole to maintaining the social illusions foisted on all of us I mentioned, then move along. There's nothing for you in this post.
To living up to all of these expectations, I say, "Bullshit". You don't need to agree with all of these things, but if you agree with the bullshit part to any of them, then great. Sit back and have a good read.
I call upon all persons with a functioning brain and critical thinking skills to denounce these social expectations vocally, loudly and frequently. Come out of the social expectation denouncer closet and defy convention by actually telling the TRUTH about the way you feel.
Hey, if you want to believe in invisible sky friends, great. Go for it. But if you don't, yet think you have to give lip service to those who do, screw them. It's THEIR delusion. Not yours. If you don't like it, say so. You can be polite about it if you want - kind of like dealing with a person who has a mental handicap or, as I like to call it, suffers from a highly contagious psychosis. But usually, with these folks, it's best to be impolite. They don't react well to that. Or claim you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, live in the embrace of his Noodley Appendages and consider Olive Garden to be a place of worship. They don't know how to handle that.
Either way, if you've reached the age of reason and don't like people pushing this stuff on you, then tell them. Don't play along. Take a stand. Be firm. It's YOUR decision, after all, and they should respect it.
How about politics? Tired of letting the right-wing tell you that you're a liberal because there's something about them you object to? Or are you tired of the liberals thinking you're a right-wing radical because you agree with something the right-wing does? Seriously this is a problem in our country. We need to know you're out there, because the far right thinks you're a leftie and the left thinks you're a terrorist. The other moderates out there have no idea you exist - that is we know there are others but we don't know who they are or how many of us there are.
If we show some backbone to the lefties and the righties in our political discussions, taking a stand on the issues we believe in and refusing to accept their labels because neither fit, we could actually effect some kind of change on the political landscape by creating our own representatives.
I, for one, as I'm sure any regular reader of my blog knows, would actually love to be politically represented in whole rather than constantly being forced to hold my nose to select the candidate that stank the least every time I went to vote. I imagine there are a hell of a lot of you out there who feel the same way.
SPEAK UP! We all need to know who to count as like-minded individuals among us.
Speaking of politics, how about the current selection of candidates? What, Lloyd and Harry (From Dumb and Dumber) weren't available? So they got Crazy, Dopy, Horny, Shooter, Scooter, Anonymous and Anti-Christ? Sounds like some psycho's idea of the seven dwarfs. Only in this case, they aren't dwarfs in stature, but in mental ability.
Is stupidity contagious? I'm beginning to think so - especially among the right-wing. But while these candidates are all losers in the critical thinking skills department, they're not the only people out there who you think got viciously and repeatedly assaulted by a stupid stick. It's OK to tell someone they are dumb. It's best to point out why. But you don't have to be polite to these people. Society tells you to be polite to them, but WHY? They're lowering the average. Yes, they make you look like a freaking genius by comparison (which, In fairness, is probably one reason to be polite to them) but you don't need to be polite to anyone in an elected position if they are fundamentally stupid. They're your employee, after all. You're the public and they're the public servant. It's a good idea to remind them who they work for, once in a while. And we want our servants to be bright enough to at least pound sand properly.
But random acts of stupidity abound and you don't need to stay quiet about them. Point them out. Maybe, if we all did that often enough, people would get a clue.
Finally, we come to my least favorite of all of today's social expectations: Child worship.
I do not like children. I especially don't like other people's children (given I have no children, and never will, this may be a redundancy in statements). And I loathe and despise the children of other people who expect me to respect, like, watch out for or even remotely care about THEIR child.
We live in a society where everyone expects other people to respect their uterine discharges when they pop out a kid as if that child was the most special thing on the face of the planet. I have news for them: They aren't special. They are pathetically common and the world respects them about as much as mother nature respects the sanctity of life. Which is to say not at all.
Be proud of your kid. That's fine. But don't expect me to cut your brat a break because they're kids. Don't expect me to cater to your delusion that I like to have a kid screaming in my ear, pulling on my hat or flying by like a midget banshee in a restaurant. Don't ever think I like to have your child playing out in front of MY house or that I will do anything in the event of an "emergency". YOUR kid, YOUR responsibility so keep it on YOUR property.
My respect for kids is when they are well mannered, polite and respectful - you know, like people are SUPPOSED to be more often than not. My respect for their parents goes up exponentially when their kids are well mannered, polite and respectful. But since I've encountered exactly three children who fit that description in my life, I'd say the rest of the world's parents, and kids, have a hell of a lot of catching up to do.
If you agree with any part of that anti-kid rant, great, SPEAK UP about it. Kids are not as special as their parents think and I'm tired of their parents - and society as a whole - telling me to think they are. We need to stop being complacent and start being vocal. Have designated "Adults only" theaters, restaurants and residential units for those of us who don't want to have anything to do with kids or their pretentiously deluded parents.
There are a lot of closets from which we as a people need to emerge. Politeness is generally good, but complacency isn't. The bottom line is that we are being expected to accept unreasonable behavior. That's where the division between reason and unreasonable complacency lies. We need to tell people when they've crossed the lines of reasonable behavior so they stop doing it. If we don't tell them, they'll keep doing it.
And it seems to me the one thing this world could use more of is reasonable behavior.
We, as individuals, have been placed in a position where we feel obligated to uphold social expectations because society tells us to. Society tells us kids are the be-all and end-all of existence. Society tells us we're all either right-wingers or liberals. We must believe in a God, because society tells us we must. And above all, we must believe that every American is well above average.
Look, if you agree in whole to maintaining the social illusions foisted on all of us I mentioned, then move along. There's nothing for you in this post.
To living up to all of these expectations, I say, "Bullshit". You don't need to agree with all of these things, but if you agree with the bullshit part to any of them, then great. Sit back and have a good read.
I call upon all persons with a functioning brain and critical thinking skills to denounce these social expectations vocally, loudly and frequently. Come out of the social expectation denouncer closet and defy convention by actually telling the TRUTH about the way you feel.
Hey, if you want to believe in invisible sky friends, great. Go for it. But if you don't, yet think you have to give lip service to those who do, screw them. It's THEIR delusion. Not yours. If you don't like it, say so. You can be polite about it if you want - kind of like dealing with a person who has a mental handicap or, as I like to call it, suffers from a highly contagious psychosis. But usually, with these folks, it's best to be impolite. They don't react well to that. Or claim you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, live in the embrace of his Noodley Appendages and consider Olive Garden to be a place of worship. They don't know how to handle that.
Either way, if you've reached the age of reason and don't like people pushing this stuff on you, then tell them. Don't play along. Take a stand. Be firm. It's YOUR decision, after all, and they should respect it.
How about politics? Tired of letting the right-wing tell you that you're a liberal because there's something about them you object to? Or are you tired of the liberals thinking you're a right-wing radical because you agree with something the right-wing does? Seriously this is a problem in our country. We need to know you're out there, because the far right thinks you're a leftie and the left thinks you're a terrorist. The other moderates out there have no idea you exist - that is we know there are others but we don't know who they are or how many of us there are.
If we show some backbone to the lefties and the righties in our political discussions, taking a stand on the issues we believe in and refusing to accept their labels because neither fit, we could actually effect some kind of change on the political landscape by creating our own representatives.
I, for one, as I'm sure any regular reader of my blog knows, would actually love to be politically represented in whole rather than constantly being forced to hold my nose to select the candidate that stank the least every time I went to vote. I imagine there are a hell of a lot of you out there who feel the same way.
SPEAK UP! We all need to know who to count as like-minded individuals among us.
Speaking of politics, how about the current selection of candidates? What, Lloyd and Harry (From Dumb and Dumber) weren't available? So they got Crazy, Dopy, Horny, Shooter, Scooter, Anonymous and Anti-Christ? Sounds like some psycho's idea of the seven dwarfs. Only in this case, they aren't dwarfs in stature, but in mental ability.
Is stupidity contagious? I'm beginning to think so - especially among the right-wing. But while these candidates are all losers in the critical thinking skills department, they're not the only people out there who you think got viciously and repeatedly assaulted by a stupid stick. It's OK to tell someone they are dumb. It's best to point out why. But you don't have to be polite to these people. Society tells you to be polite to them, but WHY? They're lowering the average. Yes, they make you look like a freaking genius by comparison (which, In fairness, is probably one reason to be polite to them) but you don't need to be polite to anyone in an elected position if they are fundamentally stupid. They're your employee, after all. You're the public and they're the public servant. It's a good idea to remind them who they work for, once in a while. And we want our servants to be bright enough to at least pound sand properly.
But random acts of stupidity abound and you don't need to stay quiet about them. Point them out. Maybe, if we all did that often enough, people would get a clue.
Finally, we come to my least favorite of all of today's social expectations: Child worship.
I do not like children. I especially don't like other people's children (given I have no children, and never will, this may be a redundancy in statements). And I loathe and despise the children of other people who expect me to respect, like, watch out for or even remotely care about THEIR child.
We live in a society where everyone expects other people to respect their uterine discharges when they pop out a kid as if that child was the most special thing on the face of the planet. I have news for them: They aren't special. They are pathetically common and the world respects them about as much as mother nature respects the sanctity of life. Which is to say not at all.
Be proud of your kid. That's fine. But don't expect me to cut your brat a break because they're kids. Don't expect me to cater to your delusion that I like to have a kid screaming in my ear, pulling on my hat or flying by like a midget banshee in a restaurant. Don't ever think I like to have your child playing out in front of MY house or that I will do anything in the event of an "emergency". YOUR kid, YOUR responsibility so keep it on YOUR property.
My respect for kids is when they are well mannered, polite and respectful - you know, like people are SUPPOSED to be more often than not. My respect for their parents goes up exponentially when their kids are well mannered, polite and respectful. But since I've encountered exactly three children who fit that description in my life, I'd say the rest of the world's parents, and kids, have a hell of a lot of catching up to do.
If you agree with any part of that anti-kid rant, great, SPEAK UP about it. Kids are not as special as their parents think and I'm tired of their parents - and society as a whole - telling me to think they are. We need to stop being complacent and start being vocal. Have designated "Adults only" theaters, restaurants and residential units for those of us who don't want to have anything to do with kids or their pretentiously deluded parents.
There are a lot of closets from which we as a people need to emerge. Politeness is generally good, but complacency isn't. The bottom line is that we are being expected to accept unreasonable behavior. That's where the division between reason and unreasonable complacency lies. We need to tell people when they've crossed the lines of reasonable behavior so they stop doing it. If we don't tell them, they'll keep doing it.
And it seems to me the one thing this world could use more of is reasonable behavior.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Dispelling the Myth of My Liberal Bias
Today, the United States military, through the now familiar vehicle of an armed observation drone, fired a missile at an American citizen and blew his ass to Hell. This was done without benefit of a trial, or any other "due process" the Constitution guarantees. I expect most of the readers here to be thinking I'm against this, that due process is the right of every American citizen and that the Obama Administration should be held accountable for war crimes.
Bullshit. Let the fucker burn in Hell. I'm GLAD they did it.
A little background is in order here.
The name of the maggot who was offed with extreme prejudice was Anwar al-Awlaki. He was born in New Mexico. He gave lectures at the same mosques attended by four of the 9/11 hijackers (at the same time they were there). He has inspired the attempt to bring down an air-liner with the now infamous "underwear bomber" (This is according to the underwear bomber himself). He forwarded the plot to send explosives-laden printer toner cartridges through various postal carriers to wreck havoc wherever they happened to be when they exploded (This is according to documents recovered in Yemen last year). And he was the inspiration for the traitor who committed mass murder of American servicemen at Fort Hood (This according to the traitor who did the crime).
He has steadfastly urged his "followers" to commit murder in the name of Islam, with a special emphasis to murdering Americans where ever they can be found. He declared war on the United States and, today, he became an extremely justified casualty of war.
I don't give a rat's ass if he was an "American citizen" or not.
No one, anywhere, has expressed remorse over Osama Bin Laudin's death. Bin Laudin was the leader of Al Qaida, the terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks in New York, the Pentagon and another airliner that plunged to a fiery end in Pennsylvania when the passengers fought back. Bin Laudin didn't kill anyone, personally. He was never tired in an American court. He had no "due process". But an anonymous SEAL team hero put a bullet through his turban and offed the most evil person to ever walk the planet. Even most Muslims are glad he's dead.
My personal scale of right and wrong reserves a special place of animosity for people who sit behind the scenes and urge other people to go out and kill, or die, for a repressive, misogynistic, obsolete mythology unable to cope with the changes in the world today (Or any other cause that advocates violence in order to restrict freedom and liberty, for that matter). If they were on the front lines, risking death or doing as they urged, that at least earns them some points for putting their lives where their words are (not much, of course, but some). But hiding behind a microphone, in secret, by surprise and against civilians who have nothing more to do with the "conflict" than nationality... No. There's a special, very painful place in the afterlife for them. And if there's no Afterlife, then at least the stain of their existence on the honor of Mankind can start to be erased with their passing.
Anwar al-Awlaki (may his name be cursed by Allah and His Prophet) was EXACTLY the same as Bin Laudin. He hid behind the scenes and urged other people to kill Americans in the name of HIS religion. Bin Laudin was a Saudi Arabian, born into luxury who decided America was decadent and deserved destruction in the promotion of Islam. In some ways, that's understandable. He never lived in the US. He didn't know what the US was (supposedly) about. But the maggot al-Awlaki was an American. He was born in New Mexico. He KNEW what America was all about. And yet he decided repression, murder and violence was better than freedom, liberty and the rights he enjoyed as a citizen of the United States.
Fuck him.
ANYONE, citizen or not, who urges the murder of their fellow civilians has vacated their right to be a citizen. They have vacated their right to speak their mind. They have vacated their right to even breathe the same air as their fellow citizens. By their actions, they have vacated - no, not vacated. They have refused - the right to "due process".
In my opinion, a hellfire missile up their asses IS "due process".
I do not often advocate for the death of anyone. But like I said, some people deserve to die. Once they reach that level of animosity on my personal scale of right and wrong, I couldn't give a shit if they were citizens, my own brother or the whack-job, raving nutcase terrorist they are. Some people SHOULD die. Not because of what they've done themselves. But for the violence, death and terror they inspire others to commit.
So for those of you who think I'm a liberal, fuck you. I'm an American who loves my country.
For those of you reading only this and think I'm a conservative, fuck you, I'm an American who loves my country.
And this American who loves his country is a moderate. Moderates have points of view that align with the left or the right at times. Try to remember, we don't HAVE to be polarized as a people. Only the politicians, who live to get elected, have to appeal to a particular bias. The rest of us are free to be ourselves - and it would be nice if all of you reading this voted for a moderate.
For this blog post, you get to see my conservative side, my Pro-American side, my love of country and the ideals for which it stands side. It's also my "yeah, go ahead and kill the fucker" side most people would associate with conservatives. I do have that side. Everyone does to some extent. I just try to reserve it for the most deserving of those who should be poster children for retroactive birth control, rather than some average fellow citizen whose politics differ from mine (which is what some other conservatives often do).
Some of my views defy categorization altogether. But regardless of our political differences, our religious differences and even our social differences, in my mind, if you don't put the good of the country ahead of all, then you don't deserve to live here, let alone be a citizen of my country.
Sometimes I'm a flaming asshole. But I'm a proud AMERICAN flaming asshole. Fuck with my country, you will die.
It's times like this that I wish I believed in the Christian Hell and I hope Anwar al-Awlaki is burning there. At the very least, I'm glad he's resting in pieces. Those who think the rule of law has been broken, the Constitution violated and the government on some slippery slope of offing American citizens on a whim anywhere in the world, I simply say that if Anwar al-Awlaki had his way, there would only be Sharia Law and a hell of a lot more people would be killed for a lot less reason and with a lot less "due process" than waging war against the United States. The ONLY "mistake" I can think of is that the United States didn't strip this filth of his citizenship BEFORE the missiles flew. If they had, Anwar al-Awlaki would have had no more legal standing in the U.S. than Osama Bin Laudin.
Maybe the U.S. government will remember that for the next time it happens - assuming it ever happens again. It's a minor formality - proving treason and pronouncing a death sentence - but it's "due process". I expect that will shut up the bleeding hearts who think the government is out to get everyone who criticizes it.
Some people deserve to die. Bin Laudin is dead. Anwar al-Awlaki was next in line. I hope #3 on the list is shitting little green kittens and is constantly looking over his shoulder right about now. Maybe if we kill enough of the ones urging others to go out and kill people over religion, politics or ideology, they'll stop trying to urge others to go out and kill people over religion, politics and ideology. But even if not, there's one less maniac in the world tonight and I'm good with that.
Bullshit. Let the fucker burn in Hell. I'm GLAD they did it.
A little background is in order here.
The name of the maggot who was offed with extreme prejudice was Anwar al-Awlaki. He was born in New Mexico. He gave lectures at the same mosques attended by four of the 9/11 hijackers (at the same time they were there). He has inspired the attempt to bring down an air-liner with the now infamous "underwear bomber" (This is according to the underwear bomber himself). He forwarded the plot to send explosives-laden printer toner cartridges through various postal carriers to wreck havoc wherever they happened to be when they exploded (This is according to documents recovered in Yemen last year). And he was the inspiration for the traitor who committed mass murder of American servicemen at Fort Hood (This according to the traitor who did the crime).
He has steadfastly urged his "followers" to commit murder in the name of Islam, with a special emphasis to murdering Americans where ever they can be found. He declared war on the United States and, today, he became an extremely justified casualty of war.
I don't give a rat's ass if he was an "American citizen" or not.
No one, anywhere, has expressed remorse over Osama Bin Laudin's death. Bin Laudin was the leader of Al Qaida, the terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks in New York, the Pentagon and another airliner that plunged to a fiery end in Pennsylvania when the passengers fought back. Bin Laudin didn't kill anyone, personally. He was never tired in an American court. He had no "due process". But an anonymous SEAL team hero put a bullet through his turban and offed the most evil person to ever walk the planet. Even most Muslims are glad he's dead.
My personal scale of right and wrong reserves a special place of animosity for people who sit behind the scenes and urge other people to go out and kill, or die, for a repressive, misogynistic, obsolete mythology unable to cope with the changes in the world today (Or any other cause that advocates violence in order to restrict freedom and liberty, for that matter). If they were on the front lines, risking death or doing as they urged, that at least earns them some points for putting their lives where their words are (not much, of course, but some). But hiding behind a microphone, in secret, by surprise and against civilians who have nothing more to do with the "conflict" than nationality... No. There's a special, very painful place in the afterlife for them. And if there's no Afterlife, then at least the stain of their existence on the honor of Mankind can start to be erased with their passing.
Anwar al-Awlaki (may his name be cursed by Allah and His Prophet) was EXACTLY the same as Bin Laudin. He hid behind the scenes and urged other people to kill Americans in the name of HIS religion. Bin Laudin was a Saudi Arabian, born into luxury who decided America was decadent and deserved destruction in the promotion of Islam. In some ways, that's understandable. He never lived in the US. He didn't know what the US was (supposedly) about. But the maggot al-Awlaki was an American. He was born in New Mexico. He KNEW what America was all about. And yet he decided repression, murder and violence was better than freedom, liberty and the rights he enjoyed as a citizen of the United States.
Fuck him.
ANYONE, citizen or not, who urges the murder of their fellow civilians has vacated their right to be a citizen. They have vacated their right to speak their mind. They have vacated their right to even breathe the same air as their fellow citizens. By their actions, they have vacated - no, not vacated. They have refused - the right to "due process".
In my opinion, a hellfire missile up their asses IS "due process".
I do not often advocate for the death of anyone. But like I said, some people deserve to die. Once they reach that level of animosity on my personal scale of right and wrong, I couldn't give a shit if they were citizens, my own brother or the whack-job, raving nutcase terrorist they are. Some people SHOULD die. Not because of what they've done themselves. But for the violence, death and terror they inspire others to commit.
So for those of you who think I'm a liberal, fuck you. I'm an American who loves my country.
For those of you reading only this and think I'm a conservative, fuck you, I'm an American who loves my country.
And this American who loves his country is a moderate. Moderates have points of view that align with the left or the right at times. Try to remember, we don't HAVE to be polarized as a people. Only the politicians, who live to get elected, have to appeal to a particular bias. The rest of us are free to be ourselves - and it would be nice if all of you reading this voted for a moderate.
For this blog post, you get to see my conservative side, my Pro-American side, my love of country and the ideals for which it stands side. It's also my "yeah, go ahead and kill the fucker" side most people would associate with conservatives. I do have that side. Everyone does to some extent. I just try to reserve it for the most deserving of those who should be poster children for retroactive birth control, rather than some average fellow citizen whose politics differ from mine (which is what some other conservatives often do).
Some of my views defy categorization altogether. But regardless of our political differences, our religious differences and even our social differences, in my mind, if you don't put the good of the country ahead of all, then you don't deserve to live here, let alone be a citizen of my country.
Sometimes I'm a flaming asshole. But I'm a proud AMERICAN flaming asshole. Fuck with my country, you will die.
It's times like this that I wish I believed in the Christian Hell and I hope Anwar al-Awlaki is burning there. At the very least, I'm glad he's resting in pieces. Those who think the rule of law has been broken, the Constitution violated and the government on some slippery slope of offing American citizens on a whim anywhere in the world, I simply say that if Anwar al-Awlaki had his way, there would only be Sharia Law and a hell of a lot more people would be killed for a lot less reason and with a lot less "due process" than waging war against the United States. The ONLY "mistake" I can think of is that the United States didn't strip this filth of his citizenship BEFORE the missiles flew. If they had, Anwar al-Awlaki would have had no more legal standing in the U.S. than Osama Bin Laudin.
Maybe the U.S. government will remember that for the next time it happens - assuming it ever happens again. It's a minor formality - proving treason and pronouncing a death sentence - but it's "due process". I expect that will shut up the bleeding hearts who think the government is out to get everyone who criticizes it.
Some people deserve to die. Bin Laudin is dead. Anwar al-Awlaki was next in line. I hope #3 on the list is shitting little green kittens and is constantly looking over his shoulder right about now. Maybe if we kill enough of the ones urging others to go out and kill people over religion, politics or ideology, they'll stop trying to urge others to go out and kill people over religion, politics and ideology. But even if not, there's one less maniac in the world tonight and I'm good with that.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Of Open and Closed Minds
In an article I read in the National Review Online, the author, Jay Nordlinger, quoted a Match.com engineer who said that conservatives were far more likely to be open and tolerant than liberals when it came to the search for love.
Now, in the face of this it seems ludicrous. After all, conservatives kill liberals over political or religious differences far more often than the other way around. These are not the actions of a tolerant-minded people.
But let's examine the special circumstances here. A person who is open minded (which describes a liberal more than a conservative) is far more likely to look for someone who is open-minded as a life partner, or even someone to hang out with. Liberals do not like conflict and arguments. Someone who is open minded is far more likely to be able to see both sides of an issue and discuss them rationally than someone who sees the world though a closed, unyielding mind.
Closed-minded people, on the other hand, don't want to deal with other close-minded people unless they're EXACTLY like they are. Those are extremely hard to find. Instead, they usually end up looking for open-minded people who can put up with them, because odds are much higher that there are more open-minded people who can put up with them than there are closed-minded people exactly like them.
So the assertion is likely true, within its own context: WHEN LOOKING FOR LOVE, conservatives are probably more tolerant of who they date than liberals.
But that doesn't make them more tolerant as a people.
If you click on the link, read the comments posted by die-hard conservatives. They are not the words of a tolerant people.
I don't know if the thrust of the article was to paint conservatives in a different (and by extension, not necessarily true) light, whether it was tongue in cheek or just reporting an odd fact. Whatever the case, the conservatives had a field-day ragging on the liberals and, by doing so, proved the author's implication - that conservatives are more tolerant than liberals overall - was utterly untrue.
Never before have I seen an author so completely undone by the "applause" of the crowd.
I can only hope that he was being ironic.
Now, in the face of this it seems ludicrous. After all, conservatives kill liberals over political or religious differences far more often than the other way around. These are not the actions of a tolerant-minded people.
But let's examine the special circumstances here. A person who is open minded (which describes a liberal more than a conservative) is far more likely to look for someone who is open-minded as a life partner, or even someone to hang out with. Liberals do not like conflict and arguments. Someone who is open minded is far more likely to be able to see both sides of an issue and discuss them rationally than someone who sees the world though a closed, unyielding mind.
Closed-minded people, on the other hand, don't want to deal with other close-minded people unless they're EXACTLY like they are. Those are extremely hard to find. Instead, they usually end up looking for open-minded people who can put up with them, because odds are much higher that there are more open-minded people who can put up with them than there are closed-minded people exactly like them.
So the assertion is likely true, within its own context: WHEN LOOKING FOR LOVE, conservatives are probably more tolerant of who they date than liberals.
But that doesn't make them more tolerant as a people.
If you click on the link, read the comments posted by die-hard conservatives. They are not the words of a tolerant people.
I don't know if the thrust of the article was to paint conservatives in a different (and by extension, not necessarily true) light, whether it was tongue in cheek or just reporting an odd fact. Whatever the case, the conservatives had a field-day ragging on the liberals and, by doing so, proved the author's implication - that conservatives are more tolerant than liberals overall - was utterly untrue.
Never before have I seen an author so completely undone by the "applause" of the crowd.
I can only hope that he was being ironic.
The Zombies Are Here!!!
Last night, I had a Zombie dream.
Now, to be perfectly honest, though I have a vivid imagination and have dreamt of many things, I have to admit Zombies was not what I would have expected me to dream about. Zombie movies have never been a favorite genre for me and way too much has been written about why people like them. The last thing I would have expected me to dream about was Zombies. I've never done it before, and haven't watched a Zombie movie in many a month. None the less, last night, I dreamt about Zombies.
I'm not sure it was the classic Zombie movie, but it had elements of it. Zombieland is a Zombie movie I actually enjoyed because it was so tongue-in-cheek (and in seat, and on floor and flying through the air and... well, you get the picture), but it had elements my (apparently deranged) mind threw into my dream. That is to say, it didn't focus so much on the beginning of the disaster as the point of view of someone just trying to make it through the day.
It all started out normal enough (as all Zombie movies do). It was from the perspective of a "regular guy" (yours truly) who was just going about his life. Only, occasionally, someone would pop up as a Zombie.
Mostly, they were ignored.
They'd be in theaters, in the supermarkets and malls, going about their business as well. But they were Zombies and everyone knew it. Gradually, though, more and more of them appeared. They still went about their business, but they were a touch more hostile than all the other "normal" people out there. If you pointed out to one they were a Zombie, they'd actually attack you.
Eventually, of course, there were Zombies everywhere. They weren't interested in eating your brains so much as they were interested in turning you into another zombie, or killing you if you resisted. Not typical Zombie behavior I grant you, but it was pretty typical of the mentality (if not NECESSARILY the actions) of some folks today.
It took a while for me to remember, but the Zombies in my dream were Red, White and Blue and looked like they lived mostly in trailers before they went on their world-wide rampage of "Join us or die!!!".
Is anyone out there beginning to draw the same parallels I did?
Let's look at politics today: A bunch of people who can't think being led by party platforms which have no chance of becoming reality, each using the platforms of the other party as the boogie man's whip to keep their followers blindly in line. Anyone who raises a voice against these blindly shuffling, Red, White and Blue zombies of either party are shouted down, attacked (and in some cases killed) or vilified as someone who must be converted to their point of view or "die" (metaphorically at the least, literally at the most).
Now, I tend to equate violent zombies with the right wing (mostly because a conservative is more tolerant of violence, and tends to use violence and violent imagery as their "weapons" of choice in convincing others to go along with them, but I digress), but in this case, both parties can be called Zombies. Right wingers believe in their political nonsense because politicians tell them what they must believe. Left wingers believe in their nonsense, partly as an anti-reaction to the Right-wingers platform, but also because they believe what their politicians tell them.
The politicians are the APPARENT zombie masters. Of course, the politicians are themselves zombies of the Corporate World (and if you don't believe the corporations run the world, you should read up about what the British trader said on the BBC the other day about how Goldman Sachs runs the world and not governments ), which makes the Corporate World and bankers the true Zombie Masters. I expect he'll meet a bad end in the near future. Defamation or death is what I expect to see happen. He was telling the TRUTH, after all, and the Corporate World doesn't want anyone to know the truth.
But the bottom line isn't so much who controls the zombies. It's that the zombies really made themselves by refusing to think for themselves. I've written about the dearth of people thinking for themselves before, but perhaps haven't mentioned HOW they fuck this up so badly.
Most people believe they are thoughtful and hold opinions that are well considered. They think they listen to what other people say and decide for themselves whether to believe in it or not. Of course, this isn't what's really happening, but they think it does. They then become entrenched in these beliefs and will often react belligerently when those beliefs are challenged - ESPECIALLY when those awful, inconvenient "facts" are used against them.
That is NOT being thoughtful nor creating well considered opinions.
The truth is, in politics, OPINIONS SHOULD NEVER BE SET IN STONE. EVER!
Life isn't static. It's always changing. Societies grow. New technologies create new ways of looking at things. Knowledge and discoveries open new vistas and new horizons. And because of this, what was true about things yesterday may not be true about them tomorrow. Going back to my favorite whipping boy, politics and the right wing, I can say with utter certainty that today's right wing was NOT what it was twenty years ago. Today, it's militantly opposed to compromise that would benefit the people and the country. Even if you go more than half-way to their position, they will not accept that, and demand they get everything their way or nothing gets done. They aren't called the Party of NO! these days just because they're against drugs, sex - outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, of course - and abortion.
Since the right wing refuses to budge, the left wing has started doing the same thing and nothing is getting done.
People aren't thinking. They're reacting.
If the reactions were beneficial, that would be fine, but the reactions are to only entrench one's opinions more solidly in an unyielding matrix of political ideology.
Way back when, I had a friend who recited T. A. R. as a way to go through life. It turned out he was looney as a Wanner Brother's cartoon, but this advise always struck me as one of his more lucid moments.
T. A. R. Think. Act. React.
Notice the first word. Think. Always think first. You think about your action AND your reaction. When I was in college, I did a speech on this using the acronym SCAB Act. - Stop and Consider Actions Before you Act. I said that if you remember SCAB, you might avoid a few of your own. I thought it was catchy.
The point is THINK FIRST! ALWAYS think first. But here's a few more hints about how to do it since, apparently, people are so out of practice in doing it for themselves.
The first thing you do is stifle the emotional reaction. Being emotional is a reaction. It's not thinking. You can use the energy to do something constructive like mow the lawn, build a sky-scraper or something equally affirming, but the last thing you want to do is use that emotional reaction to respond.
Next, consider what you heard/saw/experienced. People often go with a first impression of what was put before them without actually absorbing it. They have prejudices, preconceptions and perspectives that may interfere with what was actually intended to be put across. Flying off the handle by jumping to an erroneous conclusion is a great way to end up with foot-in-mouth disease.
Once you've accurately absorbed what you experienced, next consider WHY. Now, granted, there isn't always a why. But if it's an argument, and someone is trying to convince you of something, or is getting angry at you over something, consider the whys. Whys are the underlying motivations for what you have absorbed. When considering the whys, try not to let your prejudices, opinions and other set-in-stone aspects of your personality/life get in the way of arriving at a conclusion. This may not be possible for some people to do, but none the less, it's a step that shouldn't be skipped.
Finally, respond. Do it calmly, rationally and with a factual basis to support and justify your response. Because sure as hell, when you respond in such a manner, the other person will probably fly off the handle and your point looks far more reasonable and rational than theirs.
Thinking, as I pointed out 20 or 30 years ago, should be an Olympic sport. It requires CONSTANT practice and it's obvious some do it a lot better than others. But it's an activity that everyone should be doing whether they're good at it or not. An open mind, some has said, can't hold onto anything. But a closed mind can't get anything into it. What we need are minds that allow things in, and can arrange them neatly according to our own experience and reasoning.
No one is going to be perfect at this - especially those whose opinions tend to be handed to them on silver platters and catered to by those wishing to manipulate them. So to finish it all off, when it comes to thinking, assume no one is telling you the truth.
In politics, this is ESPECIALLY true. There is so much spin going on to sway and convince that no one really knows what the truth there is anymore on either side of the political spectrum. If you assume everyone in politics is hiding something, spinning the truth, trying to get their own way at the expense of everything else (a not unreasonable starting point given the way Washington hasn't worked in the last two or three years), think before you react, try to discern all of the whys and, above all, search for the truth on your own using sources that are NOT part of the world where the spin is coming from, then you are well on your way to creating well considered, thoughtful opinions which can change as the circumstances and world changes.
Zombies can't think. And even if you paint them all red, white and blue, they're a hazard to life because they want you to be just like them. The horror in my dream had more to do with becoming a mindless automaton unable to think or mentally do for myself than any possible physical mutilation of body that becoming a zombie might bring. (I don't look good in red or white, but blue is okay).
In my dream, feeling cornered, I stopped running from the Zombies and started attacking them instead. I was using my fists - but in reality I was using my mind. I could think. They couldn't. In the end, I was the one left standing amid a lot of broken Zombies and the world was once again safe to be in.
We need more thinkers and fewer zombies if THIS world is to be safe again.
Now, to be perfectly honest, though I have a vivid imagination and have dreamt of many things, I have to admit Zombies was not what I would have expected me to dream about. Zombie movies have never been a favorite genre for me and way too much has been written about why people like them. The last thing I would have expected me to dream about was Zombies. I've never done it before, and haven't watched a Zombie movie in many a month. None the less, last night, I dreamt about Zombies.
I'm not sure it was the classic Zombie movie, but it had elements of it. Zombieland is a Zombie movie I actually enjoyed because it was so tongue-in-cheek (and in seat, and on floor and flying through the air and... well, you get the picture), but it had elements my (apparently deranged) mind threw into my dream. That is to say, it didn't focus so much on the beginning of the disaster as the point of view of someone just trying to make it through the day.
It all started out normal enough (as all Zombie movies do). It was from the perspective of a "regular guy" (yours truly) who was just going about his life. Only, occasionally, someone would pop up as a Zombie.
Mostly, they were ignored.
They'd be in theaters, in the supermarkets and malls, going about their business as well. But they were Zombies and everyone knew it. Gradually, though, more and more of them appeared. They still went about their business, but they were a touch more hostile than all the other "normal" people out there. If you pointed out to one they were a Zombie, they'd actually attack you.
Eventually, of course, there were Zombies everywhere. They weren't interested in eating your brains so much as they were interested in turning you into another zombie, or killing you if you resisted. Not typical Zombie behavior I grant you, but it was pretty typical of the mentality (if not NECESSARILY the actions) of some folks today.
It took a while for me to remember, but the Zombies in my dream were Red, White and Blue and looked like they lived mostly in trailers before they went on their world-wide rampage of "Join us or die!!!".
Is anyone out there beginning to draw the same parallels I did?
Let's look at politics today: A bunch of people who can't think being led by party platforms which have no chance of becoming reality, each using the platforms of the other party as the boogie man's whip to keep their followers blindly in line. Anyone who raises a voice against these blindly shuffling, Red, White and Blue zombies of either party are shouted down, attacked (and in some cases killed) or vilified as someone who must be converted to their point of view or "die" (metaphorically at the least, literally at the most).
Now, I tend to equate violent zombies with the right wing (mostly because a conservative is more tolerant of violence, and tends to use violence and violent imagery as their "weapons" of choice in convincing others to go along with them, but I digress), but in this case, both parties can be called Zombies. Right wingers believe in their political nonsense because politicians tell them what they must believe. Left wingers believe in their nonsense, partly as an anti-reaction to the Right-wingers platform, but also because they believe what their politicians tell them.
The politicians are the APPARENT zombie masters. Of course, the politicians are themselves zombies of the Corporate World (and if you don't believe the corporations run the world, you should read up about what the British trader said on the BBC the other day about how Goldman Sachs runs the world and not governments ), which makes the Corporate World and bankers the true Zombie Masters. I expect he'll meet a bad end in the near future. Defamation or death is what I expect to see happen. He was telling the TRUTH, after all, and the Corporate World doesn't want anyone to know the truth.
But the bottom line isn't so much who controls the zombies. It's that the zombies really made themselves by refusing to think for themselves. I've written about the dearth of people thinking for themselves before, but perhaps haven't mentioned HOW they fuck this up so badly.
Most people believe they are thoughtful and hold opinions that are well considered. They think they listen to what other people say and decide for themselves whether to believe in it or not. Of course, this isn't what's really happening, but they think it does. They then become entrenched in these beliefs and will often react belligerently when those beliefs are challenged - ESPECIALLY when those awful, inconvenient "facts" are used against them.
That is NOT being thoughtful nor creating well considered opinions.
The truth is, in politics, OPINIONS SHOULD NEVER BE SET IN STONE. EVER!
Life isn't static. It's always changing. Societies grow. New technologies create new ways of looking at things. Knowledge and discoveries open new vistas and new horizons. And because of this, what was true about things yesterday may not be true about them tomorrow. Going back to my favorite whipping boy, politics and the right wing, I can say with utter certainty that today's right wing was NOT what it was twenty years ago. Today, it's militantly opposed to compromise that would benefit the people and the country. Even if you go more than half-way to their position, they will not accept that, and demand they get everything their way or nothing gets done. They aren't called the Party of NO! these days just because they're against drugs, sex - outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, of course - and abortion.
Since the right wing refuses to budge, the left wing has started doing the same thing and nothing is getting done.
People aren't thinking. They're reacting.
If the reactions were beneficial, that would be fine, but the reactions are to only entrench one's opinions more solidly in an unyielding matrix of political ideology.
Way back when, I had a friend who recited T. A. R. as a way to go through life. It turned out he was looney as a Wanner Brother's cartoon, but this advise always struck me as one of his more lucid moments.
T. A. R. Think. Act. React.
Notice the first word. Think. Always think first. You think about your action AND your reaction. When I was in college, I did a speech on this using the acronym SCAB Act. - Stop and Consider Actions Before you Act. I said that if you remember SCAB, you might avoid a few of your own. I thought it was catchy.
The point is THINK FIRST! ALWAYS think first. But here's a few more hints about how to do it since, apparently, people are so out of practice in doing it for themselves.
The first thing you do is stifle the emotional reaction. Being emotional is a reaction. It's not thinking. You can use the energy to do something constructive like mow the lawn, build a sky-scraper or something equally affirming, but the last thing you want to do is use that emotional reaction to respond.
Next, consider what you heard/saw/experienced. People often go with a first impression of what was put before them without actually absorbing it. They have prejudices, preconceptions and perspectives that may interfere with what was actually intended to be put across. Flying off the handle by jumping to an erroneous conclusion is a great way to end up with foot-in-mouth disease.
Once you've accurately absorbed what you experienced, next consider WHY. Now, granted, there isn't always a why. But if it's an argument, and someone is trying to convince you of something, or is getting angry at you over something, consider the whys. Whys are the underlying motivations for what you have absorbed. When considering the whys, try not to let your prejudices, opinions and other set-in-stone aspects of your personality/life get in the way of arriving at a conclusion. This may not be possible for some people to do, but none the less, it's a step that shouldn't be skipped.
Finally, respond. Do it calmly, rationally and with a factual basis to support and justify your response. Because sure as hell, when you respond in such a manner, the other person will probably fly off the handle and your point looks far more reasonable and rational than theirs.
Thinking, as I pointed out 20 or 30 years ago, should be an Olympic sport. It requires CONSTANT practice and it's obvious some do it a lot better than others. But it's an activity that everyone should be doing whether they're good at it or not. An open mind, some has said, can't hold onto anything. But a closed mind can't get anything into it. What we need are minds that allow things in, and can arrange them neatly according to our own experience and reasoning.
No one is going to be perfect at this - especially those whose opinions tend to be handed to them on silver platters and catered to by those wishing to manipulate them. So to finish it all off, when it comes to thinking, assume no one is telling you the truth.
In politics, this is ESPECIALLY true. There is so much spin going on to sway and convince that no one really knows what the truth there is anymore on either side of the political spectrum. If you assume everyone in politics is hiding something, spinning the truth, trying to get their own way at the expense of everything else (a not unreasonable starting point given the way Washington hasn't worked in the last two or three years), think before you react, try to discern all of the whys and, above all, search for the truth on your own using sources that are NOT part of the world where the spin is coming from, then you are well on your way to creating well considered, thoughtful opinions which can change as the circumstances and world changes.
Zombies can't think. And even if you paint them all red, white and blue, they're a hazard to life because they want you to be just like them. The horror in my dream had more to do with becoming a mindless automaton unable to think or mentally do for myself than any possible physical mutilation of body that becoming a zombie might bring. (I don't look good in red or white, but blue is okay).
In my dream, feeling cornered, I stopped running from the Zombies and started attacking them instead. I was using my fists - but in reality I was using my mind. I could think. They couldn't. In the end, I was the one left standing amid a lot of broken Zombies and the world was once again safe to be in.
We need more thinkers and fewer zombies if THIS world is to be safe again.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
U.S. Founded as a Christian Nation? Yeah... Right...
The Right Wing (Or the Evil Empire, take your pick in my book) has asserted, often loudly and with great reverence, that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation!
Not hardly...
It's Final Jeopardy and the category is: US Myths and Fallacies
The answer is, "All of them." You have thirty seconds. Please put your answer in the form of a question.
(30 seconds later)
Right wing, contestant number one, you have thirty trillion dollars and own 85% of the wealth of the United States. What was your answer?
Uh, I said, "How many of the Founding Fathers were Christians?"
Oh, I'm sorry, Right Wing. That is an incorrect answer. The Correct answer is "Which of the Founding Fathers were businessmen?"
That's right, boys and girls and all the ships at sea, our Founding Fathers were Businessmen first, liberals (yes, really, liberals, interested in freedom, democracy and wary of large tyrannical powers that sought to limit personal freedom and choice) and, mostly not too fond of religions.
Now, it must be pointed out that they were against ORGANIZED RELIGIONS. This is an important distinction. They believed in faith, but they adamantly refused to allow a personal faith to interfere in the business of creating a government. They went so far as to put that into the FIRST AMENDMENT in the bill of rights.
You see, organized religions have this habit of screwing up governments. As observed by Thomas Jefferson (you know, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Third President of the United States? Banged his own slave girl and fathered children with her? THAT Thomas Jefferson?) in a letter to German Baron von Humboldt in 1813:
Now, least you think that perhaps he was talking about corrput politicians and priests and not about religions in general or Christianity in particular, he went on to say at another time:
But let us go further and examine the right-wing notion that they were trying to do just that: create a Christian Nation.
They were crafting a nation. They only needed a 2/3 majority to get the work done. And all of the 13 original states had to sign onto the newly drafted Constitution. If we were a nation of people wanting it to be a Christian nation, why didn't they put it in the Constitution? Why, instead, did they specifically and categorically deny the right of the government to dictate what religion a person had. Not only that, but why did they put that prohibition against the government into the very FIRST amendment which became our Bill of Rights? Going one step further to pound this home, why did they make that the FIRST PROVISION OF THAT AMENDMENT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS? If these were all good and godly men foaming at the mount to create the first truly Christian Nation, why did they go so far out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot on the journey to that religious destiny?
Well, the easy answer is because they weren't that interested in God. In fact, they were so not interested in God, that the word God doesn't appear in the Constitution. Nowhere. Not a peep. In fact, "deity", "Creator" or any reference to anything even remotely of a religious, let alone "christian" nature is glaringly absent from the Constitution - aside from the prohibition on the part of government to create laws based on one.
You think, maybe, they were sending a message?
To refresh your memory:
This isn't exactly what I would call "Christian Nation building" here.
The truth of the matter is that the founding fathers saw what the Church of England had done to the people in England (and elsewhere where other religions governed or had a strong hand in the running of a government). They knew that allowing any religion, regardless of who believed in it, or how many, to be able to take power in the government would be a disaster for the free, open society they envisioned.
So why were they so into a free and open society? Aside from a large dose of off-shore repression England engaged in before the Revolutionary war (and for a period of time thereafter, in fact), the founding fathers were BUSINESSMEN. Almost all of them were rich land-owners. Almost all of them were extremely well educated. Almost all of them owned businesses or were heavily invested in them.
In ANY society run by dogma, the clerics only need to decide something is subversive or immoral, then pass a law to outlaw it or restrict it. In a free and open society, people can smoke, drink and fool around howsoever they please. They can indulge in the vices the church often railed against: Smoking, drinking and fooling around. Many of the founding fathers owned (or were invested in) distilleries. Others owned tobacco plantations. Almost all of them owned slaves (something ELSE the churches hated and wanted abolished).
The founding fathers were creating a businessman's paradise, folks, NOT a nation of Christians. The LAST damned thing they wanted was some stupid church to get its meat hooks into the government to shut down their distilleries, make them stop harvesting tobacco (and hemp, by the way), or, heaven forbid, take away their slaves. Profits would plummet.
A cadre of "Christian Nation Builders" they were not.
So the next time you hear a right-winger talk about our found fathers as Christians interested in a Christian nation, you can do what I do: Laugh, point and call them ignoramuses who don't know anything about the nation they want to run into the ground.
Tell them I sent you...
Not hardly...
It's Final Jeopardy and the category is: US Myths and Fallacies
The answer is, "All of them." You have thirty seconds. Please put your answer in the form of a question.
(30 seconds later)
Right wing, contestant number one, you have thirty trillion dollars and own 85% of the wealth of the United States. What was your answer?
Uh, I said, "How many of the Founding Fathers were Christians?"
Oh, I'm sorry, Right Wing. That is an incorrect answer. The Correct answer is "Which of the Founding Fathers were businessmen?"
That's right, boys and girls and all the ships at sea, our Founding Fathers were Businessmen first, liberals (yes, really, liberals, interested in freedom, democracy and wary of large tyrannical powers that sought to limit personal freedom and choice) and, mostly not too fond of religions.
Now, it must be pointed out that they were against ORGANIZED RELIGIONS. This is an important distinction. They believed in faith, but they adamantly refused to allow a personal faith to interfere in the business of creating a government. They went so far as to put that into the FIRST AMENDMENT in the bill of rights.
You see, organized religions have this habit of screwing up governments. As observed by Thomas Jefferson (you know, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Third President of the United States? Banged his own slave girl and fathered children with her? THAT Thomas Jefferson?) in a letter to German Baron von Humboldt in 1813:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."Now, let's fast-forward to today. Our right-wingers have availed themselves of the lowest grade of ignorance to manipulate the poor, southerner/mid-westerner for their own purposes.
Now, least you think that perhaps he was talking about corrput politicians and priests and not about religions in general or Christianity in particular, he went on to say at another time:
The score is Reason 2, Religions 0. And proof that not all of the founding fathers were interested in making a "christian nation."
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
But let us go further and examine the right-wing notion that they were trying to do just that: create a Christian Nation.
They were crafting a nation. They only needed a 2/3 majority to get the work done. And all of the 13 original states had to sign onto the newly drafted Constitution. If we were a nation of people wanting it to be a Christian nation, why didn't they put it in the Constitution? Why, instead, did they specifically and categorically deny the right of the government to dictate what religion a person had. Not only that, but why did they put that prohibition against the government into the very FIRST amendment which became our Bill of Rights? Going one step further to pound this home, why did they make that the FIRST PROVISION OF THAT AMENDMENT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS? If these were all good and godly men foaming at the mount to create the first truly Christian Nation, why did they go so far out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot on the journey to that religious destiny?
Well, the easy answer is because they weren't that interested in God. In fact, they were so not interested in God, that the word God doesn't appear in the Constitution. Nowhere. Not a peep. In fact, "deity", "Creator" or any reference to anything even remotely of a religious, let alone "christian" nature is glaringly absent from the Constitution - aside from the prohibition on the part of government to create laws based on one.
You think, maybe, they were sending a message?
To refresh your memory:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Not only did our founding fathers tell the government you can't establish a religion, but it went on to say that you can't pass laws that tell others how to live based on a particular religion or faith since they may have a different faith and that law may interfere in the free exercise of it.
This isn't exactly what I would call "Christian Nation building" here.
The truth of the matter is that the founding fathers saw what the Church of England had done to the people in England (and elsewhere where other religions governed or had a strong hand in the running of a government). They knew that allowing any religion, regardless of who believed in it, or how many, to be able to take power in the government would be a disaster for the free, open society they envisioned.
So why were they so into a free and open society? Aside from a large dose of off-shore repression England engaged in before the Revolutionary war (and for a period of time thereafter, in fact), the founding fathers were BUSINESSMEN. Almost all of them were rich land-owners. Almost all of them were extremely well educated. Almost all of them owned businesses or were heavily invested in them.
In ANY society run by dogma, the clerics only need to decide something is subversive or immoral, then pass a law to outlaw it or restrict it. In a free and open society, people can smoke, drink and fool around howsoever they please. They can indulge in the vices the church often railed against: Smoking, drinking and fooling around. Many of the founding fathers owned (or were invested in) distilleries. Others owned tobacco plantations. Almost all of them owned slaves (something ELSE the churches hated and wanted abolished).
The founding fathers were creating a businessman's paradise, folks, NOT a nation of Christians. The LAST damned thing they wanted was some stupid church to get its meat hooks into the government to shut down their distilleries, make them stop harvesting tobacco (and hemp, by the way), or, heaven forbid, take away their slaves. Profits would plummet.
A cadre of "Christian Nation Builders" they were not.
So the next time you hear a right-winger talk about our found fathers as Christians interested in a Christian nation, you can do what I do: Laugh, point and call them ignoramuses who don't know anything about the nation they want to run into the ground.
Tell them I sent you...
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Which Do You Hear, the Messenger, or the Message?
One of the things about human nature I've noticed is how often people will hear a messenger, but not the message. That is to say, what is being said seems less important to the listener than who is saying it or how it's said (or both).
When evaluating information coming to us, there are preconceptions people place on those providing the information. This prejudges the information, deeming what is being said to be valid or invalid simply because of who is speaking. Even the manner of delivery will have an impact on whether anyone bothers to listen to what's being said.
This proclivity becomes especially pronounced in politics. If the person saying things (regardless of the "things" being said) has a bad "presence", poor speaking voice, odd appearance or a history of saying/doing really odd things, the listeners will not hear what's being said. They'll focus on the oddities, the things that bother them, rather than on the words coming out of the speaker's mouth.
This is, of course, a two-edged sword. A "bad" politician will be unable to sway a crowd with presence/appearance/voice alone. But a "good" politician won't have to say anything memorable, relevant or factual provided s/he says it in a manner that is presentable, visually appealing and appeals to the aural needs of the crowd.
A few years ago in the late fall, during a commemoration of fallen war dead, a tall, awkward-looking, soft-voiced man stood up and spoke for a few minutes. He followed several speakers who orated with great passion and at length, to the delight of the crowd. There were several reporters covering the event. Barely anyone noticed what was being said by this tall, awkward-looking man and only one reporter out of dozens jotted down the speech for posterity. It was a remarkably short speech.
The presentation of the speech was poor. Barely anyone noticed when it was being delivered. Few paused in their writing from the previous speaker's orations and several never heard it at all. But it became one of the most moving speeches in human history - only AFTER it was published where no one had to listen to the speaker or be distracted by the now utterly lost and irrelevant but well spoken orations of the others at that event.
The speech started out, "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
In this case, what was being said was FAR AND AWAY better than how it was said, or even who said it.
Sadly, in today's world, we are caught in a reality of sound bites. The three minutes it takes to recite the Gettysburg Address is too long for the attention span of news organizations who seem to think that quick, out-of-context or viciously short barbs and quips are actually relevant provided the right people say them. We are becoming less concerned about what people say, than how they say it or even who is saying it.
Politicians are great at rhetoric. All you need do to to get people cheering is to stand up on a stage, toss a bit of confetti in the air, drop some appropriately colored balloons and shout, "God Bless America!" in a well practiced, booming voice. But the "science" behind his goes a few steps further, and was touched upon in my "Rednecks" post.
Politicians never say insightful things today like Lincoln did 146 years ago. Today, politicians are strictly out to get elected. Lincoln was speaking to the future beyond the next election. In order to get elected, politicians now have talking points and each time, those points are changed slightly to accommodate the prejudices, sensibilities and expectations of the crowd. All of these talking points can be summed up with the phrase, "I believe in what you believe in, so vote for me."
It doesn't mean the politician is telling the truth.
At a Democratic rally, you'll hear politicians talking about protecting the environment, reducing military spending, increasing aid to the needy. At Republican rallies, you hear them talking about banning gay marriage and abortions, building a strong America with a strong military and bringing prayer back to schools. Both sides talk about fiscal responsibility (Yes, the liberals actually do that because to do otherwise would be to play to the stereotype). Both sides talk about doing the "will of the people" because "it's what Americans want!"
So you elect your liar of choice and what happens? Pretty much nothing. Neither side is willing to let the other side "win". One side's America isn't the other side's America. WHAT they said means nothing. It was all in the delivery. Next time you go to a political rally, LISTEN TO THE WORDS. The actual amount of meat (or meaning) in them wouldn't feed a hummingbird. Look at the crowd and judge for yourself if those words are just what they want to hear, or actually go beyond the moment (or at least beyond the coming election).
I don't expect politicians to be Mark Twain, Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln in what they say. Great oratory isn't written by the orators these days. Often times, great oratory isn't even written by anyone. It's all sound bites of quick, compact messages designed to influence you and convince you to vote for that guy (or gal). They don't move you so much as stick to you so that when you're in the voting booth, you vote for them in the hopes those sticky, icky bits of bites will FINALLY wash off.
And be forgotten.
With all the rhetoric out there in politics today, it's easy to get caught up in the stickiness of it all. But keep in mind, that stickiness is deliberate. They don't want you to remember what they said (god forbid they be held accountable for all of those promises!). They want to sell that feeling you had when you were cheering them (even if you weren't quite sure why you were doing that) long enough for you to go to the polls and vote for them.
At Gettysburg in 1863, when Lincoln finished his speech, there was a smattering of applause from the gathered dignitaries and reporters. That reception of his few minutes of speaking was almost silent compared to the cheers and applause which had punctuated the conclusions of the previous speaker's remarks. Lincoln thought what he had said was not liked or, worse, somehow insulting. The war between the states was a time of great passion, great emotion and great suffering. Our nation had been torn asunder by innate differences in how we viewed our fellow man and was poorly stitched back together by the imprecise, violent surgery of war without the benefit of anesthesia.
Over the years, that short speech, delivered so poorly by a man who would be assassinated fifteen months later because of the delusions of those who refused to accept the changes which had been wrought on the nation, has since resonated throughout American history. In the Boston Globe, on June 1st, 1865, a reporter wrote,
Think about THAT the next time someone is speaking to you from a podium and inflames your passions about the things you think you believe in. Are those issues you're cheering about really that important? Or are you just so lost in the moment, you don't think about the future? Or, worse, do you even know why, or what, you're cheering?
The future is out there, and it's coming at us faster than you think. Next time you see a politician, LISTEN to what is being said. If you come away hungry, they're not saying enough. And if they're not saying enough now, there won't be enough from him when the future arrives.
When evaluating information coming to us, there are preconceptions people place on those providing the information. This prejudges the information, deeming what is being said to be valid or invalid simply because of who is speaking. Even the manner of delivery will have an impact on whether anyone bothers to listen to what's being said.
This proclivity becomes especially pronounced in politics. If the person saying things (regardless of the "things" being said) has a bad "presence", poor speaking voice, odd appearance or a history of saying/doing really odd things, the listeners will not hear what's being said. They'll focus on the oddities, the things that bother them, rather than on the words coming out of the speaker's mouth.
This is, of course, a two-edged sword. A "bad" politician will be unable to sway a crowd with presence/appearance/voice alone. But a "good" politician won't have to say anything memorable, relevant or factual provided s/he says it in a manner that is presentable, visually appealing and appeals to the aural needs of the crowd.
A few years ago in the late fall, during a commemoration of fallen war dead, a tall, awkward-looking, soft-voiced man stood up and spoke for a few minutes. He followed several speakers who orated with great passion and at length, to the delight of the crowd. There were several reporters covering the event. Barely anyone noticed what was being said by this tall, awkward-looking man and only one reporter out of dozens jotted down the speech for posterity. It was a remarkably short speech.
The presentation of the speech was poor. Barely anyone noticed when it was being delivered. Few paused in their writing from the previous speaker's orations and several never heard it at all. But it became one of the most moving speeches in human history - only AFTER it was published where no one had to listen to the speaker or be distracted by the now utterly lost and irrelevant but well spoken orations of the others at that event.
The speech started out, "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."
In this case, what was being said was FAR AND AWAY better than how it was said, or even who said it.
Sadly, in today's world, we are caught in a reality of sound bites. The three minutes it takes to recite the Gettysburg Address is too long for the attention span of news organizations who seem to think that quick, out-of-context or viciously short barbs and quips are actually relevant provided the right people say them. We are becoming less concerned about what people say, than how they say it or even who is saying it.
Politicians are great at rhetoric. All you need do to to get people cheering is to stand up on a stage, toss a bit of confetti in the air, drop some appropriately colored balloons and shout, "God Bless America!" in a well practiced, booming voice. But the "science" behind his goes a few steps further, and was touched upon in my "Rednecks" post.
Politicians never say insightful things today like Lincoln did 146 years ago. Today, politicians are strictly out to get elected. Lincoln was speaking to the future beyond the next election. In order to get elected, politicians now have talking points and each time, those points are changed slightly to accommodate the prejudices, sensibilities and expectations of the crowd. All of these talking points can be summed up with the phrase, "I believe in what you believe in, so vote for me."
It doesn't mean the politician is telling the truth.
At a Democratic rally, you'll hear politicians talking about protecting the environment, reducing military spending, increasing aid to the needy. At Republican rallies, you hear them talking about banning gay marriage and abortions, building a strong America with a strong military and bringing prayer back to schools. Both sides talk about fiscal responsibility (Yes, the liberals actually do that because to do otherwise would be to play to the stereotype). Both sides talk about doing the "will of the people" because "it's what Americans want!"
So you elect your liar of choice and what happens? Pretty much nothing. Neither side is willing to let the other side "win". One side's America isn't the other side's America. WHAT they said means nothing. It was all in the delivery. Next time you go to a political rally, LISTEN TO THE WORDS. The actual amount of meat (or meaning) in them wouldn't feed a hummingbird. Look at the crowd and judge for yourself if those words are just what they want to hear, or actually go beyond the moment (or at least beyond the coming election).
I don't expect politicians to be Mark Twain, Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln in what they say. Great oratory isn't written by the orators these days. Often times, great oratory isn't even written by anyone. It's all sound bites of quick, compact messages designed to influence you and convince you to vote for that guy (or gal). They don't move you so much as stick to you so that when you're in the voting booth, you vote for them in the hopes those sticky, icky bits of bites will FINALLY wash off.
And be forgotten.
With all the rhetoric out there in politics today, it's easy to get caught up in the stickiness of it all. But keep in mind, that stickiness is deliberate. They don't want you to remember what they said (god forbid they be held accountable for all of those promises!). They want to sell that feeling you had when you were cheering them (even if you weren't quite sure why you were doing that) long enough for you to go to the polls and vote for them.
At Gettysburg in 1863, when Lincoln finished his speech, there was a smattering of applause from the gathered dignitaries and reporters. That reception of his few minutes of speaking was almost silent compared to the cheers and applause which had punctuated the conclusions of the previous speaker's remarks. Lincoln thought what he had said was not liked or, worse, somehow insulting. The war between the states was a time of great passion, great emotion and great suffering. Our nation had been torn asunder by innate differences in how we viewed our fellow man and was poorly stitched back together by the imprecise, violent surgery of war without the benefit of anesthesia.
Over the years, that short speech, delivered so poorly by a man who would be assassinated fifteen months later because of the delusions of those who refused to accept the changes which had been wrought on the nation, has since resonated throughout American history. In the Boston Globe, on June 1st, 1865, a reporter wrote,
"Lincoln was mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here." Rather, the Bostonian remarked, "The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech."No one remembers what the other speakers said. It was a bunch of bombast, pomp and circumstances. To quote another man who was good with a phrase,
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Think about THAT the next time someone is speaking to you from a podium and inflames your passions about the things you think you believe in. Are those issues you're cheering about really that important? Or are you just so lost in the moment, you don't think about the future? Or, worse, do you even know why, or what, you're cheering?
The future is out there, and it's coming at us faster than you think. Next time you see a politician, LISTEN to what is being said. If you come away hungry, they're not saying enough. And if they're not saying enough now, there won't be enough from him when the future arrives.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Why Taxing the Rich Will Save the US Economy
I'm not in favor of tax and spend politics. I'm not in favor of increasing taxes just to spend it on social programs. But one can just revamp the taxes without increasing tax revenue and still get the economy going. The Government playing Robin Hood may not be such a bad idea, but it's not exactly giving money to the poor. It's more like making the rich pay their fair share while the the poor are pretty much left to their own devices.
(If you think being poor is simple, go to Spent and play a game or ten. Bet you starve.)
"Tax and spend" is a phrase used by conservatives to imply that the government increases taxes to create social programs to give extra money to the poor without any expectations. Often times, it means spending more than is taxed. And that is the context in which I'm against Tax and Spend. I want some value for my tax dollars being increased. But in this case, I don't want any increases unless they are specifically budgeted for deficit reduction. Rather, I'm looking at a shifting of the tax burden away from the poor and middle class and onto those who can most afford it: the wealthy. A shift of the tax burden will reduce the deficit (by stimulating the economy) without increasing tax revenue or adding to the deficit and without increasing or creating new "welfare" programs.
As I have mentioned, in the last 20 years or so (ever since 1990), we have seen the biggest a shift of revenue from the poor to the rich in global history. This gap between the Haves and the Have Nots was mentioned here earlier this month.
The idea has been floated that we should start taxing the rich more than we have and I agree - to a point. Tax the rich, yes, but no more than we actually need given necessary cost-cutting and fiscal responsibility. Then cut the taxes on the rest of us. We don't NEED to generate more tax revenue. We heed to shift the tax burden from the middle class and poor to the rich. Just doing that will stimulate the economy and make things better for EVERYONE.
Now, before we go much further, I have to explain how an economy works. You don't need to take notes and keep in mind, this is a thumb-nail version of the thing.
In the beginning there was barter. People would trade goods and services for goods or services. But there was an inherent inequity in barter in that some goods given seemed to be more valuable than what was received. So the concept of money was created. In essence, money placed a quantitative number to the value of things - be they goods or services. It worked so well, that money became what we use to trade for goods and services today.
But money has a problem. In ourt modern society, those who don't have money must acquire it in order to acquire the goods and services they need to live. They do this by trading their labor or talents in exchange for money. We call this work. A person who has the need of their labors (usually someone who is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of goods and/or services) hires people to trade their labors for his money.
All is well and good.
But some people have more money than they can spend in one spree. For a very long time, they kept this money (and other valuables) in their homes, but this became impractical. So banks were created. Banks operate as repositories of your money, who then use that money to sponsor other ventures with the expectation of being paid back with "interest", which creates an income for the bank so they can operate without paying themselves with the money of the depositors.
Again, all is well and good.
In an ideal economy, people labor for wages they spend on goods and services, the surplus of which they deposit in banks which use that money to loan to people or businesses who pay them back more than they were loaned in order to acquire goods needed in their lives, the excess of which is used to pay for the operation of the banks and offer a small incentive to the depositors for the privilege of using their money in the first place. As long as people are working, getting wages, spending wages and depositing excess wages in banks, things get better for everyone.
But then we have human nature to deal with and the major one here is greed. The greed is everywhere. The depositor who deposits their money wants the little extra the banks offer. The banks want more depositors because if they can make more loans, they make more money when people pay the loans back (Emphasis added for later effect). People getting loans want to get the loans, so can lie or fake the information necessary to get the loans if they're greedy, or find a banker who will give them a loan even if it can't be paid back because the bank looks at its income not so much as what is coming in NOW, but what WILL come in later. And the business owners are greedy realizing that if they can make their minions do more work for less wages, the business owner can make more money.
All of this has happened already. Hence why the world is screwed up. Going back to our model, the banks gave away loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them, meaning they have no income and no money to lend, and no money to give back to the depositors. (The FDIC isn't there for nothing, you know, but it, too, is running out of money). With no money coming in for businesses, they can't expand their operations or, occasionally pay their workers. So they lay the workers off. Fewer workers means less wages for the labors being traded, which means fewer people buying goods or services which means less business which means more workers are laid off.
But the bankers got paid. The business owners got paid. The poor don't. The middle class struggles.
From our (overly simplistic, but still relevant) economic model, we see where the money went: To business owners and bankers. In our society today, we call them "the wealthy".
Now, taxes were never mentioned in our economic model, but let's toss them in now and see how it all works out.
The government is in charge of maintaining the military, the roads, sewers, bridges and other public works we rely on to go about our daily lives. It also provides a safety net for those who for whatever reason can't exchange their labors for wages. It is financed by a tax on the wages of the people who live in that country. Now, a little about the people who live in the country. We'll split them up into three groups: The Wealthy (top 20% who hold the money), the Middle Class - the 60% of people who have been hired by the wealthy to labor to produce goods and services for the wealthy - and the 20% Poor (which are those who usually work, but at jobs which do not pay much, or those who can't work for whatever reason.)
The top 20% of the wealthy control 85% of the TOTAL WEALTH. If the total wealth of the economy was a million coins and the total population was 1000, the 200 wealthiest would have 850,000 to split between them, 600 would have 149,000 and the bottom 200 would have 1000.
The Wealthy have 4250 coins each.
The Middle Class have 248 coins each.
The Poor have 50 coins each.
Okay, let's move back to our model and see how this works. In a good economy, people trade labor for wages because the business owners has a demand for their goods/services. The greater the demand, the more laborers are needed. If the demand falls, so, too, does the need for laborers, which in turn means fewer people getting wages which means less spending for goods/services. The flow of money through demand is what keeps the economy working. If the money stops flowing, usually through a lack of demand (cause in this case by low wages), the economy falters and fails.
There are only 200 rich. They have a lot of money, but how many goods or services can they buy? 200. Their spending power is gigantic, but the demand they generate is small. The Middle Class and Poor are gigantic in potential demand, but compared to the rich, on an individual basis, their spending power is poor. If they don't have the money, they can't spend it on the goods and services their demand may potentially be.
Back to taxes. The Wealthy pay a lot of taxes, but they also control most of the wealth of the nation. In our model, even if they pay the 33% they pay today, the amount they have left over is still an order or two of magnitude greater than it is for the Middle Class, who control nearly a magnitude of order more than the poor. And that money IS NOT FLOWING as it should in a healthy, working economy. Rather than using their wealth to reinvest into the economy by creating new jobs, investing in new industries and making new opportunities, they're holding on to it.
Greed.
The Middle Class and Poor are spending almost all of their money on the necessities of living. They can't get enough well paying jobs to be able to pump more into the economy.
So the shifting of wealth from the wealthy to the less wealthy is in order. Since the wealthy aren't doing that on their own, the government has to do it.
Now, I understand the wealthy pay a lot in taxes, but historically, they pay barely a third of what they used to have to pay. They control 85% of the wealth. They should be paying 85% of the taxes. They aren't.
Let's look at what the taxes does to the coins people have:
33% of 4250 = 1403 leaving 2847
15% of 248 = 37 leaving 211
10% of 50 =5 leaving 45.
Clearly, the rich remain substantially wealthier than the middle class. That 33% in taxes represents 35% of the total taxes collected today. The 15% in taxes represents 60% of the taxes collected. The 10% the Poor pays represents 5% of the taxes collected.
The rich still have 10 times the wealth of the middle class.
But let's remember what the middle class does: Spend. A little goes a long way. 60% of the taxes means there are a hell of a lot of middle class. A small increase in what each of them has translates to a gigantic spending potential. By shifting the tax burden 10% so the rich pay 45% of the taxes, the middle class 55% and the poor 0%, then 10% of the TOTAL INCOME TAX REVENUE is shifted to a large number of people who are willing to spend it, all this without in any way, shape or form decreasing the quality of life among the wealthy. Given that the wealthy control 85% of the wealth, this shift isn't what one would call onerous.
In 2009, the US collected 2.4 TRILLION dollars in tax revenue. 10% of that is 240 BILLION dollars. Imagine that 240 billion dollars, every year, being pumped into the economy in the form of spending or even savings (which helps generate revenue banks can use to make loans which stimulates business, investment and hiring) without adding to the deficit. The "Economic Incentive Plan" we got from the government was a one time tax bonus intended to have people go out and spend it to stimulate the economy. It didn't help much because the public perception was it's one-time only, the economy sucks, let's NOT spend it.
A major tax cut for the 80% of Americans who actually do the largest amount of spending would be seen as a positive step toward helping them. Doing that without actually increasing the deficit, nor adversely impacting those who will be shouldering a fairer share of the tax burden will be even better.
As has been mentioned, the gap between the rich and the poor and Middle Class has never been larger. A shift of wealth is in order. It will take the money from where it's been (stagnating while only enriching the rich) to stimulating the economy.
The infusion of cash into the middle class would most definitely create more spending power and more willingness to spend it. This would fuel demand for goods and services, which in turn fuels demand for workers, which in turn puts more money into the economy.
This is a redistribution of the tax burden. Taking it one step further, increasing the taxes on the rich to actually generate extra tax revenue could ALSO be done. This extra revenue could be used to reduce the national deficit as well as help fund emergency social programs like FEMA or even bolster Social Security. But what would be best is using the money to stimulate business by investing it in the things government is supposed to take care of: Infrastructure. Just creating those jobs to repair/maintain/build the vital infrastructure the nation needs to keep moving would put more money into the economy and improve the quality of life for everyone. Putting more people to work generates more jobs which generates wages which can be taxed increasing the amount of taxes being taken in which can be used to reduce the deficit and further stimulate the economy.
But it all starts with shifting some of the wealth away from the few wealthy to the many of the rest who are willing to spend it. That can only be done through re-balancing the tax structure to place far more of the total burden onto those who can most afford it and away from those who can least afford it.
While some in Congress (who, by the way, are among the "wealthy"), call this idea "Class Warfare", the fact is the wealthy will benefit from a shift in the tax burden just as much as the rest of us over the long term. They're just too greedy to see it.
(If you think being poor is simple, go to Spent and play a game or ten. Bet you starve.)
"Tax and spend" is a phrase used by conservatives to imply that the government increases taxes to create social programs to give extra money to the poor without any expectations. Often times, it means spending more than is taxed. And that is the context in which I'm against Tax and Spend. I want some value for my tax dollars being increased. But in this case, I don't want any increases unless they are specifically budgeted for deficit reduction. Rather, I'm looking at a shifting of the tax burden away from the poor and middle class and onto those who can most afford it: the wealthy. A shift of the tax burden will reduce the deficit (by stimulating the economy) without increasing tax revenue or adding to the deficit and without increasing or creating new "welfare" programs.
As I have mentioned, in the last 20 years or so (ever since 1990), we have seen the biggest a shift of revenue from the poor to the rich in global history. This gap between the Haves and the Have Nots was mentioned here earlier this month.
The idea has been floated that we should start taxing the rich more than we have and I agree - to a point. Tax the rich, yes, but no more than we actually need given necessary cost-cutting and fiscal responsibility. Then cut the taxes on the rest of us. We don't NEED to generate more tax revenue. We heed to shift the tax burden from the middle class and poor to the rich. Just doing that will stimulate the economy and make things better for EVERYONE.
Now, before we go much further, I have to explain how an economy works. You don't need to take notes and keep in mind, this is a thumb-nail version of the thing.
In the beginning there was barter. People would trade goods and services for goods or services. But there was an inherent inequity in barter in that some goods given seemed to be more valuable than what was received. So the concept of money was created. In essence, money placed a quantitative number to the value of things - be they goods or services. It worked so well, that money became what we use to trade for goods and services today.
But money has a problem. In ourt modern society, those who don't have money must acquire it in order to acquire the goods and services they need to live. They do this by trading their labor or talents in exchange for money. We call this work. A person who has the need of their labors (usually someone who is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of goods and/or services) hires people to trade their labors for his money.
All is well and good.
But some people have more money than they can spend in one spree. For a very long time, they kept this money (and other valuables) in their homes, but this became impractical. So banks were created. Banks operate as repositories of your money, who then use that money to sponsor other ventures with the expectation of being paid back with "interest", which creates an income for the bank so they can operate without paying themselves with the money of the depositors.
Again, all is well and good.
In an ideal economy, people labor for wages they spend on goods and services, the surplus of which they deposit in banks which use that money to loan to people or businesses who pay them back more than they were loaned in order to acquire goods needed in their lives, the excess of which is used to pay for the operation of the banks and offer a small incentive to the depositors for the privilege of using their money in the first place. As long as people are working, getting wages, spending wages and depositing excess wages in banks, things get better for everyone.
But then we have human nature to deal with and the major one here is greed. The greed is everywhere. The depositor who deposits their money wants the little extra the banks offer. The banks want more depositors because if they can make more loans, they make more money when people pay the loans back (Emphasis added for later effect). People getting loans want to get the loans, so can lie or fake the information necessary to get the loans if they're greedy, or find a banker who will give them a loan even if it can't be paid back because the bank looks at its income not so much as what is coming in NOW, but what WILL come in later. And the business owners are greedy realizing that if they can make their minions do more work for less wages, the business owner can make more money.
All of this has happened already. Hence why the world is screwed up. Going back to our model, the banks gave away loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them, meaning they have no income and no money to lend, and no money to give back to the depositors. (The FDIC isn't there for nothing, you know, but it, too, is running out of money). With no money coming in for businesses, they can't expand their operations or, occasionally pay their workers. So they lay the workers off. Fewer workers means less wages for the labors being traded, which means fewer people buying goods or services which means less business which means more workers are laid off.
But the bankers got paid. The business owners got paid. The poor don't. The middle class struggles.
From our (overly simplistic, but still relevant) economic model, we see where the money went: To business owners and bankers. In our society today, we call them "the wealthy".
Now, taxes were never mentioned in our economic model, but let's toss them in now and see how it all works out.
The government is in charge of maintaining the military, the roads, sewers, bridges and other public works we rely on to go about our daily lives. It also provides a safety net for those who for whatever reason can't exchange their labors for wages. It is financed by a tax on the wages of the people who live in that country. Now, a little about the people who live in the country. We'll split them up into three groups: The Wealthy (top 20% who hold the money), the Middle Class - the 60% of people who have been hired by the wealthy to labor to produce goods and services for the wealthy - and the 20% Poor (which are those who usually work, but at jobs which do not pay much, or those who can't work for whatever reason.)
The top 20% of the wealthy control 85% of the TOTAL WEALTH. If the total wealth of the economy was a million coins and the total population was 1000, the 200 wealthiest would have 850,000 to split between them, 600 would have 149,000 and the bottom 200 would have 1000.
The Wealthy have 4250 coins each.
The Middle Class have 248 coins each.
The Poor have 50 coins each.
Okay, let's move back to our model and see how this works. In a good economy, people trade labor for wages because the business owners has a demand for their goods/services. The greater the demand, the more laborers are needed. If the demand falls, so, too, does the need for laborers, which in turn means fewer people getting wages which means less spending for goods/services. The flow of money through demand is what keeps the economy working. If the money stops flowing, usually through a lack of demand (cause in this case by low wages), the economy falters and fails.
There are only 200 rich. They have a lot of money, but how many goods or services can they buy? 200. Their spending power is gigantic, but the demand they generate is small. The Middle Class and Poor are gigantic in potential demand, but compared to the rich, on an individual basis, their spending power is poor. If they don't have the money, they can't spend it on the goods and services their demand may potentially be.
Back to taxes. The Wealthy pay a lot of taxes, but they also control most of the wealth of the nation. In our model, even if they pay the 33% they pay today, the amount they have left over is still an order or two of magnitude greater than it is for the Middle Class, who control nearly a magnitude of order more than the poor. And that money IS NOT FLOWING as it should in a healthy, working economy. Rather than using their wealth to reinvest into the economy by creating new jobs, investing in new industries and making new opportunities, they're holding on to it.
Greed.
The Middle Class and Poor are spending almost all of their money on the necessities of living. They can't get enough well paying jobs to be able to pump more into the economy.
So the shifting of wealth from the wealthy to the less wealthy is in order. Since the wealthy aren't doing that on their own, the government has to do it.
Now, I understand the wealthy pay a lot in taxes, but historically, they pay barely a third of what they used to have to pay. They control 85% of the wealth. They should be paying 85% of the taxes. They aren't.
Let's look at what the taxes does to the coins people have:
33% of 4250 = 1403 leaving 2847
15% of 248 = 37 leaving 211
10% of 50 =5 leaving 45.
Clearly, the rich remain substantially wealthier than the middle class. That 33% in taxes represents 35% of the total taxes collected today. The 15% in taxes represents 60% of the taxes collected. The 10% the Poor pays represents 5% of the taxes collected.
The rich still have 10 times the wealth of the middle class.
But let's remember what the middle class does: Spend. A little goes a long way. 60% of the taxes means there are a hell of a lot of middle class. A small increase in what each of them has translates to a gigantic spending potential. By shifting the tax burden 10% so the rich pay 45% of the taxes, the middle class 55% and the poor 0%, then 10% of the TOTAL INCOME TAX REVENUE is shifted to a large number of people who are willing to spend it, all this without in any way, shape or form decreasing the quality of life among the wealthy. Given that the wealthy control 85% of the wealth, this shift isn't what one would call onerous.
In 2009, the US collected 2.4 TRILLION dollars in tax revenue. 10% of that is 240 BILLION dollars. Imagine that 240 billion dollars, every year, being pumped into the economy in the form of spending or even savings (which helps generate revenue banks can use to make loans which stimulates business, investment and hiring) without adding to the deficit. The "Economic Incentive Plan" we got from the government was a one time tax bonus intended to have people go out and spend it to stimulate the economy. It didn't help much because the public perception was it's one-time only, the economy sucks, let's NOT spend it.
A major tax cut for the 80% of Americans who actually do the largest amount of spending would be seen as a positive step toward helping them. Doing that without actually increasing the deficit, nor adversely impacting those who will be shouldering a fairer share of the tax burden will be even better.
As has been mentioned, the gap between the rich and the poor and Middle Class has never been larger. A shift of wealth is in order. It will take the money from where it's been (stagnating while only enriching the rich) to stimulating the economy.
The infusion of cash into the middle class would most definitely create more spending power and more willingness to spend it. This would fuel demand for goods and services, which in turn fuels demand for workers, which in turn puts more money into the economy.
This is a redistribution of the tax burden. Taking it one step further, increasing the taxes on the rich to actually generate extra tax revenue could ALSO be done. This extra revenue could be used to reduce the national deficit as well as help fund emergency social programs like FEMA or even bolster Social Security. But what would be best is using the money to stimulate business by investing it in the things government is supposed to take care of: Infrastructure. Just creating those jobs to repair/maintain/build the vital infrastructure the nation needs to keep moving would put more money into the economy and improve the quality of life for everyone. Putting more people to work generates more jobs which generates wages which can be taxed increasing the amount of taxes being taken in which can be used to reduce the deficit and further stimulate the economy.
But it all starts with shifting some of the wealth away from the few wealthy to the many of the rest who are willing to spend it. That can only be done through re-balancing the tax structure to place far more of the total burden onto those who can most afford it and away from those who can least afford it.
While some in Congress (who, by the way, are among the "wealthy"), call this idea "Class Warfare", the fact is the wealthy will benefit from a shift in the tax burden just as much as the rest of us over the long term. They're just too greedy to see it.
Willful Ignorance: The New Lead-Lined Piping
It's been postulated that the fall of the Roman Empire was due, in part, to the mental decline of the people caused by the willful consumption of lead and the resulting long-term lead poisoning.
Their plumbing was usually lead-lined, their drinking and eating utensils were often coated in lead and even their spices contained lead. Long-term exposure to lead leads to a lot of ugly things:
Now, whether it actually WAS the lead or not isn't the point. The point is lead COULD HAVE BEEN the cause of the kind of behaviors, issues and troubles the Romans experienced as their empire crumbled from within and this is where Willful Ignorance comes in. Today, I believe this is what will cause the destruction of the United States (and probably the rest of the world) as we know it. Maybe destruction is too harsh of a word. Perhaps transformation is better, though I don't think it will be a peaceful one.
Willful Ignorance is pretty much what it sounds like: The conscious choice to refuse to learn about or believe in anything that does not comply with religious, political or ideological dogma. It's a choice made by a person to be ignorant. Defining ignorance, it means a lack of knowledge despite the opportunity to learn what could have been taught.
A naive person isn't ignorant. They never had the opportunity to learn. A naive person becomes ignorant by not seizing or taking advantage of the opportunity to learn when it becomes available. A knowledgeable person becomes willfully ignorant when they refuse to believe what is being taught and refuse to find conclusive evidence to support that belief.
So why would someone want to avoid knowledge? Well, denial isn't only a river in Egypt. It's a constant companion with the human race. And denial is often easier to accept than the truth of a thing. Denial can be beneficial, but most of the time it's a roadblock to a full and meaningful life. But it's WHY someone denies something that makes the difference between a simple mental step on the road to acceptance and what I'm talking about here. If someone denies it due to religion, politics or ideology, instead of, for example, a psychological inability to process the information, its willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance goes a step further than denial. Denial usually takes the "avoidance" road - they don't want to discuss it, act like it never happened, refuse to think about it. Willful Ignorance attacks it, actively encourages others to attack or deny it, will seize upon the thinnest shred of fluff and blow it out of proportion in regard to its true relevance to "prove" their point and will become hostile toward those who don't agree with them.
Sounds a lot like lead poisoning, doesn't it? Irritability, lowered IQ, behavior problems...
I wrote about global warming not long ago, which probably exemplifies the issue of willful ignorance the best, but it's not the only place this willful ignorance can be found. It's everywhere. In schools where administrators and school boards try to thrown in pseudoscience and mythology as part of a science curricula. Science class is supposed to teach, in part, logic and critical thinking. Adding garbage to that process handicaps people in their educational processes. I don't mind magical thinking in a class like philosophy, writing, fantasy or art, but it doesn't belong in science classes.
In business, allegedly knowledgeable people engage in undermining the science of climatology strictly to earn a profit. It SEEMS like they're so focused on the next quarterly forecast, they can't see more than three months ahead. They seem utterly blind to the consequences of their businesses practices. (And if you think I'm just talking about the oil companies and global warming, then I'll have to ask what rock you were under when the entire global economy melted down due to the mixing of sub-prime mortgages into investment packages which were sold to investors and investment firms who lost pretty much everything when the housing market collapsed leading to the Great Recession - which is still on-going.)
In politics, ideology has become so entrenched, that the business of running the government is now at a standstill while politicians pose and preen for their supporters. The partisanship is so deep, the United States credit rating was LOWERED mostly due to the inability of the politicians to actually work together. Willful ignorance is making politicians play a high-stakes game of chicken and it's OUR livelihoods at stake - not theirs. (I don't expect any politician will ever miss a meal because they can't afford it or worry about whether they'll have a roof over their heads ever in their entire lives.)
When so many people are so willing to be blinded to what is out there, the ONLY way back is through radical change. Something has to cut through their determination to remain ignorant. It has to undermine their religious, political or ideological prejudices to the degree that they stop defending them and start listening with real interest. But given that man is an irrational creature, this can't be done, in my humble opinion, without violence. The really sad part is that this willful ignorance will most definitely lead to violence. It already has in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Ignorance always leads to violence. And the belligerence of the willfully ignorant, who defend their ignorance angrily and violently, is why I don't think the transition from willfully ignorant to knowledgeable will be a peaceful one.
Like lead-lined pipes may have brought about the fall of the Roman Empire, willful ignorance will bring down civilization as we know it. A lot of people are going to get hurt. The terrifying part is that so many people are so willing to embrace the ignorance, they may win out in the end. I've always thought mankind has the potential to be great. I still do. But I've come to the conclusion, based on this mass embracing and active defense of ignorance, that while mankind has the potential to be great, he doesn't have the strength of will. Ignorance is too easy, and too volatile, to guarantee survival, let alone greatness. It would appear that mankind's potential to willfully embrace ignorance is greater than his willingness to embrace his potential greatness.
Without something that can reach the willfully ignorant and turn them back toward the path to greatness, I don't think mankind will survive long enough to reach his potential. What's really got me down about it is that the Romans didn't know any better than to eat lead despite the constant health issues that arose from it. Today we've seen the consequences of willful ignorance over and over and over again and have not learned enough to see where it will lead. So like the Roman Empire before, I believe we are heading for a collapse brought about by our own willingness to embrace and defend our ignorance.
Their plumbing was usually lead-lined, their drinking and eating utensils were often coated in lead and even their spices contained lead. Long-term exposure to lead leads to a lot of ugly things:
- Abdominal pain and cramping (usually the first sign of a high, toxic dose of lead poison)
- Aggressive behavior
- Anemia
- Constipation
- Difficulty sleeping
- Headaches
- Irritability
- Loss of previous developmental skills (in young children)
- Low appetite and energy
- Reduced sensations
- Behavior or attention problems
- Failure at school
- Hearing problems
- Kidney damage
- Reduced IQ
- Slowed body growth
Now, whether it actually WAS the lead or not isn't the point. The point is lead COULD HAVE BEEN the cause of the kind of behaviors, issues and troubles the Romans experienced as their empire crumbled from within and this is where Willful Ignorance comes in. Today, I believe this is what will cause the destruction of the United States (and probably the rest of the world) as we know it. Maybe destruction is too harsh of a word. Perhaps transformation is better, though I don't think it will be a peaceful one.
Willful Ignorance is pretty much what it sounds like: The conscious choice to refuse to learn about or believe in anything that does not comply with religious, political or ideological dogma. It's a choice made by a person to be ignorant. Defining ignorance, it means a lack of knowledge despite the opportunity to learn what could have been taught.
A naive person isn't ignorant. They never had the opportunity to learn. A naive person becomes ignorant by not seizing or taking advantage of the opportunity to learn when it becomes available. A knowledgeable person becomes willfully ignorant when they refuse to believe what is being taught and refuse to find conclusive evidence to support that belief.
So why would someone want to avoid knowledge? Well, denial isn't only a river in Egypt. It's a constant companion with the human race. And denial is often easier to accept than the truth of a thing. Denial can be beneficial, but most of the time it's a roadblock to a full and meaningful life. But it's WHY someone denies something that makes the difference between a simple mental step on the road to acceptance and what I'm talking about here. If someone denies it due to religion, politics or ideology, instead of, for example, a psychological inability to process the information, its willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance goes a step further than denial. Denial usually takes the "avoidance" road - they don't want to discuss it, act like it never happened, refuse to think about it. Willful Ignorance attacks it, actively encourages others to attack or deny it, will seize upon the thinnest shred of fluff and blow it out of proportion in regard to its true relevance to "prove" their point and will become hostile toward those who don't agree with them.
Sounds a lot like lead poisoning, doesn't it? Irritability, lowered IQ, behavior problems...
I wrote about global warming not long ago, which probably exemplifies the issue of willful ignorance the best, but it's not the only place this willful ignorance can be found. It's everywhere. In schools where administrators and school boards try to thrown in pseudoscience and mythology as part of a science curricula. Science class is supposed to teach, in part, logic and critical thinking. Adding garbage to that process handicaps people in their educational processes. I don't mind magical thinking in a class like philosophy, writing, fantasy or art, but it doesn't belong in science classes.
In business, allegedly knowledgeable people engage in undermining the science of climatology strictly to earn a profit. It SEEMS like they're so focused on the next quarterly forecast, they can't see more than three months ahead. They seem utterly blind to the consequences of their businesses practices. (And if you think I'm just talking about the oil companies and global warming, then I'll have to ask what rock you were under when the entire global economy melted down due to the mixing of sub-prime mortgages into investment packages which were sold to investors and investment firms who lost pretty much everything when the housing market collapsed leading to the Great Recession - which is still on-going.)
In politics, ideology has become so entrenched, that the business of running the government is now at a standstill while politicians pose and preen for their supporters. The partisanship is so deep, the United States credit rating was LOWERED mostly due to the inability of the politicians to actually work together. Willful ignorance is making politicians play a high-stakes game of chicken and it's OUR livelihoods at stake - not theirs. (I don't expect any politician will ever miss a meal because they can't afford it or worry about whether they'll have a roof over their heads ever in their entire lives.)
When so many people are so willing to be blinded to what is out there, the ONLY way back is through radical change. Something has to cut through their determination to remain ignorant. It has to undermine their religious, political or ideological prejudices to the degree that they stop defending them and start listening with real interest. But given that man is an irrational creature, this can't be done, in my humble opinion, without violence. The really sad part is that this willful ignorance will most definitely lead to violence. It already has in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Ignorance always leads to violence. And the belligerence of the willfully ignorant, who defend their ignorance angrily and violently, is why I don't think the transition from willfully ignorant to knowledgeable will be a peaceful one.
Like lead-lined pipes may have brought about the fall of the Roman Empire, willful ignorance will bring down civilization as we know it. A lot of people are going to get hurt. The terrifying part is that so many people are so willing to embrace the ignorance, they may win out in the end. I've always thought mankind has the potential to be great. I still do. But I've come to the conclusion, based on this mass embracing and active defense of ignorance, that while mankind has the potential to be great, he doesn't have the strength of will. Ignorance is too easy, and too volatile, to guarantee survival, let alone greatness. It would appear that mankind's potential to willfully embrace ignorance is greater than his willingness to embrace his potential greatness.
Without something that can reach the willfully ignorant and turn them back toward the path to greatness, I don't think mankind will survive long enough to reach his potential. What's really got me down about it is that the Romans didn't know any better than to eat lead despite the constant health issues that arose from it. Today we've seen the consequences of willful ignorance over and over and over again and have not learned enough to see where it will lead. So like the Roman Empire before, I believe we are heading for a collapse brought about by our own willingness to embrace and defend our ignorance.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Why Rednecks Are So Stupid
I can't help but wonder why the average "conservative" supporter is so adamant about voting against their own best interests so constantly. I mean, from a bottom line point of view, every time they vote for a conservative, their lives get worse.
Conservatives believe in "fiscal responsibility", but exactly what does that mean? Not spending more than you make? No, that's not true because when it comes to military spending, conservatives are more than willing to print a bunch more dead presidents to finance a war. The same goes for subsidies of industries and businesses (what we also refer to as "corporate welfare"). This has come at the expense of the average taxpayer - and more so from those who traditionally support GOP policies. Far more of the budget is spent on military spending (including veterans benefits, research and whatnot) than on any three "welfare" programs, but the way "rednecks" talk about it, all the government wants to do is tax and spend on "socialism".
Given all the things the right-wing does (outside of advancing repressive social programs), it's patently obvious that they are catering to the rich at the expense of the poor, but the poor vote for them anyhow.
Case in point: GWB's proposal to privatize Social Security.
I don't think anything gives the rich a hard-on more than thinking about all those tax dollars being invested in their companies instead of the insurance policy that is Social Security. But let's face it, had GWB's plan been implemented, most people's retirements would have been wiped out due to the proliferation of subprime mortgages in investment packages, causing those packages to tank.
The rich, of course, were never hurt by this. They only got richer.
Another case in point: The number of government subsidies going to Big Oil. These are supposedly to offset the costs of finding and developing new reserves of oil. But when a company is making hundreds of billions of dollars in PROFITS (not just revenue, but extra cash that hasn't been spent that year), investors and executives get paid off, but the tax payers get left holding the high gas prices and bill to subsidize the oil company's search for more of what made them rich to begin with.
Taxpayer money going to increase oil company profits while the average American gets financially hammered at the pumps.
Another case in point: The GOP's adamant refusal to extend gas mileage requirements on new vehicles. Way back when, the Auto Industry predicted bankruptcies and millions out of work - over seat belts. The same was predicted over air bags. The same was predicted for improved auto safety standards. None of these predictions materialized due to those improvements. But again, they're bleating to the GOP about improved gas standards cutting into profits and the government backtracked.
FYI: Improved gas mileage saves you money, and cuts down on the amount of gas sold, which means smaller profits for Big Oil, but more green in your pocket, and possibly, in your back yard, too.
EVERYTHING the GOP and political conservatives have done has benefited big business at the expense of the people. Even creating jobs hasn't been terribly beneficial because the GOP's job creation method has always been to start a war (In fairness, Johnson continued the Vietnam war to finance his Great Society, but he was from Texas, so he was a conservative liberal - if there is such a thing these days).
And despite all the evidence that the conservatives favor the good of business and the enrichment of the wealthy over the good of the people, the most desperate and least wealthy of the people in the country still vote for them.
I believe it has to do with a carefully crafted campaign to misdirect them into this behavior. And with this "class" of people, it's a fairly simple thing to do.
Now before I get anyone's patched long johns in a twist, I'm using the Jeff Foxworthy definition of a Redneck: A person with a glorious lack of sophistication. They are not bright, but they are steady. They aren't quick, but they are stubborn and reliable. They aren't well educated, but they make their own way. They come from a culture where a man's word is his bond and a handshake is as good as gold. There is much to admire from this culture. In many ways, it's the backbone of the country. They are the "salt of the earth" types, who are, sadly, easily misled due to that lack of sophistication.
This lack of sophistication translates into a very narrowly focused understanding of the world. They want things simple, traditional and the way "god intended things to be". This, in and of itself, is fine and dandy. But with a simple point of view of things, they are very easily manipulated.
A typical conservative candidate is against abortion, pro guns, against "gay marriage", is all for a strong military, against "socialism" or "welfare", in favor of low taxes and less government in your life. Some go further, but we're going to use a "middle of the road" conservative as an example.
The typical redneck believes in all of these. Some because it's part of his culture. Some because it's part of his religion. But the typical redneck doesn't want anything to do with helping the rich get richer unless the rich are working hard for the money and earn it the old-fashioned way. This is where conservatives are very quite about what they do when they're in power. And this is why conservatives are in power at all: Money.
The conservative fiscal policy makes the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. And it's a policy which perpetuates itself. For example, a strong military is a conservative cornerstone. But if there aren't a lot of poor, uneducated Americans willing to die for their country, there can't be those wars the military is being strong for.
So it becomes necessary to ensure a continuing supply of people so poor, their only way out of grinding poverty is the military. To do this the tax burden is shifted from those who can afford it (the wealthy) to those who can least afford it (the poor). Further, the tax dollars, rather than being used to help the poor with education or vocational training to find better jobs, are given to businesses which are already making substantial profits. This is allegedly done to stimulate job growth, but in effect only stimulates the bank accounts of the rich and the company's investors. No number of tax incentives or subsidies has stimulated a significant number of jobs. Even today, this variation on the thoroughly discredited "trickle down" hypothesis of economics is still believed by fairly bright people to work.
It doesn't. It never has. It never will.
The ways the GOP have shifted the wealth from the poor to the rich are insidious, varied and effective. They have effectively created a "pro business" mentality among their followers which worships the notion of the "Free Market" (Something I had a few words to say about not long ago). But this is a vital part of the strategy they've used. In a "Free Market" the theory is that anyone, through hard work alone, can become a rich person. This is the dream of most of our oppressed "rednecks". They believe that through hard work, a person will "make it". The day they "make it" is always next year, though. The whole system is stacked against them. The illusion keeps them going, but the reality is, none of them are going to get there.
Consider this: To be good in business you need native smarts or an education. Most people lack native smarts, so they need an education. This is the first step.
To get a good education, the average person needs good schools, good fortune and a lot of help from higher up on the food chain. Granted, there are success stories about ordinary people having a great idea nad getting rich because of it, but they're about as frequent as hen's teeth. For every success story, you have tens of millions of people left behind. The sad fact is, most Americans will barely scrape by their entire lives and few will ever elevate themselves beyond what they grew up with - if even that.
The GOP has systematically destroyed the education system, creating one so expensive and impractical, we are graduating fewer people who can actually think from high school than ever before. The GOP has used the mythology of creation as a corner stone in the dumbing-down of America. We used to graduate more Doctors and Engineers than we needed. Today, we have to import them. Why? Because the lessons science teaches - critical thinking, logical progression and rational thought - are being undermined by conservatives pushing for a religious agenda in our nation's schools. Texas tends to push harder than the rest because if the Texas school system (one of the largest in the nation) adopts a particular policy regarding the sciences (or any subject for that matter), text book publishers tend to only publish that one policy, leaving the other states to deal with the aftermath. Texas is a conservative state, its policy makers brainwashed by the powerful who cater to religious notions (because it serves their purposes of having a large number of expendable minions to serve and service the rich) in order to forward the goals of their masters, the wealthy.
But in even more direct ways, the conservatives have undermined education. They have cut funding, raised tuition, and created a public school system that is perpetually underfunded, understaffed, overworked and focused on bogus issues like "no child left behind" (an impractical, unfunded and useless policy which focuses on passing tests rather than learning a subject). The scholastic emphasis is misplaced resulting in graduates who can't grasp subject matter and focus on tests. And the atmosphere in schools has never tended to encourage thinkers in the first place.
Cut off the head and the body will die. The rich can always afford to educate themselves at private schools. The rest of us... Not so much. The brain drain has created a dumber, less capable, less insightful America who needs to bring in educated foreign workers to help raise the bar in innovation, industry and manufacturing.
But it doesn't stop there. Aside from destroying most American's ability to educate themselves (and earn a more respectable income) through dismantling the education system and making what is left almost prohibitively expensive, the GOP and their rich puppet masters have managed to be more direct in reducing the average American's options by taking money from them directly. Policies that favor businesses have been a staple of the GOP diet for decades. But only now are those policies paying off in the form of higher prices, lower wages and other impacts that cost Americans more than they realize.
Oil futures were (and still are) manipulated by the rich to ensure the price stays high. This means more money out of our pockets just to get to where we have to go. And that price has been inching higher over the last ten years - 300% higher from about $1.50 to (at times) nearly $5.00/gallon. It's expected to go higher than that. People in Europe pay more, but much of that is taxes.
Union busting has been embarked on in a big way these days, reducing the wages of workers. It also reduces their benefits, which leads them to a decreased financial ability to practice preventative health maintenance resulting in higher health care costs and increased poverty because of it.
Relaxed regulations for Big Pharma (and anything else "big" for that matter) result in skyrocketing prices for medications which, several years years later when the patents finally wear off, can be had for pennies. Pharma says they have to recoup their losses on research. Well, GOP leaders made sure the FDA streamlined approval of these drugs - many of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and life. Further, they allowed advertising of these hideously expensive drugs, and allowed big Pharma to bribe doctors into prescribing them unnecessarily. All of this reduces the money the average American needs in order to get the education, material and means necessary to better themselves.
Subsidies for companies engaged in "alternative fuel", which is neither "Green" or particularly efficient (ethanol) have cost the taxpayers billions, but what is worse is the impact switching from food to fuel production in agriculture had on food prices globally. The price of edible corn went up 400% in one year. This cascaded throughout the agriculture world, resulting in higher demand (and prices) for other foodstuffs like rice and wheat. The cost of bread alone went up 200%. And despite vast profits for big Agra, they still were subsidized with taxpayer money for doing this. We all paid more for our food, leaving us with less for other things.
Nickle, diming and dollaring us to death, our money went from our pockets, to the rich, in a barely noticed, but highly effective stream of shifting revenue unparalleled in world history.
But it's the poor who suffer the most from this - and rednecks aren't known as the most well-0ff class of people on the face of the planet.
Which means these poor sods, the redneck, is still stuck with the Army or poverty.
So why do these people continue to vote against their own best interests?
Because the conservatives have poisoned the well.
Simple people don't like anything different than themselves. They are often racist, intolerant, blindly faithful to family traditions and religions and are pretty much incapable of breaking out of that mold. But within this predisposition lies the handle one can grasp to manipulate them.
In manipulating a simple-minded culture, one must first create a scapegoat. In this case it's "liberals". Liberals have to be "the enemy". They are vilified, demonized and finally cast into a political purgatory no self-respecting redneck would ever want to visit. They are stereotyped as elitist intellectuals who don't know any better (at best). This creating the scapegoat is exactly the same thing Nazi Germany did to the Jews. Much of the impact of that scapegoating they did in the 1930's and 1940's remains today.
As long as there is an "enemy" upon which to focus their hate, these folks can be relentless. Not once will they stop to question things if they can be made to believe something is a certain way.
Next, one must cater to their culture by supporting those "traditionalist" beliefs in a socially proactive way. Promoting the banning of abortions, demanding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, demanding that public buildings be used for religious purposes.
It's all a bunch of horseshit.
This is the distraction they use. The handle they have on the average "redneck". The smoke and mirrors the politicians pull on their followers. If they're asked a question about their support of a particular bill that gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Chevron, the crafty conservative politician will say, "I supported the rights of a baby by blocking Planned Parenthood funding when I was a state representative!". Or he could respond with, "I voted to increase military funding and saved 500 jobs!" Anything but a straight and honest answer to the question.
This is how they use their voters. They find some stupid, utterly meaningless social issue and blow it up out of proportion. "Gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage!" I don't know of a single straight marriage ruined or made weaker because a bunch of homosexuals want to have the same civil rights as them. There never has been. There never will be. It's a horseshit issue. The same for abortion. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. Beyond that, it's a horseshit issue. All of the conservative social agenda is for is to garner support among a people who love traditional values, and practice them. Making them a party platform is blatantly catering to them to get their vote. But with that vote comes the authority to strip them of their wealth and give it to the wealthy.
The wealthiest 20% of Americans control 85% of the country's wealth, earn 85% of the income and only pay 35% of the total taxes. The rest of us (80% of Americans) split the remaining 15% of the wealth and income available, but pay 65% of the taxes that are needed to run the country.
Now, I don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't seem like a fair and reasonable disposition of the tax burden in the country. The bottom 15% paying 65% of what it takes to run the country? And here's the kicker: The poorest 20% of Americans control 0.1% of the wealth and income and pay about 15% of the taxes.
All thanks to the misdirection and horseshit smoke and mirrors tactics the conservatives have played on them all these years. These poor slobs actually think these social programs are going to ever be put into effect despite their blatantly unconstitutional natures just because some candidate in the back pocket of some big corporation or conglomerate says they're going to do it. They say these things (and occasionally try to implement them) simply because to do otherwise would eventually be noticed and remarked upon by the rednecks who elected them.
Rednecks may be unsophisticated, but if you hit them over the head enough times with something, eventually you get their attention.
Unfortunately for the country, the damage has been done insofar as trying to bring these folks back into the political fold goes. In creating their horseshit smoke and mirrors tactics, the conservatives have managed to turn what are supposed to be (and were in the past) political issues into a religion. The faithful shall forever be voting more and more radically conservative while the rest of the "libturd", "libtard" heathens rot in their socialist hell. Or something like that. I was never very good at creating words to insult other people with. I figure the words we all already know are good enough for that.
The rednecks can now be called rednecks because they have served themselves up to be beheaded on the altar of corporate greed and the pursuit of political power, willingly sacrificing themselves on the battlefields chosen by the rich and powerful strictly to preserve the wealth and power of the rich and powerful having been tricked into believing it will make any difference or help the average American back home.
And despite mounting evidence of the detrimental nature of their relationship with and support of conservatives, there is no sign that they're going to wake up from their enchantment anytime soon. They are being beaten over the heads repeatedly, spilling their blood endlessly, almost never able to live better than their parents, believe the conservatives who say it's all the Liberals fault and keep voting for more of the same from their elected officials. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. In politics, it doesn't ever change if you vote for the same platforms over and over and over again. And yet, they expect things to get better for them each time.
And that's why Rednecks are so stupid.
Wake up, people. See what's happening. Whether intentional (which I think it is) or not, it is what is happening NOW. Conspiracy theories aside, this is what's going on and the GOP and conservative movements are all behind it. Cause and effect, whether intended or not, the GOP and conservatives are keeping you down and doing everything to keep you there. I'm not saying you need to vote for a bunch of incompetent liberals, but for your sake and the sake of this great nation, don't vote for conservatives who always say what you want to hear. The essence of politics is compromise. Absolutism is destroying us.
And you're helping them do it.
Conservatives believe in "fiscal responsibility", but exactly what does that mean? Not spending more than you make? No, that's not true because when it comes to military spending, conservatives are more than willing to print a bunch more dead presidents to finance a war. The same goes for subsidies of industries and businesses (what we also refer to as "corporate welfare"). This has come at the expense of the average taxpayer - and more so from those who traditionally support GOP policies. Far more of the budget is spent on military spending (including veterans benefits, research and whatnot) than on any three "welfare" programs, but the way "rednecks" talk about it, all the government wants to do is tax and spend on "socialism".
Given all the things the right-wing does (outside of advancing repressive social programs), it's patently obvious that they are catering to the rich at the expense of the poor, but the poor vote for them anyhow.
Case in point: GWB's proposal to privatize Social Security.
I don't think anything gives the rich a hard-on more than thinking about all those tax dollars being invested in their companies instead of the insurance policy that is Social Security. But let's face it, had GWB's plan been implemented, most people's retirements would have been wiped out due to the proliferation of subprime mortgages in investment packages, causing those packages to tank.
The rich, of course, were never hurt by this. They only got richer.
Another case in point: The number of government subsidies going to Big Oil. These are supposedly to offset the costs of finding and developing new reserves of oil. But when a company is making hundreds of billions of dollars in PROFITS (not just revenue, but extra cash that hasn't been spent that year), investors and executives get paid off, but the tax payers get left holding the high gas prices and bill to subsidize the oil company's search for more of what made them rich to begin with.
Taxpayer money going to increase oil company profits while the average American gets financially hammered at the pumps.
Another case in point: The GOP's adamant refusal to extend gas mileage requirements on new vehicles. Way back when, the Auto Industry predicted bankruptcies and millions out of work - over seat belts. The same was predicted over air bags. The same was predicted for improved auto safety standards. None of these predictions materialized due to those improvements. But again, they're bleating to the GOP about improved gas standards cutting into profits and the government backtracked.
FYI: Improved gas mileage saves you money, and cuts down on the amount of gas sold, which means smaller profits for Big Oil, but more green in your pocket, and possibly, in your back yard, too.
EVERYTHING the GOP and political conservatives have done has benefited big business at the expense of the people. Even creating jobs hasn't been terribly beneficial because the GOP's job creation method has always been to start a war (In fairness, Johnson continued the Vietnam war to finance his Great Society, but he was from Texas, so he was a conservative liberal - if there is such a thing these days).
And despite all the evidence that the conservatives favor the good of business and the enrichment of the wealthy over the good of the people, the most desperate and least wealthy of the people in the country still vote for them.
I believe it has to do with a carefully crafted campaign to misdirect them into this behavior. And with this "class" of people, it's a fairly simple thing to do.
Now before I get anyone's patched long johns in a twist, I'm using the Jeff Foxworthy definition of a Redneck: A person with a glorious lack of sophistication. They are not bright, but they are steady. They aren't quick, but they are stubborn and reliable. They aren't well educated, but they make their own way. They come from a culture where a man's word is his bond and a handshake is as good as gold. There is much to admire from this culture. In many ways, it's the backbone of the country. They are the "salt of the earth" types, who are, sadly, easily misled due to that lack of sophistication.
This lack of sophistication translates into a very narrowly focused understanding of the world. They want things simple, traditional and the way "god intended things to be". This, in and of itself, is fine and dandy. But with a simple point of view of things, they are very easily manipulated.
A typical conservative candidate is against abortion, pro guns, against "gay marriage", is all for a strong military, against "socialism" or "welfare", in favor of low taxes and less government in your life. Some go further, but we're going to use a "middle of the road" conservative as an example.
The typical redneck believes in all of these. Some because it's part of his culture. Some because it's part of his religion. But the typical redneck doesn't want anything to do with helping the rich get richer unless the rich are working hard for the money and earn it the old-fashioned way. This is where conservatives are very quite about what they do when they're in power. And this is why conservatives are in power at all: Money.
The conservative fiscal policy makes the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. And it's a policy which perpetuates itself. For example, a strong military is a conservative cornerstone. But if there aren't a lot of poor, uneducated Americans willing to die for their country, there can't be those wars the military is being strong for.
So it becomes necessary to ensure a continuing supply of people so poor, their only way out of grinding poverty is the military. To do this the tax burden is shifted from those who can afford it (the wealthy) to those who can least afford it (the poor). Further, the tax dollars, rather than being used to help the poor with education or vocational training to find better jobs, are given to businesses which are already making substantial profits. This is allegedly done to stimulate job growth, but in effect only stimulates the bank accounts of the rich and the company's investors. No number of tax incentives or subsidies has stimulated a significant number of jobs. Even today, this variation on the thoroughly discredited "trickle down" hypothesis of economics is still believed by fairly bright people to work.
It doesn't. It never has. It never will.
The ways the GOP have shifted the wealth from the poor to the rich are insidious, varied and effective. They have effectively created a "pro business" mentality among their followers which worships the notion of the "Free Market" (Something I had a few words to say about not long ago). But this is a vital part of the strategy they've used. In a "Free Market" the theory is that anyone, through hard work alone, can become a rich person. This is the dream of most of our oppressed "rednecks". They believe that through hard work, a person will "make it". The day they "make it" is always next year, though. The whole system is stacked against them. The illusion keeps them going, but the reality is, none of them are going to get there.
Consider this: To be good in business you need native smarts or an education. Most people lack native smarts, so they need an education. This is the first step.
To get a good education, the average person needs good schools, good fortune and a lot of help from higher up on the food chain. Granted, there are success stories about ordinary people having a great idea nad getting rich because of it, but they're about as frequent as hen's teeth. For every success story, you have tens of millions of people left behind. The sad fact is, most Americans will barely scrape by their entire lives and few will ever elevate themselves beyond what they grew up with - if even that.
The GOP has systematically destroyed the education system, creating one so expensive and impractical, we are graduating fewer people who can actually think from high school than ever before. The GOP has used the mythology of creation as a corner stone in the dumbing-down of America. We used to graduate more Doctors and Engineers than we needed. Today, we have to import them. Why? Because the lessons science teaches - critical thinking, logical progression and rational thought - are being undermined by conservatives pushing for a religious agenda in our nation's schools. Texas tends to push harder than the rest because if the Texas school system (one of the largest in the nation) adopts a particular policy regarding the sciences (or any subject for that matter), text book publishers tend to only publish that one policy, leaving the other states to deal with the aftermath. Texas is a conservative state, its policy makers brainwashed by the powerful who cater to religious notions (because it serves their purposes of having a large number of expendable minions to serve and service the rich) in order to forward the goals of their masters, the wealthy.
But in even more direct ways, the conservatives have undermined education. They have cut funding, raised tuition, and created a public school system that is perpetually underfunded, understaffed, overworked and focused on bogus issues like "no child left behind" (an impractical, unfunded and useless policy which focuses on passing tests rather than learning a subject). The scholastic emphasis is misplaced resulting in graduates who can't grasp subject matter and focus on tests. And the atmosphere in schools has never tended to encourage thinkers in the first place.
Cut off the head and the body will die. The rich can always afford to educate themselves at private schools. The rest of us... Not so much. The brain drain has created a dumber, less capable, less insightful America who needs to bring in educated foreign workers to help raise the bar in innovation, industry and manufacturing.
But it doesn't stop there. Aside from destroying most American's ability to educate themselves (and earn a more respectable income) through dismantling the education system and making what is left almost prohibitively expensive, the GOP and their rich puppet masters have managed to be more direct in reducing the average American's options by taking money from them directly. Policies that favor businesses have been a staple of the GOP diet for decades. But only now are those policies paying off in the form of higher prices, lower wages and other impacts that cost Americans more than they realize.
Oil futures were (and still are) manipulated by the rich to ensure the price stays high. This means more money out of our pockets just to get to where we have to go. And that price has been inching higher over the last ten years - 300% higher from about $1.50 to (at times) nearly $5.00/gallon. It's expected to go higher than that. People in Europe pay more, but much of that is taxes.
Union busting has been embarked on in a big way these days, reducing the wages of workers. It also reduces their benefits, which leads them to a decreased financial ability to practice preventative health maintenance resulting in higher health care costs and increased poverty because of it.
Relaxed regulations for Big Pharma (and anything else "big" for that matter) result in skyrocketing prices for medications which, several years years later when the patents finally wear off, can be had for pennies. Pharma says they have to recoup their losses on research. Well, GOP leaders made sure the FDA streamlined approval of these drugs - many of which have been found to be hazardous to human health and life. Further, they allowed advertising of these hideously expensive drugs, and allowed big Pharma to bribe doctors into prescribing them unnecessarily. All of this reduces the money the average American needs in order to get the education, material and means necessary to better themselves.
Subsidies for companies engaged in "alternative fuel", which is neither "Green" or particularly efficient (ethanol) have cost the taxpayers billions, but what is worse is the impact switching from food to fuel production in agriculture had on food prices globally. The price of edible corn went up 400% in one year. This cascaded throughout the agriculture world, resulting in higher demand (and prices) for other foodstuffs like rice and wheat. The cost of bread alone went up 200%. And despite vast profits for big Agra, they still were subsidized with taxpayer money for doing this. We all paid more for our food, leaving us with less for other things.
Nickle, diming and dollaring us to death, our money went from our pockets, to the rich, in a barely noticed, but highly effective stream of shifting revenue unparalleled in world history.
But it's the poor who suffer the most from this - and rednecks aren't known as the most well-0ff class of people on the face of the planet.
Which means these poor sods, the redneck, is still stuck with the Army or poverty.
So why do these people continue to vote against their own best interests?
Because the conservatives have poisoned the well.
Simple people don't like anything different than themselves. They are often racist, intolerant, blindly faithful to family traditions and religions and are pretty much incapable of breaking out of that mold. But within this predisposition lies the handle one can grasp to manipulate them.
In manipulating a simple-minded culture, one must first create a scapegoat. In this case it's "liberals". Liberals have to be "the enemy". They are vilified, demonized and finally cast into a political purgatory no self-respecting redneck would ever want to visit. They are stereotyped as elitist intellectuals who don't know any better (at best). This creating the scapegoat is exactly the same thing Nazi Germany did to the Jews. Much of the impact of that scapegoating they did in the 1930's and 1940's remains today.
As long as there is an "enemy" upon which to focus their hate, these folks can be relentless. Not once will they stop to question things if they can be made to believe something is a certain way.
Next, one must cater to their culture by supporting those "traditionalist" beliefs in a socially proactive way. Promoting the banning of abortions, demanding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, demanding that public buildings be used for religious purposes.
It's all a bunch of horseshit.
This is the distraction they use. The handle they have on the average "redneck". The smoke and mirrors the politicians pull on their followers. If they're asked a question about their support of a particular bill that gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Chevron, the crafty conservative politician will say, "I supported the rights of a baby by blocking Planned Parenthood funding when I was a state representative!". Or he could respond with, "I voted to increase military funding and saved 500 jobs!" Anything but a straight and honest answer to the question.
This is how they use their voters. They find some stupid, utterly meaningless social issue and blow it up out of proportion. "Gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage!" I don't know of a single straight marriage ruined or made weaker because a bunch of homosexuals want to have the same civil rights as them. There never has been. There never will be. It's a horseshit issue. The same for abortion. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. Beyond that, it's a horseshit issue. All of the conservative social agenda is for is to garner support among a people who love traditional values, and practice them. Making them a party platform is blatantly catering to them to get their vote. But with that vote comes the authority to strip them of their wealth and give it to the wealthy.
The wealthiest 20% of Americans control 85% of the country's wealth, earn 85% of the income and only pay 35% of the total taxes. The rest of us (80% of Americans) split the remaining 15% of the wealth and income available, but pay 65% of the taxes that are needed to run the country.
Now, I don't know about you, but to me, that doesn't seem like a fair and reasonable disposition of the tax burden in the country. The bottom 15% paying 65% of what it takes to run the country? And here's the kicker: The poorest 20% of Americans control 0.1% of the wealth and income and pay about 15% of the taxes.
All thanks to the misdirection and horseshit smoke and mirrors tactics the conservatives have played on them all these years. These poor slobs actually think these social programs are going to ever be put into effect despite their blatantly unconstitutional natures just because some candidate in the back pocket of some big corporation or conglomerate says they're going to do it. They say these things (and occasionally try to implement them) simply because to do otherwise would eventually be noticed and remarked upon by the rednecks who elected them.
Rednecks may be unsophisticated, but if you hit them over the head enough times with something, eventually you get their attention.
Unfortunately for the country, the damage has been done insofar as trying to bring these folks back into the political fold goes. In creating their horseshit smoke and mirrors tactics, the conservatives have managed to turn what are supposed to be (and were in the past) political issues into a religion. The faithful shall forever be voting more and more radically conservative while the rest of the "libturd", "libtard" heathens rot in their socialist hell. Or something like that. I was never very good at creating words to insult other people with. I figure the words we all already know are good enough for that.
The rednecks can now be called rednecks because they have served themselves up to be beheaded on the altar of corporate greed and the pursuit of political power, willingly sacrificing themselves on the battlefields chosen by the rich and powerful strictly to preserve the wealth and power of the rich and powerful having been tricked into believing it will make any difference or help the average American back home.
And despite mounting evidence of the detrimental nature of their relationship with and support of conservatives, there is no sign that they're going to wake up from their enchantment anytime soon. They are being beaten over the heads repeatedly, spilling their blood endlessly, almost never able to live better than their parents, believe the conservatives who say it's all the Liberals fault and keep voting for more of the same from their elected officials. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time. In politics, it doesn't ever change if you vote for the same platforms over and over and over again. And yet, they expect things to get better for them each time.
And that's why Rednecks are so stupid.
Wake up, people. See what's happening. Whether intentional (which I think it is) or not, it is what is happening NOW. Conspiracy theories aside, this is what's going on and the GOP and conservative movements are all behind it. Cause and effect, whether intended or not, the GOP and conservatives are keeping you down and doing everything to keep you there. I'm not saying you need to vote for a bunch of incompetent liberals, but for your sake and the sake of this great nation, don't vote for conservatives who always say what you want to hear. The essence of politics is compromise. Absolutism is destroying us.
And you're helping them do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)