tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19740699661753225422024-02-18T19:09:16.117-07:00Cult of the Dead BirdsAn examination of the phenomena that make us humanScott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.comBlogger119125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-37858492134477710862022-12-28T12:06:00.002-07:002022-12-28T12:06:47.717-07:00The Danger of a Government That “Fears” Its People<p> <span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Fear and loathing</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">One of the primary justifications for a completely unfettered Second
Amendment that I see on the Right is some version of the statement “We need to
be armed so that we can make the government fear us, rather than us fear the
government.”</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">This is complete and total idiocy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">For a moment, let’s sidestep the fact that this is an explicit call to
revolution in the United States, or at least a constant threat of potential revolution,
and let’s examine what happens when a country “fears” its people.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">(Spoiler alert: really bad things.)</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Countries that fear their people are NOT
bastions of democracy, they are lands of oppression, and places where the
government’s fear of the people results in a reciprocal imposition of fear and
an imperative to make the people fear their government.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Let’s break down why this is.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">First, a government that fears its people has to impose limits on the
people so that they are not toppled.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">These limits generally include:</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Strict limitations on
what people can say in public, or sometimes even in private, because you might
speak against the rulers.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Establishment of a
state religion (or lack thereof) to ensure that religious fervor is directed
exactly where the state wants it to be, because priests and preachers have
always been a thorn in the side of power <o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Control of the media to
make sure that no opposing views are delivered to the masses, and now, this
includes restricting or completely cutting off access to the World Wide Web and
social media, so that people have no frame of reference to see what is actually
happening.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Bans on assembling in
large groups for anything other than a state sponsored event, because lots of
people in one place ramps up possibility that those people might try to stage a
revolution</span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Prohibitions against the
people airing their grievances to the government itself, preventing citizens from
contacting them to tell them how much they dislike what they are doing.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In case you haven’t realized it, these things happen to be the freedoms guaranteed
by the First Amendment, which illustrates which of the freedoms in the Bill of
Rights are actually the most important.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">This leads to the second part of the oppression, in order to eliminate
the freedoms listed above, you need to have a pretty draconian police state to
stamp these out, including:</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Constant surveillance of
the population through the use of informants and secret police, so that they
ensure that no one trusts anyone enough to talk freely.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Suppression of all “non-approved”
faiths to ensure that no one gets any idea that a Deity might want a system
different than what they have imposed.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Establishment of a state-run
media system that pumps out propaganda constantly telling the people how great
they have it compared to everyone else in the world, and then blocking access
to any source that might show this to be false<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Bans on congregating in
groups larger than a small handful of people, so that any time people start
coming together, the police and the military have latitude to just start arresting,
or even massacring them.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Blocking all channels
of access into the inner workings of the government, which prevents many of the
officials from knowing what is actually going on, because the rulers can never
be absolutely sure that all of the people who work for them are totally onboard
with what the regime is doing.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Now, let’s (briefly) look at a few places in the news where the government
is actively afraid of the people.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">First, we have Iran, where there has been a slow-moving revolution going
on since September.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">While the protesters
have won a tiny, almost symbolic victory, with the elimination of the morality police,
nothing has actually changed, as the laws they enforced are still on the books,
and the regular police can still enforce them.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">But these protests mostly haven’t frightened the government into reform,
they have frightened it into incredible oppression.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The rulers are engaging in mass arrests,
televised executions, and in a few cases, large scale massacres to frighten the
population into surrender. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">However, at
this point, many people feel like they have nothing to actually lose, so this
makes the government even more afraid, and increases both oppression and the possibility
of astounding atrocities to bring the protesters to heel.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The more success they have, the more dangerous
the situation becomes.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">(It should be
noted that I fully support the protesters, and hope they continue, I am just
realistic about how far the government will likely go to remain in power.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The second place to look at is China, where we have seen brutal suppression
of the Uighurs, the people of Hong Kong, and even Chinese citizens living
outside of the borders of the country. The Uighurs are being thrown into literal
concentration camps and forced to renounce their Islamic Faith.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Tibetans must accept Lamas chosen by the central
government, rather than their own tradition, and when the Dalai Lama dies, they
have said in no uncertain terms, they will dictate who will become the
reincarnation of that leader.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The citizens
of Hong Kong have been placed under a security regime that outlaws protests, or
even large assemblies.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">They have the power
and authority to even dictate what Hollywood movies show, to ensure that these
films conform to “Chinese Values.”</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Worst
of all, and beyond what most totalitarian governments impose, they even pursue
Chinese Nationals who have left the country, through a system of secret police
and police stations that can arrest and charge people in other countries, as
seen by the arrest of five Chinese protesters by diplomatic security forces in
Manchester.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">To a large part, however,
China masks its iron fist with a velvet glove, to try to conceal the actual
brutality of the regime.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Finally, we will look at a country that fears only a portion of its
populace, which is Israel.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Israel doesn’t
fear everyone in the country, although they are starting to question the
loyalty of the Liberal-minded Jews, they fear the “Palestinians,” a collection of
indigenous Christian and Muslim residents of the country.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">This example shows how a country that fears
part of its citizenry can surgically remove rights from one group, while
maintaining a veneer that those rights exist for everyone else.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Palestinians have absolutely no right to
free speech, free press, or free assembly, and their petitions for redress are
completely ignored and even ridiculed.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">While they ostensibly can practice their religion, their holy places,
including the Dome of the Rock, are under constant threat of destruction, and
their religious leaders are under constant surveillance.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">But foreign countries are not the only places that have feared their
people.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The United States at a few
points in its history has as well, and these have not been bright points for
Liberty. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">First, we have the Alien and
Sedition Acts of 1798, which were a response to the undeclared war with France
at the same time.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">At this point in US
history, the Constitution was still very new, the government was not
particularly stable, and the great powers in Europe were still looking to
squash the new nation.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Several prominent
politicians and press people were arrested and prosecuted under these acts.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Next, we have the period of the Civil War, when Lincoln was afraid that
Rebel sympathizers in the North might work to undermine the Union forces.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">To prevent the dissolution of the United
States, he unilaterally chose to go to war, to prevent the people from
questioning this, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, detaining thousands
for years without trial, to prevent this from gaining widespread knowledge, he
shut down newspapers critical of him, and blocked others from being able to be
distributed via the Post Office.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">While
these actions were understandable, and probably even necessary, when examined through
the lens of the Civil War, they still were profoundly un-Constitutional, and
they were still the acts of a man who was afraid of the general populace of the
country.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">After this, we have the Espionage and Sedition acts of 1917 and 1918,
which were responses to the government’s decision to enter World War 1 on the
side of Britain and France.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">This
decision was not particularly popular in America, which had a very large German
population with large swaths of the country where the first language was
actually German rather than English.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">This suppression of speech and the media was in response to the real
danger that civic unrest over the war would undermine the United States
participation in it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Next, we have the utterly abhorrent imprisonment of the Japanese in
concentration camps during World War 2, alongside the Alien Registration Act of
1940, which regulated speech of so-called “extremist” organizations.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Again, these acts were in response to fear of
the population overthrowing the government on behalf of the Axis, which wasn’t
an unreasonable fear, given the Business Plot of 1933, which planned on
overthrowing the US government and replacing it with a fascist dictatorship in
the mold of Mussolini’s Italy.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">It should
be noted that the Alien Registration Act was the instrument used by McCarthy at
the beginning of the Red Scare and was later enhanced by the MCCarran Internal
Security Act of 1950.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">To put this all together, through both international in domestic examples,
we can see the response that governments have when they “fear” their
citizens.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Fear of the populace inevitably
leads to authoritarianism, if not outright dictatorship.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">And given that a government will always be
able to have superior weaponry, this renders the Second Amendment moot, at
least for the point the absolutists tend to put forward.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">A government that fears people will increase surveillance,
limit freedoms, control the populace, and ultimately oppress the masses to
remain in power.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">So, what should we want, if we don’t want a government that fears, and
consequently, oppresses us?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">We want a government that respects us.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Respect is not the same as fear, and in fact, is functionally the opposite,
as people rarely respect someone they are afraid of.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">We should demand that the government treats
us like adults: tell us the truth, no matter how unpleasant it is; allow every
single citizen to vote in every election, and in fact encourage that, trusting
that the people are smart enough to select leaders to guide the country; listen
to us when we say that something is not right, rather than come up with insults
to belittle us and minimize our ideals; and finally, try, as much as possible,
to craft solutions that make everyone a little pleased, rather than perpetuate
the concept that a compromise should make everyone a little angry.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">And guess what, if we knew we had a government that respected the
citizens, all this idiocy about why we need guns would evaporate overnight.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinxNuFziNL-ILWCkfAvj17QPQZJHHFo0t_J5bp-2nqEKkjb4bLcT5cl2PwdSJ9BajYRErs6YyFcG_1Vo_DT6wBVCFBu7MvpilqWSG6IcjVR94hvhhibteCMUnguLyCLxOUwS72CvEhWd5C2d3cbUkFXxC7GSqu3cEgzfqkkZzYVd2kY5ndWgpfAMazBA/s1024/Kal-gun-cartoon-Sun-5-28-1998-compressor-1024x697.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="697" data-original-width="1024" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinxNuFziNL-ILWCkfAvj17QPQZJHHFo0t_J5bp-2nqEKkjb4bLcT5cl2PwdSJ9BajYRErs6YyFcG_1Vo_DT6wBVCFBu7MvpilqWSG6IcjVR94hvhhibteCMUnguLyCLxOUwS72CvEhWd5C2d3cbUkFXxC7GSqu3cEgzfqkkZzYVd2kY5ndWgpfAMazBA/s16000/Kal-gun-cartoon-Sun-5-28-1998-compressor-1024x697.jpg" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><p></p>Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-89241300151041959982022-03-06T11:20:00.006-07:002022-03-06T11:20:47.411-07:00The Right To Choose Applies to Nations As Well<span style="font-family: arial;">National self-determination. </span><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">I’m getting extremely tired of listening to the Left try to blame the entire Ukraine crisis on the West. They always start out with a version of the same line, “Of course Putin is a monster, but he was pushed into a corner by the West, the Clintons, NATO, etc., and additionally Ukraine is also corrupt and evil and no better than Russia at its core.” While these people acknowledge that Russia is currently committing atrocities, they engage in three lines of thinking that are straight out of the Putin propaganda farm. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"> The first is the classic “whataboutism” that Putin loves so much. Basically this says that we cannot legitimately be outraged about Ukraine because we have been silent in Palestine, silent in Rwanda, silent in Kurdistan, silent in Myanmar. Basically, the core of this is that if we are now upset about Ukraine, we are just showing how racist we are. While we do need to acknowledge we have dropped the ball here, there is also a magnitude of difference at play here. Not to minimize the other atrocities, but here you have a nuclear armed global power invading a recognized sovereign nation with the deliberate attempt to subjugate it. All of these other cases are much muddier, and to be very honest, a lot less clear cut. They are also atrocities that are impacting hundreds of thousands, whereas Ukraine is currently affecting millions, and may spill out into the tens or even hundreds of millions. Additionally, we cannot forget the Holodomor, which was a genocide on par with, or possibly even worse than the Holocaust. (While the consensus seems to be about 3.9 million deaths, some scholars put it as high as 12 million.) The magnitude of this crisis pushes it into the center of conversation. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">The second line of thinking is about the Ukraine being corrupt, as if that makes this more legitimate, or at least means we shouldn’t get involved or be that upset. I have some bad news for you all, EVERY government is corrupt. ALL of them. This does not render a country unworthy of aid or consideration, nor does it give any sort of cover to a military invasion, because at the end of the day, it is the people who suffer. And further, in this particular case, the more we allow this to continue, the LESS likely it is that Ukraine will clean up its act. The oligarchs have fled the country, and properly supported, the citizens of Ukraine can possibly try to make sure they don’t come back. But that will take OUR support. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">But the final thing, and the part that most upsets me, is the argument that really, the West caused this: that years ago, NATO should have refused to let the Baltics, or other Eastern European Nations, join. This is Colonialism at its worst, because Colonialism isn’t just about using the might of empire to control territory, it is about the patronizing attitude of a greater power towards a lesser power regarding their own agency. Colonialism is about deciding what is best for a country or a group of people, rather than listening to what those people actually want. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">So, to illustrate this, and to show the inherent cruelty of what many pundits on the Left are saying, I would like to create a little analogy. This analogy casts countries as a group of people: we have three sisters, Estelle, Livia, and Leitha; we have their friends Paula and Bella; an old man, Russ Sr., his son Sven, and grandson Russ Jr.; a neighbor, Nate, and then Nate’s Uncle Sam. Let's begin the illustrative story. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Many years ago, three sisters, Estelle, Livia, and Leitha, were taken in by an old man named Russ Sr. He took them in to, in theory, protect them, but actually, he exploited them, making them work for him. This sad situation existed for many years, until Russ Sr. died unexpectedly. The three sisters escaped, along with a friend, Bella, they had made while living in Russ’ house. For a few years, everything was going OK for the sisters, even though their friend Bella decided to move in with Russ’ son Sven.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Unfortunately, after a few years, Sven made a deal with a bunch of other people in the neighborhood and forced the three sisters to move back to the old house, and serve him the same way they served his father, except he was even more cruel, forcing them to stop speaking their own languages, stop them from celebrating their own heritage, and making them conform to exactly everything Sven wanted them to do. Sven also was especially cruel, making some of their other friends, like Paula, live the way he wanted them to live, and forcing them to cut ties with all of the friends Sven didn’t approve of. Even though he didn’t make these friends move fully into his house, he made them live in his fenced compound. Eventually though, Sven also got sick and died, leaving HIS son, Russ Jr. in charge. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">As before, the sisters, their friend Paula, and some of their other friends got out in the chaos surrounding Sven’s death. Bella moved out of the house as well, but she decided that she wanted to stay in the fenced compound, even though her family and friends tried to help her to leave. However, this time, the sisters wanted to ensure that they were never forced to go back to Russ Jr.’s house, so along with their friend Paula, they approached their neighbor, Nate, and asked him to keep them safe from Russ. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Now, the sisters knew that Nate wasn’t necessarily a great guy, he could be a bit violent himself, and his Uncle Sam was really problematic, but they knew that Nate would keep them all safe, because they were certain that Russ was afraid of Nate, or at least knew that it wasn’t wise to piss Nate off. Once they got protection, the sisters and their friends started to thrive. They threw off all of the old rules that Sven required, they started speaking their own languages and started to really live their best lives free from the abuse they had been suffering. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">When looked at as if these countries were people, we see that the Soviet Union and Russia’s treatment of a number of countries in Eastern Europe was very abusive, and these countries wanted to ensure that they were not abused again. This meant that they had to find something to protect them, otherwise, they would eventually be reabsorbed, as had happened twice in their history. They were asserting their own right to self-governance, just like a person fleeing an abusive situation has the right to seek protection. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">And this is the core of why this statement that the West should never have allowed these former Eastern Block countries to join NATO is so problematic. If converted to people, it is saying that a person who escapes a brutal, non-consensual, and abusive relationship is not allowed to seek any protection to remain safe. They need to continue to allow their abuser to have access to them, just to ensure that abuser doesn’t start beating up everyone in the neighborhood. It means that we are happier for someone to be abused, than to confront the abuser and try to make them stop. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">And yes, countries are not people, but sovereign nations have the same right of self determination that a person does. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">This is where colonialism comes into play. These pundits are saying that they know better than people and the governments of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine. They are willing to sacrifice the independence of sovereign nations to appease a dictator. We saw this happen when Neville Chamberlain allowed Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other regions to be captured by Hitler in the interest of peace. Like Putin, Hitler originally stated that the countries he was conquering were simply to reunite parts of Germany, with German people and German Culture, into one country. Putin makes the same statements about Ukraine today. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">And through it all, the pundits on multiple sides of the political sphere still blame the West for this situation. They have effectively refuted the right of these countries to have their own self-determination, and the ability for them to choose who they wish to align to. No one in NATO, or the EU, forced these countries into membership, they freely and democratically, chose this path. For the West to have refused this right of self-determination is fundamentally no different than Putin trying to force Ukraine in to alliance with the Russian Federation at literal gunpoint. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Nations have a right to choose their own path, this is fundamental. If these choices upset their neighbors, they still have that right. Russia could have made joining its federation enticing, made a better offer to these countries to induce alliances. They did not, and now they are reaping the consequences. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Where this will end, I do not know. However, I do know that these countries had a right to choose their own paths, whether it angered Putin or not. And as the side that is supposed to be about individual rights, we should be standing with Ukraine, not blaming this on the West.</span></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh-Y7pDEsSYlSejKKjtnnoXaHp295RQwydjsFaarjtmDXp40v4M67FxPlHLHpEZTKkgQosET37-zYuxihFSSf_W_d9fl7yl-FPv40bZncjWWingLlDPA21pKFOXlu0Q4ZL06KqwO_01KLIg0yY_8s3R-xI1on2qhiQqDg7vp4tUF40NAnwoK06NqpK86g=s1500" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1500" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh-Y7pDEsSYlSejKKjtnnoXaHp295RQwydjsFaarjtmDXp40v4M67FxPlHLHpEZTKkgQosET37-zYuxihFSSf_W_d9fl7yl-FPv40bZncjWWingLlDPA21pKFOXlu0Q4ZL06KqwO_01KLIg0yY_8s3R-xI1on2qhiQqDg7vp4tUF40NAnwoK06NqpK86g=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-45246564357887364772021-07-27T10:43:00.006-06:002021-07-27T10:43:39.922-06:00The Political Drowning Pool<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">Asphyxiation</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">In medicine, there is a
condition called “delayed drowning.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
happens when a person inhales water but seems to be “fine” until suddenly they
aren’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Delayed drowning typically occurs
about 24 hours after the initial event, when the trachea spasms and shuts down,
killing the person.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">Democracy in the United
States at this moment is very likely facing a delayed drowning event, where it
seems to have recovered from the events of 1/6, but will probably drop dead,
seemingly without warning, in 4 years’ time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is because the Republicans have set up a probable no-win scenario
that will end the very idea of any sort of majority rule for the selection of
the President.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">Part of this stems from
the Constitution, and the fact that the framers had literally no intention of
ever allowing the majority to truly select the president.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They set up a complex system of allowing the
states to determine how the Electors were determined, and then established the
Electoral College to give significantly more power to small states than large
ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In total, they set up a system
where “the people” had a very limited say in who became the Head of both the
State and the Government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that
for most of the last century, the President was the winner of both the popular
vote, and the REAL vote, is actually more of an accident than any deliberate
intent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And this is exactly what the
Founding Fathers intended.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They never
really wanted the unwashed masses to be able to choose the president in the
first place, a fact demonstrated by the lack of inclusion of the right to vote
anywhere in either the original document or in the Bill of Rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under their ideals and intent, both Bush’s
and Trump’s victories would be proof that their system worked, rather than
failures of that same system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To the
Founders, it would show that the Electoral College served the stated purpose of
tempering the masses and avoiding what Jefferson explicitly called “mob rule.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">This is the core of the
argument behind much of what is going on in the States today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While there might be other motives at work,
and we can certainly speculate what they could be, the general principles that
the Republicans argue are based in the foundational documents of the country,
which sadly do support their side more than they do the points of view of the
Democrats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can see this in play every
time a Republican (correctly) argues that the United States is not a Democracy,
it is a Republic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also shown by
the Federalist Society’s insistence on judges that are “strict constructionists,”
who believe that the Constitution must be read according to the specific intent
of the Framers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">However, two and a half
centuries have passed since those documents were written, and it is certainly
legitimate to question the wisdom of people who lived in a completely different
society, and whether those antiquated views have a place in a modern Democracy.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the view of those who consider
the Constitution to be a “living document,” and that we need to adhere to the
spirit of the Constitution rather than the explicit text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is how modern jurists can “discover”
rights, such as the Right to Privacy, that were never explicitly spelled
out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also allows judges to sanction
things that were inconceivable in the early days of the country.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">We can also say that
while the Founders may have intended a true Republic, the current understanding
is that the U.S. is, at most, a Democratic Republic, where it is “One Person,
One Vote.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can reject the Founder’s
views, and not undermine what they built.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We can say the “arc of history bends toward justice,” and validate what
the country stands for now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can stand
firm and say, “yes, they had an idea of what the country should look like, but
we have moved on form that, and we want to evolve into a more democratic (with
a little “d”) nation, where we all have an equal say in how the country is
governed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">However, this is
increasingly improbable, and we are quite likely on an irreversible road,
because the “checks and balances” in the Constitution are not just there to
check the powers of each branch of government, they are there, more importantly
in the Founders’ views, to check the power of the people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And because of this fact, majority rule in
the country is probably going to have a delayed drowning, that will all be
perfectly legal, constitutional, and utterly horrific.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">Before I explain this,
I need to say something about strategy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Democrats are generally “reaction based,” something happens, and they
react to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They generally reel from
situation to situation without much, if any, long-term planning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They deal with things when<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>they become urgent, and because of that,
there is generally not an examination of long term consequences, nor is there a
coherent strategy behind their actions. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Democrats are generally expert in crisis
management, and good at responding at immediate needs, but there isn’t a far
reaching plan involved, and they typically have no idea on how to weave a
larger narrative out of these short term fixes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">Republicans, as befits
a pro-military organization, strategize, and plan battles far in advance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They plan for contingencies, lay traps,
advance and retreat, without ever losing sight of the big picture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While they may sometimes not seem disciplined
on the surface, every single thing they do advances a larger strategy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of this, they are conversely terrible
at addressing the unexpected, sudden and surprising, and consequently
frequently botch response to hurricanes, economic crises, and black swan
events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That said, they are very good at
incorporating those events into their larger, long term strategy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">As my father, who was a
career military officer said, “a battle is won or lost before the first shot is
fired.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you don’t know who is going to
win before you take the field, you will not be the winner.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the Republicans know they ultimately,
they WILL be the winners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is
always the chance that the Democrats could luck out, that an unexpected event
will change the battlefield, but in general, the better strategy almost always
wins.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">And this leads to why
the America we currently know is in its final months.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To explain why they will win; they have set
up a literal no win scenario for the Democrats, whether it is by brute force,
or by hanging the country on the structure of the Constitution, they are likely
going to be victorious.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">The brute force option
is the simplest course, but certainly the hardest and the one most likely to
end in total violence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For this
scenario, we can posit in 2024, a Republican candidate, probably Trump,
declares victory, and his supporters take over the Congress and force the
issue, staging a successful version of the trial run of 2021 coup attempt.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">However, this probably
will not pass even a very compliant Supreme Court, and consequently, this is
not the likely route unless they are absolutely certain that they will succeed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will also likely kick off an actual Civil
War, which again, they will probably not want unless they can be absolutely
sure that large parts of the military, and the billionaire set, will support
them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the advantage of this
path for them is that if they win, they will know that they will have permanent
power, and can abandon even a pretense of democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many pundits fear this happening, and it is
getting a lot of press, which is overall a good thing, but it is ignoring the
much more realistic course of action for the Republicans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">The long game that they
are establishing now is the more likely path.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Although this will lack the “drama” that Trump seems to love, nor will
it be as overtly decisive in completely establishing a new order, it will be
completely legal, and probably be easily ratified by 6 Supreme Court Justices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the “Law and Order” party, this fact will
be very important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that it is
also completely legal will likely cause most Democrats to roll over and accept
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">Buried in many of these
“election security” bills passing in Red States, and in states with enough of a
majority in the Assemblies to override gubernatorial vetoes, are clauses that
will allow the states to override the results of the popular vote and select
the electors themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, this is
perfectly Constitutional, and the Supreme Court recently reinforced that States
have absolute authority to determine the election rules.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, as stated before, there is no
requirement in the Constitution that electors must be selected by popular vote
in a state, and in a Republic, it is certainly possible to claim that the vote
for a state legislator fits within the system of representation; the state
elects an Assembly, which then, “in their wisdom of what they were elected to
do” can select the electors for President.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This was the original system to select US Senators and is fully
compliant with the intent of the Founding Fathers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also fits neatly in the Federalist Papers,
and most of the other writings around the formation of our government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">With these laws in
place, it is only a matter of a completing the process, again, completely
compliant with the Constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Step
one is that the States will ratify electors for the Republican, again probably,
but not certainly, Trump.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This will give
that candidate an Electoral College victory, regardless of the popular
vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They may claim that the vote was
corrupted, or that they have evidence of fraud, or they might just say that
they are acting in the “best interests of their constituents” as a
justification, but in any case, they will send Republican electors to vote in
the ACTUAL election. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite the weight
the population of the country puts on it, the General Election, at least for President,
is literally just an opinion poll that everyone can participate in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ONLY actual election occurs when the
Electoral College meets.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">But the plan doesn’t,
and can’t, end there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In theory, if the
Democrats controlled one or both Houses of the Congress, they could refuse to
certify.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, given their outrage over
Republicans pulling this in 2021, they will be extremely unlikely to do so,
because the accusation of “hypocrite” hurts Democrats disproportionally more
severely than Republicans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, if
they did this, which they can under the Constitution, then the next stage of
the Republican’s plan kicks in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By the Constitution,
a contested election is settled by the House.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">In theory, if the
Democrats held the House, you would think the outcome is certain, and they
would elect the Democrat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But again, the
Founders had NO interest in Majoritarianism, and in that election, it is based
on one vote per state, where the majority of Representatives in THAT state
decide on their vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this system,
Wyoming has exactly the same power as California, which is a greater distortion
of power than even the Electoral College.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Constitutional backup to the Electoral College is even less majoritarian
than the College itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every step in
the process makes the will of the masses less important, which again can be
used to validate minority rule in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As the Republicans, structurally, will almost certainly dominate more
states, the House vote will deliver a Republican President.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Supreme Court will not interfere with
this, as this has all been done perfectly Constitutionally, and further, will
meet all of the tests of a Strict Constructionist judiciary.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">Then we enter the crazy
phase. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this were to happen, it is
likely that the Democrats will do exactly what the Trump supporters did in 2021,
and engage in large scale, sustained violence, leaving Biden the responsibility
of either putting down the insurrection, and allowing a completely legal
usurpation of power to occur, or to throw in with the revolutionaries and tear
down the country.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">This brings us full
circle to the title of this post, “the Political Drowning Pool.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A drowning pool is created when water flows
over a shallow structure, creating an almost invisible, but virtually inescapable,
current that sucks a person down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
states are building a shallow structure designed to create inescapable
political currents that will ultimately drown the United States.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt;">The only way to escape
a drowning pool is to not get into it in the first place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only way to escape this trap in 2024, is
to change the course of the political river in 2022.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is NOT winning the US House and
Senate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Doing that will do nothing to
escape the inexorable trap that is being built.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What we HAVE to do is win state legislatures and governorships all
across the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we do not
take back enough states to have complete control of 271 Electoral College
votes, Democracy will fall, legally, and exactly as the Founding Fathers
intended.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, this is a Republic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8I1jCWv1Xgns6i6ORrBOKagU5MXQtnABBZuGLtoFEQ5lC7RPXZHuYCOvHoOuvqUee1Gjsy3PK6InaXeTjePBgOBBaX-CUmg5anekF-sIibSa9E6aTDewP8Z4VI3mbtct5ZvAtfN_gotJk/s800/Corner-of-Democracy-58b8fdd03df78c353c5c0af5.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="615" data-original-width="800" height="443" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8I1jCWv1Xgns6i6ORrBOKagU5MXQtnABBZuGLtoFEQ5lC7RPXZHuYCOvHoOuvqUee1Gjsy3PK6InaXeTjePBgOBBaX-CUmg5anekF-sIibSa9E6aTDewP8Z4VI3mbtct5ZvAtfN_gotJk/w576-h443/Corner-of-Democracy-58b8fdd03df78c353c5c0af5.webp" width="576" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></p>Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-56871823990911366082018-06-21T06:46:00.000-06:002018-06-21T06:46:19.912-06:00No One Understands the Game<div style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Poker</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So,
Trump reversed the internment of children, and everyone thinks the good guys
won. I'm sorry to break it to you, but we didn't win. It wasn't a fight we
could win, because we didn't know the game being played.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I've
said this before, and I will say it again, the American Media, and the American
People for that matter, continue to believe Trump is playing Chess. He isn't.
He's playing Poker, or maybe more specifically, he's playing Poker on a
Chessboard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
understand this, as I also play (the real game) Chess as Poker. I don't play
the game as a series of strategic moves on the board, I play the person, and
because of that, I very frequently win games, even ones against much more
skilled players. (But I can't beat a computer, because this technique doesn't
work against them, cold rational and unflappable bastards that they are.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
find out what a person depends on in Chess, then I go after it. If their
strategy is to use their Queen a lot, I make sure to get her off the table. I
play specifically to keep my opponent off balance, wondering what the hell I'm
doing and trying to figure out my strategy. I confuse. I bluff and deceive. Sometimes I will lose a game
to lull them into a sense of security. I
watch for signs of stress, and then exploit them. I depend on luck even. I look like I am insane or a really bad
player. But the end, they lose, because
my strategy is specifically to get them so off balance they make mistakes and I
exploit their mistakes. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">On
the whole this is what Trump is doing. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">He
isn’t playing the game by the rules, and often he isn’t even playing the game
they think he is. And because the entire
political establishment is operating under a set of expectations of what he is
doing, and are viewing his actions under that set of expectations, the completely
miss what is happening.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">America
has a long history of political Poker playing.
It’s how we won the Revolution for example; the British Empire couldn’t
handle our unorthodox techniques or the asymmetric nature of the
rebellion. (Any yes, Poker was very
popular in the US prior to the Revolution)
Andrew Jackson, the president who probably most closely resembles Trump,
also played political poker. Since
Jackson, a lot of our general political strategies were based on bluffs,
gambles, and intimidations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
with the advent of the Cold War, we needed to play the Soviet game, which was
chess. The stakes were too high to
continue playing Poker or any other game of chance; when a mistake could
obliterate the Earth, a game dependent on an aggregation of small wins, and
that accepted losses was no longer tolerable. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
solidifying point was probably the Cuban Missile Crisis, where we were playing
a Chess game for infinite stakes. Had
JFK depended on chance, he would have lost and so the game was set and rules
were codified. After that, American
Presidents needed to be Chess Grandmasters, or at least surround themselves
with people who were. And the American
media got used to politics as Chess, and in fact facilitated the system by
reporting things a strategic maneuvers, gambits, and so on. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
height of the Chess game came when Gorbachev and Bush Sr. played the game to
complete stalemate, causing Gorbachev to knock over his own king in 1989 and walk
away from the game by calling the first free election since 1917. George Bush became the global Bobby
Fischer. Even though history seems to
credit Regan with the end of the Soviet threat, it was actually Bush who
finally got the game to end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
even though the reason that American politicians learned Chess in the first
place was gone, the game continued on with new opponents: the other party; the
other end of the ideological spectrum; the United Nations; China and the Middle
East, neither of which play Chess; and basically any group that the party in
power opposed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
fact we continued to play Chess put us in the same position as the British in
1776, we could no longer defeat enemies that weren’t playing our game,
especially in the Middle East. We “won”
concessions in Iran where Chess (Shah) originated, but that was the only even
remote victory in that region, and we only got it after being outplayed by Iranian
masters over and over since the Iranian Revolution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
applied Chess to Korea and got a stalemate, as Go (which the Chinese played)
and Chess are similar enough that we could get to a draw, even if neither side
could win. But we lost against every
country that wasn’t playing the game by our rules, we lost Vietnam, and bogged
down into ceaseless quagmires in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. And because modern warfare is asymmetric, we
likely will continue to lose as long as we think of it as Chess on the
battlefield.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
Trump is different. He isn’t playing
Chess. He has neither the temperament
nor long term planning abilities to play the game. He sees a big picture, however, not through
the lens of a grand strategy but through the lens of a bunch of short hands
that can change fortunes in an instant.
The goal is still to win it all, but the way to get there isn’t necessarily
dependent on past victories. The “wins”
are only important in terms of filling his coffers for the next round. A lost hand, or three, doesn’t matter, as
long as his losses are relatively minimal and don’t reduce his basic bankroll,
which in the case of politics is the support of the base.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As
long as he keeps his 35% absolutely in the bank, he will have the ability to
fund losing hands, and when he wins, he will increase his reserve. He might give some of it back on some hands,
but slowly, steadily, he is growing his bankroll of political capital. Currently, his approval rating is at its
highest mark since inauguration. He hasn’t
done this through a grand outmaneuvering of the Democrats, he’s done this by
winning hand after hand, laying traps that the Dems walk into, bluffing his
way, and folding when it is necessary. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Which
leads us to the current situation. From
a Chess standpoint, it was insane. He
exposed many pieces to being taken out by the other side, risked being put in
Check, and not gaining any board advantage.
As a Chess Gambit, it actually showed weakness because there wasn’t
anything to gain, and a lot to lose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
if you look at it as a Poker hand, the whole play changes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As
a round of Poker, the Kid Internment mess was done for two reasons. First, it
was to shore up his base, for whom any cruelty or viciousness towards brown
people is better than sex. He has to throw them brown meat every so often so
they don't get pissed at him, just like a good poker player has to lose some
hands so the rest of the table doesn't walk off in anger. Again, as long as he keeps his 35% bankroll
of absolute loyalty, he can continue to play.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
second reason was much, much more devious and evil, and talks to the larger
poker game. He was proving a point. He
was showing America that he has no concern about the rule of law, proving he
will act on a whim, and telling them locking people up in Concentration Camps
is something he will be OK with. This is
a classic intimidation move, because it has raised questions among the
opposition, myself included, as to what the threshold for future incarceration
might be. Today, it is an activity that
is at best a civil offense, not a criminal one.
In the case of refugees applying for asylum, it isn’t even a civil
offense, it is the actual legal process, so he has shown that even obeying the
law and following exactly proper protocol can risk being locked up. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">BUT,
he had to end it fairly quickly, which is why he reversed it. He won the hand and needed to take his
winnings. The reason? There were court challenges coming, court
challenges he might lose at this stage. He needed to make sure that didn't
happen this time, as he needed to not have this a settled matter. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Because
of his executive order, it is likely the lawsuits will be thrown out; the
policy has changed and the courts don't like to adjudicate speculations. Their
response to "he might do it again" would probably be "If he does
it again, file another case and we will judge that one." He gets to walk
away with the ability to do this left intact, even though right now he isn't
doing it any more.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
all of America now knows that he could do it again. And that will make them
either hesitate out of fear, or it will ramp up hatred against him. In the
first case, he wins because he has further cowed the American Public into
submission. In the second case he still wins because his supporters will be
pissed that liberal crybabies are still whining about the kid thing, when he
very clearly ended it, and should be considered the hero of the day. Further,
it will fuel his narrative that the Left is attempting a slow motion coup, and
will fit into his narrative on that. This then leads back to the mass
incarceration in concentration camps which he hasn't gotten any ruling against.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Until
people realize he isn't playing Chess, we will keep getting played, and he will
keep winning. Remember, despite all of this horror, his approval ratings have
hit their highest point since he entered office, and the midterms are not
looking nearly as good for Democrats as they did a few months ago.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As
of this moment, Donald Trump IS winning, and it is up to each and every one of
us to do something about it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqKvZ4pV7uBXltbwlfE1hZQxgdF12Spl9t8r-OADJi47rtlzUMf2PfyVjN0cJsiE1YlTGwvLTGkm0Qc-2OkLW35piFUmqc3LuEef5KcgvnxRlo_j3eg3OIkAgjkJOz9qsgH5l46dOGAo7H/s1600/9A79509A-ACA5-44A7-8935-A324CF66D79C.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="620" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqKvZ4pV7uBXltbwlfE1hZQxgdF12Spl9t8r-OADJi47rtlzUMf2PfyVjN0cJsiE1YlTGwvLTGkm0Qc-2OkLW35piFUmqc3LuEef5KcgvnxRlo_j3eg3OIkAgjkJOz9qsgH5l46dOGAo7H/s1600/9A79509A-ACA5-44A7-8935-A324CF66D79C.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="background: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-74518051008762643652017-09-11T20:15:00.000-06:002017-09-11T20:15:25.269-06:00Cut the Conspiracies<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Tragedy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Another 9/11, and like
clockwork we have another round of conspiracy theories about it being an
"inside job" or "deep state action." I cannot begin to tell
you how much this bullshit pisses me off. I worked on the rebuilding of Ground
Zero. I was in New York working on the plans for rebuilding when the pits were
still burning with the fires of Hell itself. I saw that same Hell in the eyes
of the people I was working with, listening to their stories, stories that even
now, I can’t repeat without coming apart myself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I was in New York to see the
walls of posters desperately pleading for someone, anyone to have news of the
missing. Every day, I walked past the
makeshift shrines and candles lit as prayers and beacons of hope. I saw the despair, and I saw the love, the
love of survivors gathering together, holding on to what little pieces of hope
they could grasp.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And it is because of the
people I knew, especially the original project engineer, that I came to
understand why the buildings fell the way they did. Of course the collapses looked like an
implosion, because, if you were going to implode them, you would blow the same
members that melted in the fire.
Members, which by the way were nothing more than standard open web
joists, that were not designed to be exposed to flame the way they were on
9/11. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Further, as a person who was
there in the immediate aftermath, the statements of the buildings “falling
straight down” are laughable, as the giant gashes in the sides of surrounding
buildings show. The zone of total
destruction in New York City was as large as most cities entire Downtown. Of course there were odd survivors in the
cityscape. Just like the devastation
caused by a hurricane, some buildings are almost unscathed when others are
obliterated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">These so called “facts” that
prove it was an inside job piss me off.
Not only because of how ridiculous they are, but for how much pain they
inflict on the survivors and those who lost loved ones. Spreading the 9/11 conspiracies inflicts
exactly as much harm and chaos on them as the conspiracies on Sandy Hook cause
agony in the parents of the dead children.
There are real people being hurt every day by this crap. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But most of all, the
conspiracy theories piss me off because they suck all the oxygen out of the
room for the REAL scandals and REAL evils that happened both before and during
the events of that tragic day. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Evils like the fact that EVERY
SINGLE PERSON who breathed the air in Lower Manhattan that day literally was
inhaling steel shards and pulverized concrete. That was not smoke or even a
benign dust that people were breathing, it was a toxic soup of lung shredding
fibers of a collapsed building. Forget the asbestos, most of those who were
caught in the toxic cloud will die from silicosis and emphysema long before the
mesothelioma will get them. And worse,
no one on the news, or in city government warned any of New Yorkers about
this. They let them continue to breathe
in this debris for days without protection.
There was no evacuation of people downwind, no general distribution of
gas masks. Nothing. They just let them breathe unprotected.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Evils like the fact that
that SEVENTY PERCENT of first responders from 9/11 have some sort of illness,
that can be directly tied to the events of 9/11. Even if the city didn’t warn the citizens,
you would think they would want to protect the people in their direct
employment. But they didn’t, they let
them stand unprotected in billowing clouds of some of the most deadly
particulates ever inhaled by humans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Evils like the fact that our
Congress COULDN’T EVEN AGREE on an aid package to help those who sacrificed
their health to save a small handful of lives.
It literally took almost 10 years to pass a bill that provided lifetime
care for those who were on scene working to save lives. And in that 10 years, many of the emergency
personnel died or went bankrupt while waiting for the government to finally do
the right thing. Even then, it took Jon
Stewart, a comedian, to finally shame the Congress into acting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Evils like the fact the Rudy
Giuliani DELIBERATELY GROUNDED the rescue helicopters on 9/11 because he was
more concerned about how much they might cost to replace if they were damaged
than the lives of the over 2000 people he doomed with that decision. When the buildings were designed, evacuation
above a fire was supposed to occur from the rooftop assisted by special rescue
helicopters owned by the city. That’s
why there were helipads up there. But
Giuliani’s decision prevented the evacuation of thousands, all because he was
more worried about the replacement costs of helicopters than human life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Evils like the fact that the
World Trade Center, being a government project, was LARGELY EXEMPTED from
building code. The stairs were narrow,
few in number, and sheathed in nothing but drywall. This meant that when the planes hit, the
lifeline of every person above the fire was instantly severed. Even though many people on the upper floors
were not hurt in the attack, they were still doomed because there was no way
out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Evils like the fact that in
World Trade Center 7, so many safety measures were SCALED BACK or eliminated
that the building collapsed after only 8 hours of being on fire. Yes, it suffered severe damage from the
collapse of WTC 1 and 2, but it shouldn’t have fallen, except that the
fireproofing was “too costly” and less expensive solutions needed to be
found. Those less expensive solutions
depended heavily on a wet fire suppression system that got severed along with
all of the water lines in the area when the towers came down. As a point of fact, 90 West Street, built
just after the turn of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, and grossly
over-engineered, because they were new at high rise construction, burned for 2
full days without any structural failure.
In fact, the floors that didn’t catch fire from the flaming debris
falling off the Twin Towers were virtually undamaged. This doesn’t prove conspiracy to destroy WTC
7, it shows how much more we value money than life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Evils like the fact that
Larry Silverstein fought tooth and nail to BLOCK ANY memorial on the World
Trade Center Site because of the amount of revenue it would take out of his
pockets. He said repeatedly that, in his
opinion, the greatest memorial that could ever exist for 9/11 would be
rebuilding the towers exactly as they were before, and not “wasting space for
people to go cry.” He said that at a
conference I attended on the reconstruction.
He followed that up with saying, “people can cry in the cemetery or in
their homes, they don’t need to do it on my property.” As a side note, he held a long term lease on
the World Trade Center, but the property belongs to the citizens of New York
and New Jersey. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There is no reason to go
around talking about fictional evils when the REAL ones are so horrifying and
heartbreaking. If there is a conspiracy, it is to spread fake conspiracies so
that no one pays attention to the actual evil, and no one tries to do anything
to correct the actual wrongs. It is to
keep people from suing the former mayor for his rapacious decision to not risk
his helicopters, to keep people from demanding tall buildings have extreme
safety measures to protect the inhabitants, to force the government to actually
pay for the health care needed by probably a million or more people exposed to
toxic clouds. The conspiracies keep
people focused of fake evil so that they won’t demand real, and expensive,
solutions to actual evil.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you are so concerned
about 9/11, stop spreading false narratives and start demanding that people
actually DO SOMETHING, DO ANYTHING to help those who still, 16 years later,
suffer daily from the attack. Tell you Congressional delegation to approve help
for ALL those who were caught in the debris.
Tell the building departments that we must have REAL safety for tall
buildings, not just in case of attack, but for any disaster, natural or
manmade, that might occur. Demand that
PEOPL start to be valued above profit for shareholders. Demand REAL change.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Stop tearing out the hearts
of those who lost people by telling them their own government killed their loved ones. Stop spreading a narrative that gives a pass to the real evil in the world. Do something that will make a difference. It’s been almost a generation since 9/11, but
we can still use it as a catalyst to make the world better, more human, more loving. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhXw_GXr7qzGrxM3tQP3dIZu2WcBiJv1y8XL2sgJ_ZAYPEDneUzw6j7hm0ydOTliy6JEAUSMNkxVIP5hKrQ_p5NGDbGcSKK2YLZSbK-nQPuUgeh0AowHpRMZjmaa5NIfjw6RTVmeQtvntv/s1600/contrailscience.com_skitch_skitched_20130119_131440.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="530" data-original-width="800" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhXw_GXr7qzGrxM3tQP3dIZu2WcBiJv1y8XL2sgJ_ZAYPEDneUzw6j7hm0ydOTliy6JEAUSMNkxVIP5hKrQ_p5NGDbGcSKK2YLZSbK-nQPuUgeh0AowHpRMZjmaa5NIfjw6RTVmeQtvntv/s640/contrailscience.com_skitch_skitched_20130119_131440.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-72542499080072922812017-07-29T22:18:00.001-06:002019-11-17T03:55:55.811-07:00An Open Letter to Trump Snowflakes<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Outrage<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I have
had many people bitch me out because I say I don't respect Donald Trump. They
say things like "we endured 8 years of Obama, suck it up buttercup."
My response to that. FUCK YOU. Period. This man-child in the White House does
not deserve my respect, and he will never get it. This is not a normal
president. We have a proto-dictator in the White House, and those of us who see
it CANNOT remain silent. Just a short list of his high crimes and misdemeanors"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">He
colluded with Russia, whether he was successful or not does not matter. He may
very well have failed at that jut like he fails at every single thing he does.
That does not matter, intent to betray is as much a crime as success in the act.
He actively worked with a known adversary of the United States to try to swing
an election, asking Russia, on primetime TV to hack his opponent and spread
information. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Since
then, he has ripped into our traditional allies and NATO, while embracing Putin.
He has waffled on mutual defense agreements that date back 70 years. He has
turned his back on the countries that have stood by us for decades, and even
centuries for some. I was raised in a military family, I have had generation
after generation, all the way back to the American Revolution, fight, and
sometimes die, for this country. This action is no less than treason, a treason
for which he should be hung by the neck until dead, as American Law dictates.
I'm surprised Ronald Reagan hasn't risen from the grave over this one.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But that
isn't it. He treats women like the only asset they have is beauty. He publicly
degrades women, insults them openly. Thanks to his behavior, sexual
discrimination against women has risen dramatically. He has publicly tried to
shame women with the most vile insults I have ever seen, literally suggesting
the reason one anchor was hard on him was because she was on her period, and
claiming another was "bleeding badly from a face lift." This sort of
behavior is revolting in any context, let alone coming from our supposed
president.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">He is
openly racist. He calls Hispanics "Rapists." He calls for complete
bans on Muslims. (Except for ones in countries that he does business in, those
are OK, even if they did actually fund terrorism, unlike the countries affected
by the travel ban.) He has created an environment in this country where little
children are TERRIFIED of their government, and terrified that at any moment
their parents could be taken away from them. Hate crimes in this country are
exploding. White supremacists are openly marching, and claiming that their day
has finally arrived. Blacks are being told by elected leaders to "go back
to Africa." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But even
the naked racism, sexism and treason isn't enough. He trashes the Constitution,
a document which, by that way, one of my ancestors SIGNED. He runs roughshod
over checks and balances, referring to the Judiciary as "so called
judges." He tells the Senate to end the Filibuster, which is an essential
tool to help preserve the rights of the minority against the will of the
majority. (And remember, not that long ago, the Republicans WERE that minority
being protected.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
worse, he is treating this country like his own personal wealth machine. He has
refused to divest from his companies, refused to distance himself from the day
to day running of his companies, refused to stop promoting the "Trump
Brand." He is treating the presidency as a money making opportunity, and
inspiring others in the government to do much the same. This violation of the
Emoluments Clause will complete the transition of our country to a kleptocracy.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">He has
eviscerated government, handing vast power to his children, people who we
didn't elect or confirm through the Senate. Almost all functions of the State
Department are now being handled by his children, which is what occurs in
banana republics. He has shut down the war crimes office, which sends a signal
that the United States is no longer interested in prosecuting those crimes on
the world stage. I find it funny that just a decade ago, we started a war in
the Middle East because of supposed war crimes, but now can't even be bothered
to have an office to investigate them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">He has
eliminated the FBI investigation department tasked with looking at Right Wing
Terrorists, a group which, according to the FBI itself, has had far more
success in attacking Americans than Muslim Terror Groups collectively, and
which have killed, in the last 50 years, more people than died on 9/11.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In six
short months, he has taken a wrecking ball to this country. Every day, the news
is more and more like a reality TV show. Every day, he becomes more and more
unhinged, attacking any organization or any person that doesn't kowtow to him.
He treats his administration like it is some sort of ratings game. He has even
had the audacity to suggest he should be put on Mount Rushmore. I will blow the
fucking mountain up myself before allowing that atrocity to happen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So no, I
am not going to treat him with respect. And if you don't like that, you can go
fuck yourself. Just like Trump is fucking the country I love.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdRjDy4hHjcfXAOsv8JJ8ynC9Ogzb34InuApJWvfuu5rAjQXODAqbMcR0982RU_mExzZwxN_zwc4KRwn7NzuAVFQPPtF1PkSHkja8XZcWKwnM0SLcn9x1Wgjxbx6OlfG0UvMghxyyPFLBH/s1600/trump-for-prison-i-do-the-best-treason-believe-me-4972238.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="815" data-original-width="500" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdRjDy4hHjcfXAOsv8JJ8ynC9Ogzb34InuApJWvfuu5rAjQXODAqbMcR0982RU_mExzZwxN_zwc4KRwn7NzuAVFQPPtF1PkSHkja8XZcWKwnM0SLcn9x1Wgjxbx6OlfG0UvMghxyyPFLBH/s1600/trump-for-prison-i-do-the-best-treason-believe-me-4972238.png" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-53395667803311648832017-05-09T20:55:00.000-06:002017-05-09T20:55:05.267-06:00The Caesar of American Democracy Recast as Kitty Genovese<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Endings<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Democracy in the United
States is either dead or very close to it, bleeding out in a gutter outside the
stage door. That is an inflammatory
statement that I’m sure will send many of you sticking your fingers in your
ears and screaming “LA LA LA,” probably because of the Cassandra effect. No one wants to hear this sort of thing,
because we are so certain the American system will protect us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Unfortunately, that is a
dangerous denialism, and one that is contributing to our inevitable doom.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And before I get started, I
want to clear the air, this is not specifically an anti-Trump piece; Trump is a
symptom, not the direct cause. At best
he will simply, as Morris Berman puts it, greatly hasten our end. The forces at play are significantly larger
than one man. That said, because Trump
is so overtly autocratic and dictatorial, these forces that have been hiding
beneath the surface of the swamp are now rising like methane gas on a hot
summer day.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First, let’s start with the
background. The beginnings of end of
democracy in America can be traced back to the tenure of Ronald Reagan, and
especially the economic policies he put into operation. Reagan presided over the first of the great
upward wealth redistributions through regressive taxation policy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Regressive taxation is
defined as taxes that more heavily impact the poor than the wealthy. A good example of this sort of taxation is
the sales tax where a $7.00 tax on a $100.00 purchase is much harder on a poor
person than on someone who is wealthy.
The opposite policy, progressive taxation, is exemplified by Income Tax,
which increases its rate as the income brackets go up. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Ronald Reagan slashed the
upper tax brackets tax percentage, which under Eisenhower actually approached
90% at the highest levels, while leaving the lower tax rates substantially
unchanged. This meant the Reagan Tax Cut
was heavily skewed towards helping the rich, and it can be argued, by hurting
the poor. This single act started
tilting the balance of power in America towards the wealthy, and also started
us down the road of the massive disparity in net worth at the ends of the
spectrum. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But, it wasn’t the only
thing that set the stage. Reagan
eviscerated Unions, which provided a strong counterbalance to management. He demonized the poor, through the new myth
of the “Welfare Queen,” which he used to roll back civil rights, reversing
some, but not all, of the gains of the 60s.
More importantly, he solidified the Republican Party into a majority
White and Christian party, which set the stage for one party to consistently
oppose any real social progress. And, as
we will see later, he reenergized the power of the shadow side of the
government that came close to extinction during Watergate. Iran/Contra was a full fledged rebirth of the
so called “deep state,” which most presidents since have nurtured and grown.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Democrats, however, are
not blameless in this subversion of democracy.
In fact, after Reagan, Bill Clinton is the person most responsible for
the decline of the American Concept.
Clinton, not Reagan, deregulated the banks and set the stage for the
bubble/burst cycle of Shock Economics that left the middle class barely hanging
on for dear life. He finished off, for
all intents and purposes, the social safety net that had been established in
the 30’s, “ending welfare as we know it.”
He cut the deficit, which is arguably a good thing, but he did it by
cutting programs that help people rather than by cutting a bloated and at point,
largely unnecessary, Defense Department.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, these things, at
least on the surface, do not demonstrate the end of Democracy. They show warped priorities, bad ideas, and
poor policy decisions. But if you look
behind the curtain you begin to see the actual stabbing of democracy, the Ides
of March of the American Ideal, because the murder didn’t occur in the public
forum, it happened off stage, and people only have hinted that it even happened
at all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But every murderer leaves
behind traces of what they have done, and in this case, the visible knife is
the 2016 election. And don’t
misunderstand, the victim probably wouldn’t be any less dead had Hillary won,
we simply wouldn’t be seeing the blood dripping off of her hands like we do
Trump’s.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In this case, the indicator
of the murder can be found in coalitions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Political science defines the
coalition size as one of the markers between “democracies” (including republics
and parliamentary systems with a constitutional monarch) and “autocracies”
(including oligarchies, dictatorships and theocracies)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In a democracy, the rulers
keep power by giving benefits to large segments of the population. In fact this is a necessity of any
government; you need to “reward” your supporters with gifts. However, to be elected, you need at least a
plurality of votes, if not an outright majority. This means that the giveaways cannot be
personally benefiting to the voters, at least not directly. You need to reward your coalition with
policies that please them, be it social programs, stronger militaries, or heavy
infrastructure investment. Usually, the
winning coalition is promised a mix of rewards in all three arenas. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Additionally, it is critical
to deliver broad prosperity to your country to remain in power. The best
rewards are meaningless in democracies if they are not paired with a general
sense of well-being, or at least an idea that there is hope of things getting
better. This is the message that swept
Obama into office in 2008, the idea that he could “fix things.” Even though things still weren’t great in
2012, he still could offer the promise that things were actually getting
better. In short, he won and remained in
office because of the power of a large coalition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">On the other hand,
autocracies do not depend on a large coalition, they depend on a small group of
the “elect” who help them maintain their power.
Because this group is small, the rewards are much more personal, and
generally are in the form of financial remuneration for support. The larger population is meaningless, at
least in terms of maintaining power, as they have no actual say in the
government. In an autocracy, the masses
are either distracted through forms of the Roman “bread and circuses” or though
such profound oppression that they dare not speak out. And in a successful autocracy, it is usually
a combination of distraction and oppression that mitigate the threat the masses
might otherwise pose to the regime. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Putin is a perfect example
of this. The Russian oligarchs have
become fabulously rich in his regime, while the masses have been
marginalized. But Putin, unlike Stalin,
mixes circuses in with outright threats.
He makes sure the masses are relatively comfortable and well fed, with
many of the trappings that they didn’t have during the Soviet rule. But he also jails (or often kills) opponents
with enough regularity that people understand that opposing his rule is a quick
way to end up in a modern gulag or dead.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this sets us up to
examine the rapidly expiring body of American Democracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">While we do not have overt
oligarchs (yet) or obvious small coalition policies, if you look at the
legislative agenda of the Republican Party, you can see that the large
coalition (most of us) being sacrificed for the sake of the small coalition. Every major piece of Republican legislation
benefits a very small group of Americans, generally at the expense of the
masses.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First, lets examine the
attempt to repeal Obamacare. While this
law did not have majority support until recently, it was a good example of
“large coalition” policy. Although it
could have actually gone further, and had fewer rewards for large national
corporations, it was audacious in its attempt to provide affordable health care
to the majority of Americans. This is
the type of thing a “democratic” leader needs to do to remain in power, give
rewards to large swaths of the population.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, “Trumpcare” does
the exact opposite. Despite the spin
that the Republican Party is trying to spread, the ACHA bill does not help large
segments of the population. In fact,
according to the CBO, it will cause 24 million people to lose access to
insurance. That is not smart “large
coalition” policy, because all of the spin in the world will not matter when
stories start to circulate about people dying or going bankrupt from illnesses
that Obamacare would have treated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, the ACHA does
profoundly benefit one group of people, the wealthy, especially the extremely
wealthy; basically the people who compose approximately one percent of our
population. That certainly looks like
“small coalition” politics. When Grandma
dies despite an early diagnosis of breast cancer or the baby bankrupts his
parents because of his childhood leukemia, people are going to get angry. And as the 24 million people who are going to
be hurt the most live in “red states” this SHOULD be electoral suicide for
them, and should make most of them run screaming from the bill<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But it’s not and they are
not. This is because the large coalition
no longer figures into their calculus. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And all the policies are
this way. The EPA, school lunches,
Medicare, Climate Change, National Parks, bank regulation and many other things
targeted by the Trump Administration have deep support across the country, and
ending them should be completely off the table in a large coalition situation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, there is one group
that is generally against all of these things, the neo-oligarchs who form the
new coalition. These billionaires throw
gouts of money into elections, facilitate the spread of outright lies, and
manipulate the rules through gerrymandering and other nefarious techniques to
circumvent the will of the people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And they write articles like
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-allison/singapore-challenges-democracy_b_7933188.html">this one</a>, which is in the “Liberal” Huffington Post, which claims democracy is
not necessarily the best form of government.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And through these examples, we
can see how democracy is being killed.
The large coalition that drove American politics for the last century is
rapidly being replaced by the small.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, it is not entirely
hopeless, and there is still a chance that massive blood transfusions can still
save the patient. We were in much the
same position at the end of the Gilded Age, when J.P. Morgan felt that he could
personally call the shots in this country.
<a href="http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/VideosDetailsPage/VideosDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Videos&currPage=1&query=OQE+Anthracite+Coal+Strike%2C+1902&prodId=UHIC&source=&p=UHIC%3AWHIC&mode=view&catId=&view=docDisplay&total=1&zid=5ebbe22408a1632497b8dbe56fb8bf78&u=down87562&limiter=AC+y&displayGroups=&action=e&documentId=GALE%7CPPQSTR203680479&windowstate=normal">Teddy Roosevelt showed him the truth</a>, that a powerful president, with a
broad base of support across the country, could reign in the small coalition
that had become convinced that the United States was their personal
playground. A lesson that his nephew,
Franklin, also taught to Morgan’s ideological successors, ushering in the
largest coalition democracy the world had ever seen via his “New Deal.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But absent the large
coalition of Americans, from both parties, uniting against the real enemy of
the neo-oligarchs, democracy, in this country and likely most of the world, is
bleeding to death unseen behind the forum. And at this point, people are watching, and possibly recording the death on their phones, but not actually trying to save her. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDOOtuNt5bmhEYejvYezMoUPrzf42A19-nbJ9pNF4-wdBhtHSu7GMWHxbv1FWLZPgC7OrsygzfLtoJ5_mLA7hI_fxxIQU6CxMCLk-FirqWYtE5bBEJ7B387VjYvhrpA2yaQqD1kOk05R0R/s1600/gov-or-democracy600.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDOOtuNt5bmhEYejvYezMoUPrzf42A19-nbJ9pNF4-wdBhtHSu7GMWHxbv1FWLZPgC7OrsygzfLtoJ5_mLA7hI_fxxIQU6CxMCLk-FirqWYtE5bBEJ7B387VjYvhrpA2yaQqD1kOk05R0R/s1600/gov-or-democracy600.png" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-74746425350109446912017-01-25T18:52:00.001-07:002017-01-25T18:52:26.352-07:00Don’t Fear the Tax Man, Unless He Only Comes For Thee<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Taxation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In
my last blog, I examined how Democrats work their payouts to their supporters,
so that they can retain, and hopefully expand, their winning collation. As I explained in that post, Social Safety
Net programs like Social Security and Medicare, are specifically designed to
help large swaths of the population in the hope that people who need those
programs will support the party that created them, in other words, prompt them
to vote for the Democrats.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And
the Republicans, to combat this, must engage in a strategy to make people
believe these programs are not sustainable, and then they must offer an
alternative carrot to the voters. The
one that they have fixated on is “Lower Taxes.”
Their point behind this is that if taxes were lower, people could put
money aside for their own old age. It
stresses personal responsibility over shared burdens. And honestly, like all public policies, it
has both a good side and a bad side, some truths, some lies. But at the end, it is simply an alternate
vision, designed to woo voters to their side.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Or,
I should say, it was, until the administration of George W. Bush.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Now
it is a harbringer of a sea change in American politics, one that can be read
to show that democracy is no longer really needed or desired. Until “W,” tax cuts were either targeted to
the poor, as in the Earned Income Credit (a Gerald Ford policy) or an across
the board tax rate reduction, as in the Regan Tax Cuts. These tax policies benefited a wide swath of
voters, and could be viewed as a way for the Republicans to combat the social
programs of the Left and draw in voters.
This actually worked for Reagan, who won re-election by an astounding
margin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But,
with the Bush II tax cuts, something seemed to change. Although taxes were still cut across the
board, the bulk of the tax cuts were targeted to the super wealthy. In fact, the richer the person, the better
they did with the Bush Tax Cut. Since
2008, the Republicans across the country have doubled down on this policy, and
the bulk of the tax cuts have benefited multi-millionaires, basically the 1%
Club. Although crumbs are still thrown
at the Middle Classes, many, and sometimes most, people actually see their
taxes go up under current Republican policies.
The only uniform beneficiaries are at the top end of the tax rates.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">At
the moment, people are still accepting this, because the story has been sold,
and bought, that the rich pay far more than their fair share. Even though this is true on a certain level,
progressive tax policy recognizes that Bill Gates can afford a 5 million dollar
annual tax bill far better than a minimum wage earner can afford a 500 dollar
one. I should note here, progressive in
this usage does not refer to the political left, it simply refers to the idea
that taxes increase the more money you make, and go down the less you
earn. Regressive taxes are the opposite,
and hit poor people harder than the rich.
Sales Tax, which is uniform, regardless of your income, is an example of
a regressive tax.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However,
the tax changes currently under consideration by Trump bring regressive
taxation to the fore. Two policies
especially are extremely regressive; removal of the child deduction and
elimination of the mortgage deduction.
These two policies are among the most progressive tax exemptions, as
poor and middle class people spend a lot more of their income, percentage wise,
on children and interest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It’s almost like Trump could
care less about using tax policy to win voters.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In fact, this becomes very
similar to the payouts that you see in dictatorships and monarchies. This is because this payout affects only a
tiny percentage of the voters, and screws over the rest. In fact, from a political standpoint, this
would be very, very stupid, as the last thing you want to do in a democracy is
piss off a sizable percentage of the population.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Unless you no longer care
about democracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this is where these
policies begin to terrify me. If Trump
was concerned about winning elections in the standard method, i.e. winning the
popular vote, he would want to make sure his agenda benefited the widest swath
of people. But what if he didn’t care
about that? What if he, and the
Republicans in general, were no longer interested in paying off a large segment
of the population? What if they were
only worried about gaining the support of a small, but very powerful, segment
of the population?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In that case, their policies
would look a lot like these; screw the bulk of the voters and further enrich
the already rich and powerful. That is
not the pattern of behavior in a democracy, where you have to please wide
swaths of the population, that is the behavior of a party unconcerned about
democracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In a democracy, you have to
get 51 percent of the people, or at least the voters, to vote for you. This doesn’t matter in a non-democratic
country, where the leaders are selected through some other method. And here, I would like to point out, despite
a earning 3 million vote margin, Hillary Clinton is not the president. So the finger of inequity is already on the
scales.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, tax cuts that are
specifically targeted to the richest segment of society are casting light on a
real problem, one that may grow, unless we do something about it. Up until recently, these massive tax cuts for
the rich have gained widespread approval because of the aspirational nature of
American Society. We all expect to be
rich someday. In fact, most people
consider themselves to just be “temporarily embarrassed millionaires,” to quote
John Steinbeck.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, income inequality
is beginning to raise its head, as many, maybe even most, people begin to
recognize their children will do no better in life than they did. Worse, many people have to face the fact that
their children will not do as well. The
aspirations are more and more becoming obvious pipe dreams. This very well
grounded concern is what actually pushed Trump into the White House, at least
if post election surveys are to be believed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, the actual policies
being enacted don’t follow from addressing the concerns of the
constituents. The actual policies are
very much those of an oligarchy, where the “peasants” have no voice. Why would this be?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Perhaps it is because they
know that they can ride this wave for a couple of elections, get their policies
enshrined in such a way that they will be hard to undo. Possibly they think that they can say that
the opposition to helping the poor was “too great,” and use that to fuel
outrage to gain even larger margins.
Perhaps this is simply a bait and switch operation, where they feel that
they can con the voters into voting against their self interest for years to
come.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Or it could be a much darker
reality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Perhaps they have decided
that we are moving down a new path, one that doesn’t need millions of
voters. Possibly they no longer care if
people are happy, now that they have the majority. Maybe they think that democracy is a bad idea,
and they want to shift to something new, something that will pay off fabulously
for them at the expense of the rest of us.
It is possible they believe the democratic experiment has run its
course.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If this is the case, the
rest of us need to show them just how wrong they actually are.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTx7VJmyUIk9Z8TStzQZnTI_Y9Ii65UOborQ5l1DtLKTqwjTGQyisuCB4rB12UgujE7XGiq06GvUBU7kiz5Y0Zw5E2S62XRXCgzqO4cNnLVsyjyCwga7e1YO7vJ3Y_umsC9CJbBj6BOzC1/s1600/income-inequality-usa-13.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTx7VJmyUIk9Z8TStzQZnTI_Y9Ii65UOborQ5l1DtLKTqwjTGQyisuCB4rB12UgujE7XGiq06GvUBU7kiz5Y0Zw5E2S62XRXCgzqO4cNnLVsyjyCwga7e1YO7vJ3Y_umsC9CJbBj6BOzC1/s1600/income-inequality-usa-13.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-57270604398934826972017-01-23T19:50:00.002-07:002017-01-23T19:50:42.142-07:00The Carrot and the Stick<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Bankrupt<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">There is a reason why
Republicans have to insist that the country, and especially the Social Safety
Net Programs are “bankrupt.” (And I
refuse to use the Right’s framing of these programs as “Entitelements.” That pejorative term automatically frames
these programs in an extremely negative way.) I would love to say that this is just an
aspect of their slavish devotion to “personal responsibility” but
unfortunately, I cannot. I would even
like to say that it is because they want to prove to people that government is
always the cause, not the solution, of life’s problems. The truth, I fear, is much darker. After reading “The Dictator’s Handbook” a
much more devious reason for this attack presented itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">They need to convince
Democrats that their support for their party will not net them anything,
because the Democrats will not be able to deliver.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">To explain this, I need
to give some background. All rulers, be
they monarchs, tyrants or presidents, need to basically bribe their supporters
with payouts. I recognize that this
sounds deeply cynical, mainly because it is.
However, this is the fact of how all governments function. In a Monarchy or Dictatorship, the number of
people who need to receive payment for their support is relatively small. A group of people including the leaders of
the military, wealthy patrons, and other strategically placed individuals are sufficient
to keep the ruler in power. And because
the number is small, the payments can be quite lavish. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">For examples of this,
reflect on the personal wealth of the men who supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt
or King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Or for
that matter, although Russia is not strictly a Dictatorship, Vladimir Putin. The people who surround these leaders are immensely
wealthy, and much of their riches stem from their support of the leader. In Saudi Arabia, as most of the powerful men
in the country are also related to the King, there is also an aspect of
Dynastic Wealth. For the others though,
there are no blood ties to the leaders, only financial ties. But these financial ties bind the support of
the inner circle. If the payments are
cut off, as with Mubarak, the key supporters will quickly turn on the person in
charge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">However, in a democracy,
there is not the ability to enrich a select group to guarantee remaining in
power. Also, in a democracy like the
United States, there are term limits that keep a person from staying in the
Presidency for more than 8 years. This
means that if there was a small group running a democracy, they would run the
risk of losing their gravy train with each election, and the democracy would
quickly turn dictatorial simply so the money would keep flowing into their
pockets.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">This means, both
structurally (a large number of voters must elect the leader) and effectively
(no single person can enrich themselves) that democracies must function
differently. Democracies must deliver a
flow of benefits to a very specific group of voters in the country, and that
requires large scale programs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">In the United States,
this means the Democrats create social safety net programs that benefit large
groups of people, and Republicans advocate tax cuts that similarly benefit a
wide group in the population. I will
deal with the Republican strategy in my next blog, as there are some worrying
signs in tax policy that need to be discussed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">But basically, the
Democratic strategy has always been to deliver things to a wide segment of the
population in the forms of things like Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare,
low cost education, etc, etc. This is an
excellent strategy, because most people will need one or more of these programs
in their lives, and people will often vote their own self interest. In fact, the creation of these programs
created Democratic dominance on the national level for close to 50 years. In fact, there were only 16 years of
Republicans holding the Presidency between 1932 and 1980, and the two
Republicans elected in that time had no interest in eliminating any of the
social programs that had been instituted by the other party.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">However, that all
changed with Ronald Reagan. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Reagan delivered two
simultaneous killing blows to the Democrats, tax cuts and the deficit. Until Reagan, deficits were not something
that were particularly concerning, both because they were small compared to GDP
and government bonds were a strong and positive method of saving money. But Reagan changed this; he slashed taxes and
because of this raised the deficit to astronomical, for the time, levels. This allowed him to spin the story that the
government was going “bankrupt” because of the social safety net.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">And that statement
deeply damaged the Democratic Party, because of the need to reward the
base. Suddenly, the programs that people
voted Democratic to support seemed to be on the verge of evaporating. It became a real fear, for example, that you
might pay into Social Security your whole life only to find the trust fund
empty when you were ready to draw benefits.
And then he raided the Social Security Trust Fund to make that
possibility seem even more likely. This
dramatically eroded support for the Democrats among White Americans, support
that, by and large has never returned, because Social Security is one of only
two programs that almost all Americans know that they will be able to
participate in. The other is Medicare.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">All of the other Social
Safety net programs have the appearance of supporting the “unworthy” which is
code for minorities and poor people. It
is no surprise that minority support for the Democrats has remained solid,
because they know that they may need some of these other programs. White people need them as well, but there is
such a stigma about the benefits at this point that taking them is a point of
shame, so there is little support for them, even as whites use them far more
than minorities, both in terms of percentage and raw numbers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">So suddenly, Reagan took
away the “Reagan Democrats” and won a second term by one of the largest
victories since Washington. He didn’t
just win on his message, he won because he convinced a nation that these
programs were going bankrupt and the Democrats would never be able to pay off
their supporters.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">At the same time, he
offered another benefit that seemed perfectly targeted to the people, tax
cuts. This meant that voters would have
more money in their pockets, and thereby offset the loss of Social
Security. And this was a winning
strategy, and violating it, as Bush Sr. did, cost him the election. Bill Clinton offered at least the possibility
of having social programs maintained, while voters knew that Bush had violated
HIS promise of “no new taxes.” One offered
the possibility of a payout, while the other had a reality of eliminating
one. Consequently Bush lost the
election.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">And this has been the
pattern to this day. Obama offered a
great benefit, universal health care, and won by large margins. Those margins would probably been even higher
if he’d actually gotten something like Medicare for All, a low cost, high
benefit plan. However, what he created
wound up not seeming like a really great benefit to a wide swath of Middle
America and because of this, many “Blue” states voted for Trump. But, as Obamacare was a huge benefit to Millennials,
women and minorities, they maintained strong support for the Democrats, because
they got the most benefit from the administration. Groups that got less resumed the pattern of
voting for tax cuts that they felt would be an immediate benefit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">So basically, in order
to win on National, State, or even Local levels, each party much present a
package of goodies that can win voters.
This election, the Democrats didn’t do a great job of selling their
package, while Trump, with simplistic language, grabbed the package and
promoted it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">I know this seems very
base, and crass, but this ultimately is how government in a Democracy
works. You have to promise to reward a
large group of people with something you can deliver on. And then you have to do it. If Trump succeeds in delivering his promises,
he will easily win a second term. If he
does not, either through Democratic opposition, or simply the workings of
reality, he will be booted from the White House. And given his baggage, he might even be
booted before 4 years are up. He made
huge promises, and, if he wants to keep his position, he’d better deliver.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">The American People are
very unforgiving of failure to perform.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibFeE32-9oxUMWRVuobAe2H5kOlBOBEGLwPJ_vapgq-3-PT8hMtHPxEJZQwnpbF3n0254l1FdnlWskglQfezJ00LZ4AaStbOIUqPk5OA9vyJC1NsM_eFtEMT1jAi2zdh5GubW4hcdG1ynF/s1600/social-safety-net.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibFeE32-9oxUMWRVuobAe2H5kOlBOBEGLwPJ_vapgq-3-PT8hMtHPxEJZQwnpbF3n0254l1FdnlWskglQfezJ00LZ4AaStbOIUqPk5OA9vyJC1NsM_eFtEMT1jAi2zdh5GubW4hcdG1ynF/s1600/social-safety-net.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-62736648117578687832017-01-16T21:37:00.000-07:002017-01-17T21:44:54.354-07:00Postcards from the Mountains of Madness<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Insanity</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Two days ago, a Connecticut
Republican was <a href="http://westport.dailyvoice.com/police-fire/cops-greenwich-republican-insulted-town-worker-then-pinched-her-groin/696124/#.WHpNXu3Wjgc.twitter">arrested</a> for grabbing a woman’s genitals. Prior to his arrest, he allegedly exclaimed “I
love this new world, I no longer have to be politically correct.” In related news, a week ago, Jeff Sessions,
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-trump-sexual-assault_us_57fbb902e4b068ecb5e06988">said</a>, regarding pussy grabbing “I don’t characterize that as sexual assault… I
think that’s a stretch.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Seriously, and I mean this,
WHAT THE FUCK???? What warped world have
we entered? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">To begin, I have written
several blogs on the idea of nostalgia, and how it is a desire to return to a
past that never was, one that we imagine to be better than the present, and
definitely better than the future. At
its base, it is pure revisionism that glosses over all of the terrible things
of the past to present an idealized vision of things. Nostalgia gives us “Gone With the Wind” and
its visions of happy and comfortable slaves.
Nostalgia presents us the happy housewife. Nostalgia creates images of smiling children
that are seen but never heard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In short, nostalgia warps
our ideas of the past into a bizarre parody of actual life. It removes all of the bad things, and
elevates the good in a horribly distorted manner. And on the surface, Trumpism would seem to be
a nostalgic return to the 1950’s when the races were segregated; miscegenation
was a felony; when women were completely subservient to men; and being a white
male, regardless of social class, was the best thing in the world. It would seem that Trump is trying to turn
back the clock to a vision of how America would have been without Civil Rights,
without Women’s Rights, and without Religious Freedom<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The Trump World is not
nostalgia, instead, it is a vision of the past through a dark and twisted
filter; it is a desire to bring back, not the good things of the 50’s, but the
evil. It is a desire for darkness that,
in all honesty, can be called Satanic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">First, let’s look at what
real Nostalgia for the 50’s encompasses, and remember the fact that there is a
significant amount of truth at its core.
The 50’s were a very prosperous time.
A man, even without a college education, could be the sole breadwinner,
bringing home a comfortable middle class life to his family. His wife would meet him at the door, with a
drink in her hand for him and a nice dinner on the table. Blacks and whites were “separate but equal,”
and there was no racial animus. (Remember this is the nostalgic view of the
50’s) College students were uniformly
crew-cut young Republicans that would follow their fathers into business, and
in due time settle down in their own white picket fenced heaven.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Of course, this is a false
vision wrapped around a core or truth, but it is a powerful and penetrating encapsulation of what remains,
even largely to this day. as the American Dream. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">But even if it looks like it
on the surface, and even if the claims are that is the world that they want to
bring back, Trumpism is hellishly dystopian vision of this dream. In the Trump
vision, the man is head of the household, not through respect, but because it
is his goddamned right, and woe unto any woman who dares challenge that. The woman is not the happy homemaker, she is
an ornament, a thing of beauty, to be discarded when the first inevitable lines
crease her face. And I will add, those
lines will show up much too early because of the pain and grief poured on top
of her by the husband who thinks of her in much the same manner as he thinks of
his automobile. And, like the car, she
can easily be traded by the Trump Man for a newer and more exciting model. No sedan wives in this new world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The black man is not “separate
but equal,” he is separate because of the bars on the cell he was thrown into
at about the age of 14. A cell he was
cast into because all Black men are born criminals, and if one dies at liberty,
they do so only because they have to good fortune to have done so before
committing the murder that their genes demand.
(And acknowledgement to Adolph Loos for giving me this turn of phrase,
although he referred to the tattooed, not to minorities, but it still applies here.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">And more, Trumpism advocates
for literal concentration camps for Muslims (a group so small in the 50’s that
they warranted no consideration, unless it was for the CIA to overthrow a
government to install their chosen leader)
The Trump vision is also to load several million immigrants onto trains
and ship them back to where they came from, on trains that would run day and
night, week after week, year after year, to purge the country of the taint of
immigration. At this point, even the
Germans are suspect. Only the Russians
seem to be worthy of consideration for entry into this country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">And finally, College
students, like children, need to sit down, shut up, and accept the fact that
they will take on a mountain of debt while being indoctrinated into the
Republican Party, because all college faculty will have to pass tests of
ideological purity to show that they are patriotic Americans who worship at the
altar of Adam Smith, God and prosperous Jesus.
And after graduation, their compliance is assured, because they are
literally slaves to a debt that they will never, in their entire working life,
be able to discharge. Welcome to Slavery
2.0, where the Masters pull their slaves strings through a combination of
threats of debtor’s prison and the dangling fruit of the job that pays in
experience, not wages.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">George Orwell could not
create a world more terrifying than Trumptopia, and H.P. Lovecraft could not
envision a monster more amoral and soulless than The Donald.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">And the news shows how
quickly we can fall into this abyss. A
quick perusal of the headlines of the last few weeks, the race based attacks,
the rapes, the hate that pours like sweat off of the brows of the men who now
hold our fates in their greasy palms, tells us how far fallen a creature man
is, in this time, in this place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">I’d quote Joseph Welch, and
ask “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” But this is just beginning. This is only the start. And we have 3 days before the
inauguration. If people can feel free to
throw away 50 years of societal growth in 12 weeks, what more will happen in 4
years? How many more atrocities will we
endure before we rise up and scream, “NO MORE, THIS FAR AND NO MORE.” But I fear that there is much more, and this
is only the prologue to a play of such cruelty and depravity that even deSade must
turn his head. This time coming up will
teach each and every one of us Artaud’s ultimate truth:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">“We are not free, and the
sky can still fall on our heads.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">I hope to write a blog full
of hope and talk about what can be done to stave off the darkness that engulfs us. But not tonight, not now. Right now, I need to take a shower, and weep
for this brave new world that has such people in it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHwM1W1uG96_zYGtay6UlL8JLt-6fiIOReSeeyJw1wSjQDYryHpt__f7wb5r0F-fED6fp7K7tPSb5p2Agqx7QRDZK149FD-Ct3U6EMykfI5n0-3QTKWpsdGhiPppa5owfPB0DHtUNz2kg3/s1600/trump-bannon-cartoon-sack.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="484" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHwM1W1uG96_zYGtay6UlL8JLt-6fiIOReSeeyJw1wSjQDYryHpt__f7wb5r0F-fED6fp7K7tPSb5p2Agqx7QRDZK149FD-Ct3U6EMykfI5n0-3QTKWpsdGhiPppa5owfPB0DHtUNz2kg3/s640/trump-bannon-cartoon-sack.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-56465336623994307892016-01-16T07:15:00.000-07:002017-01-17T21:34:56.302-07:00Breaking the Law<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><br />Nazi's<br /><br />I'm going to violate Godwin's Law here, and compare Trump to Hitler to explain why Trump is so dangerous. Hitler correctly identified many, if not most, of the problems of the Wiemar Republic, but then laid the cause of those problems at the feet of groups of undesirables, the Jews, the Masons, the Gypsies, the homosexuals. By choosing groups that were already disliked, he looked like he was solving all of Germany's problems, making it "great again."<br /><br />Trump is taking a page right out of the same playbook, identifying the problems correctly, but then laying fault for them on the "other:" Mexicans and Muslims in particular. This creates a culture of fear that is then exploited for political power because it is always easier to blame others that to find fault in yourself. <br /><br />It gives the illusion that the problems facing the nation are easily solved through some sort of Final Solution, i.e. eliminating the undesirable class, whether through Gas Chambers, or just mass deportations and revocation of citizenship. This allows the problem to be solved without any fundamental change.<br /><br />Adding to the parallel, the Wiemar Republic was one of the most Liberal societies in Europe, which caused a profound shift in cultural values, thereby upsetting a larger swath of the population than normal. This shift set the stage for a conservative demagogue, because the other root cause of the nation's problems seemed to be a libertine culture. By fighting the Other and the Culture, he could promise, much like Trump, to restore the prestige of Germany.<br /><br />Finally, Hitler took advantage of the "apology" for World War 1, and the crushing reparations laid on Germany. By claiming Germany did no wrong, he instilled nationalistic fervor. Trump is playing the same card, but even more deceitfully, by claiming Obama is "apologizing" for America, rather than conducting diplomacy. <br /><br />The United States made several terrible decisions on the world stage, and Obama has owned up to those mistakes. However, this has set the stage, again, for the Trump to claim that this causes the U.S. to loose prestige, rather than gain it. The idea, held by both Hitler and Trump, is that the United States needs to be feared, not loved, as that is a core pillar of Nationalism.<br /><br />In all, this is a perfect shit storm for our country, and a dangerous precipice to walk.</span><br />
<div class="_45m_ _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="178bn-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="178bn-0-0"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhslV_CtVfcsZW6uQcUalIRQRyyX9IljuvpRBfJ2_6_mWgmr5lU9sb2MhnR2ZsQLtR3SNnuzur83tj1Nm5xRslhCQjUH9lMaD4W7cKlzZmG8_5xmzI6L0XULDNJdy3BRFFTD51UMNXNgxgV/s1600/trump-compared-to-hitler.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhslV_CtVfcsZW6uQcUalIRQRyyX9IljuvpRBfJ2_6_mWgmr5lU9sb2MhnR2ZsQLtR3SNnuzur83tj1Nm5xRslhCQjUH9lMaD4W7cKlzZmG8_5xmzI6L0XULDNJdy3BRFFTD51UMNXNgxgV/s1600/trump-compared-to-hitler.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="_45m_ _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="178bn-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="178bn-0-0"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_45m_ _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="178bn-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="178bn-0-0"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-61388201461814238212015-08-08T10:31:00.001-06:002015-08-08T10:31:42.517-06:00Playing the Trump Card<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Trumped<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">At this point, I have to
say, Donald Trump is running the most brilliant, if the most cynical campaign
of the 2016 election season. While it
would be utter disaster for this man to be elected, I think that pundits who
are dismissing him are sacrificing themselves at the altar of conventional
wisdom. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This man actually stands a
chance a good chance to be nominated, and possibly even elected. I'd like to examine the reasons that could
come to pass.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First, we need to go back to
2012. While Mitt Romney was
"inevitable," the GOP base kept trying to find ANYONE but Mitt. They tried a succession of frontrunners, each
who surged past Romney in a comet-like blaze of glory. This shows a deep dissatisfaction in the base
for the establishment candidate: the guy "who's turn it is." The stream of candidates who briefly flared
showed an angry and tempestuous base. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But the problem in 2012, was
that the supernova candidates didn't resonate past a certain area. Gingrich was popular in the South, but not so
much outside of there. Santorum inspired
the Religious Right, but scared more secular voters. Ron Paul fired up the Libertarians, but terrified
the Neo-Cons who pull the strings in the party.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So basically, each alternate
candidate couldn't sustain a real challenge to Romney, because they'd win a
couple, then lose when they were outside of their stronghold. Then the base who was desperate for a change
would flee to another candidate, only to have the pattern repeat.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, at the start of the
season, there is a large group of angry voters who hate the GOP Establishment
almost as much as they hate the Democrats, and who will not tolerate the
anointed one, who is probably Jeb Bush, getting the nomination.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Into this scene enters Trump,
stage center, to take control of everything.
He is the perfect combination of narcissism, megalomania, psychopathy, and wealth to fill
a void in the unhappy Republican soul. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Now to look at the perfect
storm of things that make him a viable candidate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First, and this is the most
brilliant point in his actual campaign, he is spewing Fox talking points. He only says what regular viewers of Fox,
listeners to Rush Limbaugh, and readers of the Drudge Report want to hear. He is being unabashedly racist and
sexist. He is articulating all the
things they want to hear, and given his wealth and position, he has no care
about the ramifications.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Conventional wisdom would
say this is exactly the wrong strategy, that you need to code your politically
incorrect views in language that is not overt.
However, in this, I think conventional wisdom is wrong. Every racist or misogynistic statement out of
Trumps mouth seems to add to his lead, not reduce it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The reason that I think this
is occurring is that people view this as brave and principled. While that may seem strange to many, having
lived in the South, I can hear people say, this man says openly what we are all
thinking. In a Right Wing World, sick
and tired of Political Correctness, this is a welcome image of someone finally
standing up against the tyranny of Liberal Oppression. Finally, they have a candidate who will say
the vile racist things they want to say themselves. (And honestly, I actually appreciate this
myself, because it is easier to show and talk about the inherent racism and
sexism of the Right, when its on open display; you can't cover this up when it
is on display in the frontrunner)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But even further, every
single thing that comes out of his mouth is an echo </span><st1:stockticker><span style="font-family: Arial;">AND</span></st1:stockticker><span style="font-family: Arial;"> answer to the things that the Right hears on their media. </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> apologizes for being who we are, so we'll make
America Great. Mexicans are evil, so we
stop them from coming to this country.
And so on, and so on. Every
talking point is framed in the exact language that articulates the rage on the
right.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Never mind that there are no
actual solutions in his speeches, he says what they want to hear, just like
every demagogue in the past. And the
worst thing is, just like those orators in the past, people are flocking to his
banner.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this also leads to a
more widespread appeal. Since he will
say literally anything his audience wants to hear, he can move beyond the
limitations that crippled Santorum and Ron Paul. Every speech is market researched, focus
group tested and field approved. This
makes him the perfect firebrand to inspire people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Further, when he spouts some
batshit crazy thing, he doesn't apologize or back down, he doubles down on it,
sucking all of the oxygen out of the criticism.
When someone apologizes, or uses the modern equivalent of the
non-apology, "if anyone was offended" then the conversation shifts to
"today, X issues another statement disavowing Y" which paints the
person as at minimum, wishy washy, at worst completely fake.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And I want to point out that
I am stunned by the irony of the most fake candidate in American history being
viewed as authentic by refusing to walk back his insanity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Which leads to the next
point about Trump's success, he perfectly fits the zeitgeist of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. We are so
inured to crazy behavior because of reality television, that we have normalized
out of control antics. Worse, we are
beginning to like them. We love
Hoarders, Bar Rescue, and the entire Real Housewives franchise because of the
crazy people yelling at each other, putting our national sociopathy on full
display.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Thanks to our TV, we now
equate belligerence, anger and disrespect with real leadership. The way Trump dominated the stage at the
debates wasn't viewed as him being a narcissistic asshole, it came across as a
real leader who dominated the competition.
People all over </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> envisioned him talking like that to Putin or the
Iranian leaders, and got a hard-on by proxy.
While he can't ACTUALLY do that sort of thing in a diplomatic situation,
he fulfilled the fantasies of old white men all over the country. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And following from this, he
has now managed to turn even Fox News against him. This isn't the liability it seems like, and
in fact, is probably an asset. This
means that the entire "Republican Establishment" is arrayed against
him. As crazy as this may sound, many of
the people on the Right view Fox as middle of the road, and I have had a couple
of people tell me that they are still "slightly liberally biased, just not
as bad as the rest of the media."
Given that many people on the Right are disillusioned with the
Republican brand and the establishment, this will likely be an asset to Trump.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">He can run as the guy the
Republicans want to silence, because he speaks the truth. He can spin this in the same way that many on
the Left do, that both parties are essentially the same, and he won't hold to
the party orthodoxy. (And this is the
same reason that Bernie Sanders has the same appeal on the Left) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">By running as the guy who
the party wants to get rid of, he can mix in victimhood into his run. This plays well for people who view
"Happy Holidays" as a personal attack, and who claim that Christians
are the only people in this country who it is OK to discriminate against. It adds a component of, "I'm just like
you" into the mix.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Then there is the other
issue of him being a business man. This
serves his campaign in two ways. First,
he is wealthy enough to be able to say in the race through self funding. He doesn't need a billionaire patron, he is his
own funder. This means that the
establishment can't pull the plug by withholding funding. He literally doesn't care.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And then the other part of
this, as a businessman, he is not used to being told no, and is very used to
being able to buy what ever he wants. He
had decided that he wants the presidency, and he will do whatever it takes to
purchase it. The opening bid of his
negation was on full display at the debate.
When he refused to rule out an independent run, he wasn't being
petulant, he was laying his bid on the table.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Basically he told the Party,
either nominate me, or I'll ruin you. He
knows full well that a third party bid would devastate the chances of the
Republicans winning the election. It's
very simple, as a businessman, he knows that he has to negotiate from a
position of strength. It made it clear
that if the Republicans want to stand a chance in 2016, he'd better be their
nominee. (Now it this does presuppose
that he will continue to have his current strength) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Still as a man used to
winning and getting whatever he wants, he will be utterly ruthless in a way
that the Party is likely not prepared to handle. Political negotiations typically are we each
get a bit of what we want. Business
negotiations tend to be much more one sided, especially with someone like
Trump,. who won't be afraid to execute his hostages.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Finally, there is an
additional strength that Trump possesses that might contribute to his victory,
and this time in a general election.
It's called the "Boris Johnson Effect." For decades, </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">London</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> had a highly competent, if very boring mayor. Boris Johnson ran against him, on more or
less the same antics that Trump is using.
For his behavior, he was widely viewed as a buffoon.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And yet Johnson won. He's the mayor of </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">London</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The main reason he won was
no one believed he had the remotest chance, so they voted for him as a
joke. It would be a funny story to tell
in the breakroom or by the water cooler.
But the joke was, enough people cast the ironic vote to elect the guy
mayor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And given the cynical nature
of the American Hipster, I could see this repeat here. The "haha, I voted for Trump, isn't that
funny?" can easily become, "OH. MY. GOD. WHY DID I VOTE FOR TRUMP."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And has been pointed out
<a href="http://morning.computer/2015/08/donald-trump-and-the-boris-johnson-effect/">elsewhere</a>, we will have about two months to prepare for Armageddon.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBIeyvARxMvu7hJrlIAlvDfmcUIEa3h0s0XuRvWFz5T3RRcWLzN0rbwskDlJbG9-JuQ_kVk3NRvhE1qu-eD1xs9w7zpyM2inVcpPjqT86NHYUcBCHgjsuwDuvt734OLZoLkgudWvHuEB2X/s1600/donald-trump-cartoon-luckovich.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBIeyvARxMvu7hJrlIAlvDfmcUIEa3h0s0XuRvWFz5T3RRcWLzN0rbwskDlJbG9-JuQ_kVk3NRvhE1qu-eD1xs9w7zpyM2inVcpPjqT86NHYUcBCHgjsuwDuvt734OLZoLkgudWvHuEB2X/s1600/donald-trump-cartoon-luckovich.jpg" /></a></div>
<o:p></o:p>Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-45981493559929024892015-07-24T23:25:00.000-06:002015-07-24T23:25:00.124-06:00Don't Paint the World With That Brush<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Guilt<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, as I often do, I have a
question, brought about by the rush to accusation in this country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">After the </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Chattanooga</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> shooting, I saw a number of posts saying that </span><st1:stockticker><span style="font-family: Arial;">ALL</span></st1:stockticker><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Muslims need to be locked up to keep us safe, because they are
inherently evil and un-American. The hate leveled at the Muslim community
ranged from mass deportations, automatic revocation of American Citizenship for
any Muslim to, in the most horrifying case, a person who said that Hitler had the
right idea, just the wrong religion to run through the gas chambers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Any by the way, I do want to
point out, that has now set a new high (or low) bar for the use of Godwin's
Law. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Another example, today, I
saw a post that had a guy in a medieval Knights Templar outfit standing
"guard" outside a recruiting office, to "scare off the
Muslims." I guess because,
obviously a war that occurred almost a thousand years ago, still should strike
terror in the hearts of Muslims. Also,
as a point in fact, the Christians lost that war. </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Constantinople</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">
became </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Istanbul</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">, </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Rhodes</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> fell, and the Keys to Holy Sepulcher are still held
by a Muslim family. (Although this last
one is actually a funny story for another day.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Now the question, if we need
to lock up all Muslims in this country, why are we not saying the same thing
about the Tea Party and other Right Wing groups? We've had 2 mass shootings in
the last month or so from those terrorists, and only one from a ,Muslim
Terrorist. Doesn't that mean that Right
Wing Terrorists are twice as dangerous as Muslim Terrorists?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Although the worst act of
terror in this country came from Islamic Terrorists, let us never forget the
second worst, </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Oklahoma
City</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">, came from
a Right Wing anti-government terrorist.
We call Nidal Hassan, the Ft. Hood Shooter, a terrorist even though he
was an active duty officer in the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> military. In
fact, the Wikipedia page calls it the worst terrorist attack to ever take place
on a domestic military base.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Let's contrast that with the
</span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Charleston</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> shooting.
Dylan Roof was a self avowed Neo-Nazi, who literally confessed that he
staged the attack to start a race war.
The Wiki page on the attack asks whether it was a hate crime or a
terrorist attack and concludes that it was a hate crime.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And here, I have to ask,
WTF?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Starting a race war, ie
killing all non-whites, is simply a hate crime?
It is a terrorist attack, and also an act of sedition. Any action intended to start a Civil War, is,
by definition, an act of Sedition. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I'm going to digress for a
minute. Why is one event a crime, and
the other is a terrorist attack? I have
to be honest and state, one was done by a white guy, and the other by a
"non-white Muslim" (And yes, I
know, most Muslims are actually Caucasian by the anthropological definition,
but try explaining that to most Americans.
This is a country where the Irish used to be classified as a
"non-white" race.) I can't
deny racism and religious bigotry play into how we are classifying the two
attacks, and I'm not even going to try.
That is far beyond the scope of this post.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">To return to the point, the
Department of Homeland Security has said in the intelligence </span><span style="color: #0000ee; font-family: Arial;"><u>assessment</u></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of </span><st1:date day="20" month="2" year="2015"><span style="font-family: Arial;">February 20,
2015</span></st1:date><span style="font-family: Arial;">, that Right Wing Terror
Groups are the single biggest security threat that we face on American
Soil. (Other organizations are very
dangerous abroad, but not inside this country.)
In fact they estimate 24 attacks by "sovereign citizen groups"
since 2010. And we can add at least 2
more shooting rampages in just the last month, plus the 8 Black Churches that
have been burnt, bringing the total number of attacks to 34 in less than five
years. If you do the math, that averages
to 7 Right Wing Terrorist Attacks in this country per year in the last five
years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">For comparison, there have
been 15 attacks by Muslim Terrorists in this country in the same period. And, to cite sources, that number comes from
an <a href="http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm">Anti-Muslim group</a> that wants all Muslims removed from the country, so that
number is not going to be purged in any way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This means that just like in
the last month, historically, over the last 5 years, there have been TWICE as
many terrorist attacks from Right Wingers in this country as there have from
Muslims. I think it is apparent which
group is actually more likely to go on a rampage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So again, I ask the
question, "Where are all the calls to lock up all Right Wingers,
especially those that espouse Neo-Nazi, anti-government, or sovereign citizen
beliefs?" Obviously, those groups
are even more dangerous than the Muslims.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But that is, simply put,
complete idiocy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">We can't paint with a broad
brush. You will never get safety by
arbitrarily locking up large segments of the population. Let's stop the rhetoric here. Imprisoning large groups of people on the
possibility that they MIGHT commit a crime is not only going to do nothing to
make us safer, it is a complete rape of the Constitution. The Constitution states unequivocally that
you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is a freedom that is guaranteed under
the bill of rights, along with the right to face your accuser, the right to a
trial and all of the other freedoms that our Founding Fathers established to
protect the minority from the Tyranny of the Majority. We haven't always been really good at
protecting these rights, but anyone who loves the Constitution should always
strive to become better and hold to it's principles more strongly. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Further, the actions of
someone with the same beliefs you have do not, under any circumstances,
establish YOUR guilt. Guilt by
association is not a legal precedent.
Also, it is one of the great fallacies that completely undermine a
debate position. I know a number of
people who hold extremely conservative beliefs, and they are no more a threat
to this country than the Muslim friends I have.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And as a point of historical
fact, the last times we got this hysterical about specific groups in this
country, we ended up with the McCarthy hearings of the 50's and the Japanese Internment of World War Two. It has
taken decades, but we have finally realized that both of those were atrocious
behavior on the part of the Government.
We have paid reparations, to the victims of both, but how can you mend
lives shattered? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So my point is, stop the
rhetoric. Accept that there will always
be a fringe element in all groups that will do horrifying things. Try to stop them through honest police work,
but don't eviscerate every single thing that generations of brave men and women
fought and died to protect, just because you are afraid.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Fear isn't worth losing your
soul over.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR3Yfim5y8lBdtXGWCZ-SF452834ipKpG35O22bcCIW2NRvUSpsylaY57iwDiPMEpEO5Ly-Q9BHSXpD4j18k8oLX5Kxt3TGEM9H6do3yP5T_7KjPUvtJQM6wduSZ5XtVtTmNH0FYfgeW15/s1600/War+on+Terror+Signs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="577" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR3Yfim5y8lBdtXGWCZ-SF452834ipKpG35O22bcCIW2NRvUSpsylaY57iwDiPMEpEO5Ly-Q9BHSXpD4j18k8oLX5Kxt3TGEM9H6do3yP5T_7KjPUvtJQM6wduSZ5XtVtTmNH0FYfgeW15/s640/War+on+Terror+Signs.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-50002153414891998002015-06-24T21:46:00.001-06:002015-06-24T21:46:33.179-06:00Mad As Hell <div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Liberal</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I am getting sick of the bullshit
lately on Facebook. I literally can't
open it anymore without seeing some attack on Liberals, claiming we are
un-American. Traitors. Evil. Post after post about how Liberals are
offended by the American Flag, offended by expecting people to work, and
offended by Christianity. How we hate everything "American."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And to this I have to say:
shut the fuck up.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I love my country. Every Liberal I know loves their
country. We can be disappointed in it,
want it to be better than it is, and be pissed off at the things it does, and still
love it. Stop beating us with the
traitor stick just because we don't agree with you. (And also, stop waving in our faces that the
Democrats were behind the Civil War. Of
course they were, we know that, but we also know that the two parties have
changed significantly since </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Lincoln</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Let me give you a brief of
my family history. My family has been
here since the 1650's. I have ancestors
who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. My family has fought in EVERY war </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> has been involved in, and has since before the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United States</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> was the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United States</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. They have
pioneered the West, and built cities in the East.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I had an uncle who was
immortalized in the Band of Brothers; he was the soldier who got shot in the
ass. My Grandfather sacrificed his lungs
and his health working in the shipyards during World War II. My father served in the A Shau valley, where
he earned a Bronze Star. And he wasn't
drafted, he signed up willingly as an enlisted man, and then went to college to
reenlist as on officer. Then, working
for the Department of Defense after retiring from a 20 year military career, he
was the arms negotiator for the Camp David Accords.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">On the Civilian front, My
great Aunt Winifred was one of the first Doctors to research a cure for Polio,
funded personally by Franklin Roosevelt.
My Great Uncle was the Vice President of Caterpillar Tractors. My mother served as a deputy Press
Secretary for two Governors, a </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Senator and a two </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Representatives.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And all of them, EVERY
SINGLE </span><st1:stockticker><span style="font-family: Arial;">ONE, as far back as we go in this country</span></st1:stockticker><span style="font-family: Arial;">, was a Liberal.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, I have to say, I'm sick
of it. Sick of being accused of being a
traitor, just because I believe in the Social Compact, Equality and Justice,
because I am sick to death of war, because I don't believe that apologizing for
atrocities committed by the government equals hatred for my country, because my
heart is torn apart every time I see a black man executed without trial by an
out of control police officer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But apparently, these views and beliefs are
no longer acceptable thoughts for a true American.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />So I'll tell you what is not acceptable, the Confederate Flag. It is a flag of treason. It is a symbol of hate, and in my opinion,
ANYONE who proudly flies it is a traitor to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. It's simple. It is a symbol of taking up arms against the
lawful government of this country, and of disdain for the US Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
But even more, what is not acceptable is the fetishization of rebellion and revolution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you hate an </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> that allows people like me to be citizens of this
country, please have your revolution, build camps and execute us all. We had a chance in this country to finally
start to move the dialog forward on the inherent racism of the Confederate
flag, and of the systemic discrimination that still plagues our country. We had a chance to come together as one nation and say, enough, no more. We had a chance to finally start healing the festering wound that has refused to heal for a hundred and fifty years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But what do we get? The
nincompoops on Fox not-news claiming the Charleston Terrorist Attack is not
racially motivated, but is better understood as an anti-Christian Crime,
perpetrated by a person who hates </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Yes he hates
</span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, in that he hates seeing a Black Man walk down the
street unbound and unshackled. We get a massive condemnation of any company that exercises their right to refuse to sell anything related to the Civil War. We get outrage that the left dares to be outraged by racism, discrimination and symbols of hate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I see the Right in this
country shred both the constitution and every single human dignity, while
claiming to be the only </span><st1:stockticker><span style="font-family: Arial;">TRUE</span></st1:stockticker><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Americans. I
see the Fundamentalists eviscerate the message of Jesus, all the while claiming
that "GOD HATES FAGS." I see
the Neo-Confederate traitors call for revolution, all the while screaming
"I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So I will put it out
there. If you don't think that I am a
good American, if you think I am damned to hell because of what I believe, if
you think this world would be better off if I was dead, then FUCKING DO IT.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Quit your whining, and pull
the GODDAMN trigger. Round us up and
stick us in those camps that you claim are being built to execute YOU. Have your Kristallnacht and your Reichstag
Fire to paint us as the enemy, and lock us into Ghettoes to prevent us from
committing race treason. And then live
with what you have done. Own it, revel
in it. You will get to write the
history to paint yourselves as the saviors of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America, and since we will all be dead, we won't be able to contradict you.</span></st1:place></st1:country-region></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">OR, SHUT THE FUCK UP, and
admit that even though we disagree, we can agree to do so, and still respect
each other. Work with us to heal the
wounds that have now bled for a century and a half. Admit that we care as passionate as you do
about this nation, and join with us to make the country better and
stronger. Meet us halfway, and we will
do the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The country stands at a
precipice like none since the Civil War, and just like then, our side cannot
stop what is coming. No matter how hard
we might try to change the course of the ship,
there's still a madman at the wheel trying to crash into the iceberg.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And if we do so, the whole
ship will sink, not just the liberal half. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The choice is in your hands.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTFXsHM5Zcumjh8vX-DQEgvdHSfo6rjhd31-mPj9YwTF-kUrnDVLOF4rf3xeeuPN999nGXNe9qh4Dkky0VxdAE9JOBQpySajsjhkD5U7UguSo5puGMWGGAZUADUrHEqPzaXKqX9BwOFhQ5/s1600/635707018267935743-062415indyWebOnly-confederate-flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTFXsHM5Zcumjh8vX-DQEgvdHSfo6rjhd31-mPj9YwTF-kUrnDVLOF4rf3xeeuPN999nGXNe9qh4Dkky0VxdAE9JOBQpySajsjhkD5U7UguSo5puGMWGGAZUADUrHEqPzaXKqX9BwOFhQ5/s640/635707018267935743-062415indyWebOnly-confederate-flag.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-56252679227531064522015-04-05T20:28:00.001-06:002015-04-05T20:28:52.654-06:00The Actual Facts Don't Matter<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Faith<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So today is Easter, and as
such we are subjected to an onslaught of news stories from two camps. The first group starts out with the headline
"10 Facts that Prove Jesus Never Existed." The second group's headlines claim
"Evidence of Jesus' Life Found."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Both sets of headlines are
complete bullshit. Further, both sides
completely miss the point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, before I address
that story, I need to address the issue of mythologization and how it relates
to the Jesus Myth. I also want to point
out here the actual meaning of "Myth," which means a story that
reveals a Truth, regardless of whether it is actually factual. In no way am I insulting Christianity by
claiming it to be a mythology. ALL
religions are mythologies because they reveal Truth, and define the method by
which Man is connected to Man, Man to Himself, and Man to God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Basically the process of
Mythologization, when it relates to an actual person goes through several
stages: heroism, villianization, propaganda tool, legend and finally myth.
(If you want a more complete description of these stages, please read my
blog post "The <a href="http://blog.cultofthedeadbirds.com/2012/05/deconstruction-of-falling-stars.html">Deconstruction of Falling Stars."</a>) I will briefly outline it here before
proceeding. Great and important people
start out as heroes, then typically at some point, often during their lives,
but also sometimes after their death.
This is an attempt to kill their message. This villianization often leads them to then
become a propaganda tool, either in a positive or a negative manner. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This propaganda begins to
detach the real person from their message and their ideology. It can be used negatively to become a symbol
of despite, or it can be used positively, as a paradigm to illustrate. In either case, the person's actual message
gets twisted to fit a very specific end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">After propaganda comes
legend, when the actual person is subsumed by the propaganda. The individual is no longer even able to be
separated from the story. Further, their
name becomes a metaphor for an entire concept.
Think of what the name Robin Hood evokes; it creates very specific
concept for anyone who knows the legend..
At this stage, we know a story about the person, but we have very few
facts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The final stage is
mythologization, where the person becomes symbolic of not just an idea, but an
entire ideology. At this stage, all
facts are lost, not because they are forgotten, but because they are no longer
important. Hence the fact that the
Gospels all tell a different story about the life of Jesus. It does not matter that they can't be
reconciled, because the facts are utterly unimportant. What has become the prime mover is the
concepts and the ideas that found the myth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Which now brings me to the
point of this post. The actual fact of
Jesus does not matter. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I know this sounds radical,
and probably offensive to many people, but let me explain. Faith is either obliterated or strengthened
by fact, but not in the way that people expect.
In fact, proof that Jesus never lived will do nothing but strengthen the
faith of Christians. Similarly, proof
that Jesus lived will kill the religion, because of the actual nature of faith.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So first, let's look at the
"Jesus Was Not Real" side.
Many people on the atheist side believe very strongly that they can kill
Christianity by proving that there was no actual Jesus, and he was created out
of whole cloth by a bunch of first century writers. Their point is, "if it can be proven
that Christianity is founded on a falsehood, essentially a 2000 year old lie,
that it will rapidly fall apart. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Before I address why this
view is incorrect, I will grant that they have a number of strong facts in
their favor. There is no actual historic
record of Jesus in the way that we have of Muhammad. You would think for all of his revolutionary
preaching, he would have been at least mentioned in Roman records, or possibly
in Greek or Egyptian accounts of the region.
Even if he isn't named, it stands to reason that such a charismatic
person would have drawn the attention of someone outside of </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Judea</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Add to this all of the
contradictions found in the Bible, and the fact that, when you read the Gospels
and Paul chronologically, the story of the Life of Jesus becomes increasingly
elaborate and fantastic. And just to
state, the actual order chronologically is: all of Paul, in the 50's; Mark, in
the 60's; Matthew, in the 70's; Luke, no earlier than the 80's and possibly as
late as 110; and John, written between 90's and 150. The conflicts and contradictions show that
much of the Bible was written legend and story, not first hand accounts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, in the interest of
fairness, there are some rebuttals to these points. First, it was not a mass media world, and
very few people wrote anything. What was
written and preserved was generally the most important things. A rebellious leader of a small sect in an
very troublesome province of the Empire probably wouldn't warrant a lot of
accounts. For all we know, the Governor
of Judea sent weekly reports to the Emperor that have been lost to time. The Romans would not have had any reverence
for Jesus, and would not have seen any reason to preserve any missives about
him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Also, the conflicts in the
Books of the Bible are also not any sort of proof, as almost all serious
Biblical Scholars recognize this, and do not feel that there is any sort of a
problem with the facts not aligning.
They understand that the New Testament was written many years after
Jesus, by a number of different authors, and for very different political and
religious purposes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">For example, Matthew was
written for a congregation mixed between Jews and Gentiles, and therefore
Matthew 20:9 "And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour
they received every man a denarius..." refers to the dissention of how
could people who were not Jewish and came to Jesus late should receive the same
heavenly reward.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Now to return to the point,
that if the atheists can prove there was no Jesus, it will kill the religion,
and by extension, destroy the idea of religiosity. This actually is not how the brain
works. First of all, neuroscientists are
discovering that faith and belief is hardwired into the human brain. In other words, even if by some chance we
destroyed Christianity, another faith would spring up to take its place. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But beyond that, there is
another quirk in the human psyche. If
you attack a person's deeply held belief, you don't kill it, you actually make
it stronger. It is essentially a human
reflex, and the more the belief is attacked, the more intransigent it
becomes. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">An interesting aside to this
is a study done a number of years ago with medical students. The devoutly religious students counted
different numbers of ribs for men and women, and no matter how many times it
was tried to prove to them that there is actually no difference, they could not
count the same number of ribs on male and female skeletons. The more the researchers pushed, the more
angry and distraught the religious students became.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, in the end, the more
that people try to disprove the existence of a historical Jesus, the stronger
the belief in Him becomes for the Faithful.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This leads to the other
situation where Biblical Archeologists work very hard to prove the actual
existence of the "real" Jesus.
They discover Ossuaries, uncover buildings and other artifacts or proofs
of Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, these actions are
completely antithetical to faith.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Faith is founded in a belief
that transcends facts. In fact, faith is
destroyed by proof, because once there is proof, faith becomes fact. Further, once something becomes fact, all of
the mystery and discussion dies. There
might still be respect and reverence, but something essential has left the
picture. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It illustrate this, lets
examine how kings and queens are treated.
Queen Elizabeth is a fact. We know she is real, that she exists outside
of the stories about her in books and papers.
Many people revere the Queen, they respect her and consider her a symbol
for everything British. But that is
where it ends. They do not worship her,
and if they invoke her in prayer, it is to ask for her to be blessed, not to
ask for Her blessing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this goes further
back. I am not trying to offend anyone,
but Muhammad was an actual historical figure.
There are many accounts of his life written contemporaneously with his
time on this planet. There are also many
legends that were later attributed to him, but he is a unique religious figure
(in the West at least) in that there are many known facts about him. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Now, while the Muslims
revere him, and hold him in the highest esteem, they do not actually pray to
him. (And you question this, or think I am being
offensive, please read <a href="http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MSC01&articleID=MSC010002&articlePages=1">this Salafi webpage </a>on this) The Muslims worship only Allah, and recognize
that Muhammad was a man and a prophet.
And on a side note, they believe that Jesus was also a prophet, not
himself Divine. Further, this was a
belief held by many Gnostic Sects, and a number of early Christian communities.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But the point is, it is all
but impossible to worship fact. You can
revere it, and hold it in the highest esteem, but when a person becomes fact,
their nature fundamentally changes. If
Jesus were proven to be fact, much of the text of the New Testament would come
into question, especially the miracles and other direct manifestations of God's
power through His Son.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If he was proven to be a
real person, and, for example, his bones recovered, the Resurrection would
become, in the best case, metaphor. In
the worst case, it would become a grand Santa Claus lie in many peoples' eyes. In any case, the underpinning of faith that
is the necessary foundation of religion and myth would be undermined.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Because of this, the
conversation of whether Jesus was actually "real" not is
irrelevant. Jesus transcends fact. The truth is that the religion founded in His
name completely altered the course of the ancient world, and has been a
positive influence in the lives of many for almost 2000 years. It has also been the cause of many deaths and
much horror. The actual facts of His
life are not really important, no more than they are in any myth. The myth IS the meaning.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But in the end, if the
Atheists want to kill Christianity, they should be trying to prove that Jesus
was real, and if the Christians want to make their faith even stronger, they
should be trying to prove Jesus never was an actual person.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And that is yet another
perfect irony.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguBL6joq_MLbGoKCYaXn5iSqO_8HhcfwuW8Syqt7lsVb8g5q7M9YeOUbBgSuyzCtNri31_1MENnVomxsacPBWujmeDVCfAtaYWdwVow3un0SX_lY1qynW3N0CFfcBNbWx9k6AL8TygEh-L/s1600/ss-100401-cagle-easter-19.ss_full.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguBL6joq_MLbGoKCYaXn5iSqO_8HhcfwuW8Syqt7lsVb8g5q7M9YeOUbBgSuyzCtNri31_1MENnVomxsacPBWujmeDVCfAtaYWdwVow3un0SX_lY1qynW3N0CFfcBNbWx9k6AL8TygEh-L/s1600/ss-100401-cagle-easter-19.ss_full.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-39079476937487488942014-12-27T23:02:00.000-07:002014-12-27T23:02:54.911-07:00The Most Selfish Generation<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Boomers</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This morning I read a an
interesting thread on Reddit that started as a discussion of the decline of
teen pregnancy, but ended as a Millennial Generation rant against Baby
Boomers. In this thread, almost every
contributor shared a story about how their parents called them lazy, selfish,
and entitled. There were also a number
of posts about how the Millennials have "ruined this country." To this section of posts, the replies were
almost universal that it was actually the Boomers who wrecked the nation. This was an interesting point, and one which
I want to explore in a bit more depth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I should take a moment and
note here, that I am writing this as a person who is solidly in the middle of
Generation X. We are an odd and
relatively small generation sandwiched between the massive Boomers and the even
more massive Millennials. We, for the
most part, have been a quiet generation.
We whine and complain, but for the most part, we do what is expected of
us. We don't make waves, and we really
have never had much political lout. We
had a lot of cultural influence, but in terms of real power, we never had that
much. This is in contrast to the
generations to either side of us, which had both cultural and political clout.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Gen X'ers, are the products
of a similarly small and quiet generation called the Silent Generation. The Silent Generation was unusually small
because the combination of World War I and the Spanish Flu decimated the population
and this was followed by the financial meltdown of the Great Depression, which
made having a large family unaffordable.
Then to top it off for that generation, they were completely
overshadowed by the Baby Boom of the 1950's, to the point where many of the
members of this generation don't even know where they belong, the older ones
think of themselves as part of the "Greatest Generation" and the
younger ones think they are Boomers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this returns me to my
point, when the Baby Boomers came along, the entire cultural axis of the world
shifted to accommodate them. This shift
is understandable. Their parents were
steeped in the horror that was World War II, they saw atrocities the likes of
which had not been seen before, or thankfully, since. And after they returned from that nightmare,
they were set on making sure their kids never experienced that sort of pain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And in doing this, they made
their children the centers of their universes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This was the birth of the
profession of "child psychology" and, led by Dr. Spock, children
became "special and unique snowflakes." Disciplining your children
was out, letting them explore their creativity was in. Austerity was no longer the rule when it came
to toys, lavish playrooms became the norm.
And probably the most important, benign indifference ceased to be the
standard in child care, now, heavy involvement became the expectation. For the Boomers, it was typically just the
mother that was heavily involved in the children's lives, because the father still
maintained the traditional breadwinner role, but even back in the 50's fathers
were expected to be more involved, coaching little league, going to
parent/teacher conferences, and, as shown in "Father Knows Best,"
fixing all of the problems in the family.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And that created, in the
children, an expectation that their every whim would be responded to. Not necessarily accommodated, that didn't
come until later, but they still knew that their voice was going to be
heard. I do want to say, this isn't
necessarily a bad thing, it is just that it was taken to extremes with the
Boomers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Another important cultural
shift that occurred at this time was the birth of Randianism. Ayn Rand's books were becoming a cultural
touchstone for many. Atlas Shrugged was being treated as reverentially as the
Bible in the circles of the intelligentsia, and this book enshrined selfishness
as a cultural positive. When this was
coupled with children who were never really told no, it created a force majeure
in society; people who believed that they were the most important things in
their own lives, and that nothing mattered except the "self."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The beginning of the
impactful pole shift started in the Sixties with the Vietnam War. The Boomers turned out en-masse to protest
the war. I do want to state here, that </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Vietnam</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> was pointless and horrific, and many of the
protesters were motivated by that, but to a large part, many of the protesters
were against the war because they didn't want to go. They were motivated by selfishness, and a
legitimate desire to not die in the jungles of </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Asia</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I know this doesn't seem to
fit with the myth that we are told about the sixties, that the Hippies wanted
peace, civil rights, and flowers, but it is much closer to the truth. For the most part, there were two separate
civil unrest movements in the Sixties, the Civil Rights Movement, which was
bracketed by he Watts Riots of 1965 and the Detroit Riots of 1967, and the
Anti-War Protests which climaxed in 1972.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Civil Right protests,
although containing a fair number of whites, were primarily organized and
populated by the African-American Community.
In general, white </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> either protested in support or against the Civil
Rights Movement, but on the whole, this battle was won by the black community
and by a group of lawmakers who supported the changes to the laws. Also, by the time that the Baby Boomers
really started to come of age in 1968, significant progress had been made in
this movement, schools were beginning to be integrated, Jim Crow and the Poll
Tax had been eliminated, and, most importantly, the massive Civil Rights act of
1964 was the law of the land. Although
equal rights remains a problem today, after the death of Martin Luther King Jr,
the nation's attention on the issue began to wane.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">On the other hand, the
Anti-War protests were really just beginning in 1968. This was the point when the war was really
heating up, after the Tet Offensive of 67, and when public opinions of the war
were beginning to change. This was the
age of "one, two, three, four! We don't want your fucking war!" and
"Hell no, we won't go!" While
the Boomers had been on the periphery of the Civil Rights Movement, they were
at the heart of the Anti-War Protests.
Further, they had learned from the Civil Rights Movement how much public
demonstrations and even riots can effect change.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But at the core, the
protests were against the draft and conscription, not against the war
itself. This can be seen from the fact
that after the draft ended in 1973, so did most of the mass protests. In this, Richard Nixon was correct, end the
draft and you will end the demonstrations. The Boomers had successfully agitated to
achieve their own ends, which was the right to vote at 18 and an end to forced
military service. Although this goal
served society as a whole, it served to reinforce the idea that what the
Boomers wanted, the Boomers got.
Basically, they threw a massive national tantrum and changed the law and
a century of public policy of national service.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But it didn't stop
there. As the Boomers came of age, they
began to redefine the family and family ties.
Free love, polyamory, swinging and ultimately divorce entered the public
discourse. Where before, adultery was a
public shame and divorce indicated a failure of the people involved, now they
became normalized and more or less accepted.
The last gasp of this what when Bill Clinton could screw an intern in
the Oval Office and watch his poll numbers go up, not down.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Again, I am not saying that
there wasn't good in this. Sex was no
longer a dirty and shameful thing, and people could get out of abusive
situations with dignity, but the positive aspects of these transformations was
not the driving influence. Driving it
was the desire of the Boomers to have whatever they wanted. If they were board in their marriage, they
wanted a "get out of jail free" card.
If they wanted their secretary or their pool boy, they could have them,
without social shame, and even more, with a certain cachet that they were
sophisticated and modern. Again, it
should be noted that the Boomers had the highest divorce rate of any
generation, and among the generations that bracket them, the divorce rate has
remained lower. In fact, among the Gen
X'ers, the divorce rate is below the national overall rates. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The next wave of the Boomers
transformation of society was arguably a very bad thing for the nation as a
whole. Unlike the earlier movements that
spawned positive social progress, the next actions would turn back the clock
with the "Regan Revolution."
Once the Boomers were settled into their comfortable middle class adult
lives, they decided that they no longer liked taxes. They began to say, "if you are a
Republican when you are twenty, you have no heart, and if you are a Democrat at
age 40, you have no brain." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">As the edge of the Boomers
entered the 80's, they became caught up in the Regan Trickle Down
Economics. Again, this was not because
of facts (the Laffer Curve was rattled off on a cocktail napkin) it was because
they wanted to keep more for themselves.
Suddenly, they no longer cared about a social safety net, helping the
poor or anything else, they just wanted more for themselves. The movie "Wall Street" became an
instruction manual as opposed to a cautionary tale. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Step by step, throughout the
80's the young guns, led by people like Karl Rove began to dismantle
institutions that had existed since the Depression. All of the protections that were put in place
after the Crash of 29 were lifted, and Wall Street again returned to a free
wheeling casino. And this made the
Boomers rich.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">They even subverted the
teachings of the Christian Church to validate their selfish worldview. The Prosperity Gospel is a product of the
Boomers, and teaches that God wants you to be rich, and if you are not rich, then
you are evil and God has turned His Grace from you. This way, they can feel smugly satisfied with
their own goodness as they look at all they have.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But rather than follow in
their parent's footsteps and sacrifice for their children and for their
futures, they piled on loan debt on their kids while they vacationed in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Belize</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. The Boomers
have the lowest rate of savings of the modern era, and the highest debt, while
still raking in the bulk of the wages.
(And in this, Gen X again exceed the previous generation, investing in
401K plans, IRA's and generally being pretty frugal.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Further, unlike previous
generations, the Boomers have declined to step off of center stage and allow
the youth to begin to take the reigns.
They cling to jobs, locking younger people out of lucrative
careers. They insist on remaining the
target demographic, leading the TV to be filled with ads for Viagra and Lexuses
rather than ads for diapers and Priuses.
And ironically, the generation that got its start on the public stage
protesting war became the biggest cheerleaders for perpetual war.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And most importantly, they continued
to dominate the national discourse, as they have since they were about 20. The older generations are patted on the head
and treated like they are demented, and the younger generations are told to
shut up because they don't know how the world works. They dominate all of the discussions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And that brings us to the
modern era. The world is shifting with
the election of Barack Obama. For the
first time in their lives, a man was elected President without the majority of
them supporting him. Suddenly a broad
coalition of "others" elected someone who they did not want as
President. Even worse, he isn't completely one of them. Being born in 1961, he is on the cusp between
the Boomers and Gen X, with as many experiences in common with the X'ers as he
has with the Boomers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And what followed was the
biggest tantrum that the Boomers have ever thrown. You have 60 year old women on TV screaming
and crying "I want my country back."
You have major politicians claiming the President is literally an
illegal alien. You have Tea Partiers
shutting down the government to get their way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If they can't run things the
way THEY want them run, then they will destroy everything. It doesn't matter if the country is ruined,
they would rather see it completely collapse before they will let the power
shift from their hands.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this is the biggest
caution I can give, power WILL pass from their hands; each generation has it's
hour on the stage and then is heard no more.
The question is, what will they do when the power passes from them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Based on what we have see so
far, it will not be pretty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Wlp9uokDO1vXKUz7HZlYg6jXYnYWgBO1EVWiS5j_epN7LG510qSLrmlGEyj_S5Gfzkd_wPzhyphenhyphen3sz07MrFqpy_OqdLlbQuy_WW3ZUOx-H_oB0R6oTu41-AbrzcWQug-oWJ4RURGvZlquk/s1600/BabyBoomerCartoonFull.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Wlp9uokDO1vXKUz7HZlYg6jXYnYWgBO1EVWiS5j_epN7LG510qSLrmlGEyj_S5Gfzkd_wPzhyphenhyphen3sz07MrFqpy_OqdLlbQuy_WW3ZUOx-H_oB0R6oTu41-AbrzcWQug-oWJ4RURGvZlquk/s1600/BabyBoomerCartoonFull.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-27294368081424443142014-12-16T01:18:00.001-07:002014-12-16T01:18:44.689-07:00The Man Behind the Curtain Has His Own Agenda<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Syndicates<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Right now, the real danger
of monopolies and trade syndicates is on display. OPEC has refused to cut oil production, which
is driving down prices. This is, on the
surface at least, a very good thing. It
is good for my pocketbook, and good for the pocketbooks of every struggling
American in this era of rising income inequality. It is going to curtail inflation, keep
interest rates low, fuel construction (pardon the pun) and a number of other
things that will help the lower classes, and disadvantaged countries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Unfortunately, this action
is not occurring for benevolent purposes, it is happening for the most cynical
and selfish of reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you dig deeper into
economic policy, you see that this is a deliberate strategy to cripple emergent
industries and to maintain hegemony.
While it is not being done to commit deliberate evil, the ultimate
results will do nothing but strengthen the hold OPEC has on the nations of the
world. Further, at the end of this path,
these low prices that we are enjoying will skyrocket, because that is the
effect of a commercial syndicate when they have achieved market dominance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">To understand why this is
occurring, you need to look at two important things that are altering the
landscape of the fossil fuel industry.
The first thing is more or less a short term impact, the second is a
much more sweeping change that will permanently alter the energy sector if it continues.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First is the significant
exploitation of the Alberta Tar Sands.
(I want to note here, that I am not in favor of this project. It is an environmental horror that SHOULD be
stopped. In this piece, however, I am
exploring the economics, not the ethics of this project.) The Alberta Tar sands have shifted the
balance of fossil fuel extraction to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Canada</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, making North </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> both a net exporter of petroleum and the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html">USA</a></span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html"> the top producer of oil</a>. And yes, we even beat </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Saudi Arabia</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Also </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Russia</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, which, if you dig into the Ukraine Crisis, there
are probably petroleum undercurrents in that conflict as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">To be blunt, if the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">USA</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is the world's number one oil producer, it
dramatically changes the authority that OPEC has held since the 1970's. Then, the OPEC oil embargo collapsed
economies, brought down a presidency, and led to a decade of stagflation. Now, an OPEC tantrum would be problematic
instead of a crisis. It might cause
difficulty in some parts of the world, but the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> would weather the storm, at least while the Tar
Sands deposits can still be harvested profitably.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The second change is much
more significant. Country after country
is transitioning to a fully renewable energy grid. Right now, the German region of Schleswig-Holstein
is on target to be <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/25/german-state-100-percent-renewable-energy/">100% renewable by the end of the year</a>, with all of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=99&nr=24&menu=1449">Germany</a></span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/earth/denmark-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-energy.html">Denmark</a></span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/earth/denmark-aims-for-100-percent-renewable-energy.html"> </a>to be there no later than the year 2050. Even though that goal is 35 years away, the
infrastructure is beginning to be put in place now to achieve that end. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Even in the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, where there is much less institutional support for
eco-friendly energy, utility companies are now suffering economic losses due to
rooftop solar. This loss is spurring
American energy companies to also act to the same ends that I will be outline
shortly. The only difference is they are
not depending on market pressure, they are just outright legislating an end to
renewable energy. (Which is ironic,
because the controlled economies of OPEC are using the free market, while the
"capitalist" bastion of the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United States</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is depending on market controls to maintain energy
hegemonies. More on this later in this
post.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So taken together, the power
of OPEC is likely going to be eviscerated if these trends continue. We have already passed a point of no return,
at least right now, because, as I stated earlier, an Embargo would no longer
have the desired effect. In fact, it
would likely hasten the collapse of the petroleum regime. If they tried to cut us off, it would do
nothing but spur more development of Oil Shale and Tar Sands, and also expand
the push for renewables.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So how do they combat this
shift? Unleash the power of the market.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This is, by the way, the
same tactic used by Wal-Mart and Amazon to crush their competitors, just
written on a global scale. Wal-Mart
crushed local businesses by moving into small (and not so small) towns and
underselling all of the competition.
They could afford to take massive losses while they monopolized the
market, making them up through volume and from distribution of profits from
areas where they already had complete market control. Local businesses could not afford to run at a
loss for months or possibly years, and so they folded, ceding the market to a
single retailer. Amazon is still doing
this, and has yet to turn any real profits while they are exterminating all competition. They are even going after Wal-Mart, because
in the end, Wal-Mart will have to pay for brick and mortar stores that have to
be constructed, maintained, powered and staffed. In the end, they will not be able to compete
with a website, and the mighty retail giant will go the way of Montgomery Ward
and Sears.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But to return to the point,
OPEC has a vested interest in killing off the upstarts. In this case, it is almost as if Wal-Mart,
sensing what Amazon was about to do to them, turned the tables, and made sure
that Amazon was bankrupted before it could execute its master plan. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In the beginning of a market
shift, the old players hold all of the cards.
They also have two ways to fight back.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">One is through regulation
and closing of the market via legislation.
This, by the way, is the tactic that the Koch brothers are employing, by
getting states to take actions like that in </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Florida</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">, where, at this point, <a href="http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/09/florida-makes-off-grid-living-illegal-mandates-all-homes-must-be-connected-to-an-electricity-grid/">living off the grid isessentially illegal</a>, and it is <a href="http://tbo.com/news/politics/deck-stacked-against-renewable-energy-in-florida-environmentalist-say-20141130/">worthless to try to go solar</a>. Coal companies are also trying this, to make
it difficult to convert or replace coal fired power plants. By making it harder and harder to change the
paradigm, they hope to stick the energy sector in amber and preserve their
market share.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Interestingly, this action
is something that both the Far Right and the broad Left agree on; there are as
many <a href="http://www.offthegridnews.com/2013/09/05/a-survivalists-dream-dropping-out-of-society/">survivalists who are moving toward off the grid living</a> as there are
eco-warriors. When a broad spectrum of
the American population agrees on a course, the people who are trying to
legislate it into submission are generally going to lose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But, in the end, OPEC has no
power to alter governmental policy, at least on the global scale. Therefore, they must fall back on a
quasi-market solution. And that solution
is to run the competition out of business.
This is a quasi-market solution because it is a corruption of the
"free market" of Adam Smith.
In this case, a syndicate is functioning as if it were a monopoly
because it is moving in lockstep. If any
one of the members were to buckle, the scheme would collapse. However, at this point, that seems unlikely.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, in the end, what is
going on is that OPEC is making all their competition unprofitable. The Tar Sands, and even more Oil Shale,
require a certain market price to be economically viable to launch. There has to be a massive investment of
capital into the infrastructure needed to even begin to extract the
petroleum. If there isn't a clear
indication of profitability, the investment capital will dry up or go elsewhere,
possibly back to OPEC countries where most of the infrastructure and technology
has been developed, and all that is needed is expansion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Keystone Pipeline is a
massive boondoggle for environmental reasons and because it will only produce a
<a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/10/van-jones/cnns-van-jones-says-keystone-pipeline-only-creates/">handful of permanent jobs</a>, but that isn't the issue here. OPEC is going to kill off the project
economically, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/oil-keystone-xl-113551.html">by making it so unprofitable that no one will invest in it</a>. As I said before, you have to have a certain
expectation of return on investment, and if that threshold can't be met, no one
will put money into it. They don't
expect a guaranteed return, but if it is unlikely to turn a profit in the
foreseeable future, the money will be invested elsewhere.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And further, OPEC is doing
this to all of the North American oil production. The new oil fields here are either going to
cost a lot of develop, or they will cost a lot to extract. Tar Sands and Oil Shale are not easy to get,
and require a high oil price to be viable.
If OPEC can suppress those prices long enough to drive the upstarts out
of business, they guarantee market dominance for themselves. Once the companies pull out of </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Alberta</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">, and other areas, it will take a decade to crank it
back up, and that is only if people think that the past won't be repeated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">On the longer horizon, high oil
prices make people more interested in renewables. When gas was pushing $5.00 a gallon, </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Toyota</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> couldn't keep Priuses on their car lots. They sold as soon as they came in. As oil prices have dropped, sales of hybrids
have declined. People aren't as concerned
about gas mileage when gas is cheap.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Similarly, when energy costs
are high, wind and PV are very appealing, but when they are low, people don't
see a return on their investment. Low
electricity and gas costs mean that the PV array will never pay for itself;
high costs mean a rapid return. And as
with the oil field development, if you kill the viability of renewable energy
infrastructure, it will take a long time to ramp it back up, and that is only
if people don't think it is a losing proposition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
And now we get to the final horror of how a cartel executes the killing
stroke. They kill off their competition
by driving them into bankruptcy with low prices that they can't match. Once the viable competition is gone, the
prices go back through the roof, because the possibility of an upstart that
could compete is gone. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this game will continue,
lather, rinse, repeat, until no one challenges the hegemony.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I'm not saying here that we
should be pushing the domestic oil production, because it is a dead end
road. What I am saying is that we need
to fight back to preserve the renewable industry. Only the government has the resources, and
the lack of profit motive, to fight back against the cartel and break it. By subsidizing the renewable energy market to
the point that OPEC can't compete, we will do to the oil industry what Wal-Mart
did to the local businesses.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In the end, subverting the
free market will actually open it wide.
And that is the greatest irony of all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja1EoBy7GRHpC5dkS9_B6mAMCJkl-eV-e75Zkv7TI1-ihMYk-cWBxTcm0TTtHWn73M-pPo06mbagEFy0Z39-t63z_0fCxk7eGKa2LsduuNNxeqTXyfo7w3LCAX2TiVz-f-3IJOi9TIau7R/s1600/color-oil-drop-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja1EoBy7GRHpC5dkS9_B6mAMCJkl-eV-e75Zkv7TI1-ihMYk-cWBxTcm0TTtHWn73M-pPo06mbagEFy0Z39-t63z_0fCxk7eGKa2LsduuNNxeqTXyfo7w3LCAX2TiVz-f-3IJOi9TIau7R/s1600/color-oil-drop-web.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-14156544203649465022014-12-02T22:32:00.001-07:002014-12-02T22:32:46.721-07:00Know Of What You Speak<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Epistomology</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The first and most important thing that should be taught in schools, and that is no longer discussed, is epistemology, i.e. the science of "how do you know what you know." More and more on facebook, I am seeing completely inflammatory posts, designed to outrage people into taking one side or another.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is why epistemology is essiential. before sharing that crap, do some research, from legitimate sources (and FYI, Buzzfeed, The Drudge Report, or the Daily KOS are not legitimate sources, they have a political agenda.) Find out who is behind the information, and if they have an iron in the fire. Find out if there are facts to back it up.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The most appalling one I saw recently was a statistic that "82 million American soldiers died to defend this flag." Until the middle of the 20th century, there weren't even 82 million people in this country, let alone, 82 million who died. The entire casualty count from WW2 was somewhere around 12 million, and that includes the deaths in the Concentration Camps. US deaths were only a small fraction of the casualties. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The deadliest war for Americans was the Civil War, which had more soldier deaths than all of the other wars America fought in COMBINED. The total number of dead in that war came to about a million. Therefore, 82 million is total BS, even 8.2 million is BS. Also, since the South was not figthing to defend the American Flag, they can't be counted either. A lot of brave soldiers have died to defend this country, but not that many.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And that is the point. You need to know what you are saying is true before you spout in on FB, or anywhere else.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Also, don't fall for the BS that every story has two sides. Facts are facts, and if the story is about facts, there will not be two sides. To go back to the Civil War, there is no actual controversy about why it was fought, it was fought about slavery. Period. Not about states rights, not about the government, just about the fact that some people felt that it was their God given right to own other people. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How do I know this?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have read the statements of the people involved at the start of the war, Robert E Lee, Abraham Lincoln, and others. They make the reasons for the war VERY clear. They state clearly that it was about slavery. Any other idea is just twisting the story to a specific end.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Similarly, there is no question about these things: we landed on the Moon, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, Global Warming is real, and the Earth is round.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyone who wants to dispute these actual facts is living in a world of invention and fantasy. You can shoot lasers at the mirrors we left on the moon, you can see the meticulous records of the Nazis, you can talk to any ACTUAL climate scientist, and you can get on an airplane and look at the horizon. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is the core of epistemology: how do you know what you know? If you can't answer that, then you don't actually know what you are talking about.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuuFP53xU_EYQfyhcwEtQvtXWCeTFzzcfHmD5ZvmgOELUIi-3HSDAdnIYvqagyw3RB4mBJ1U0ilHWwS08VlUAMMXSZPmPNZ_-JMCzly326X65dgd73DAgoVC9TJZELv7xldBVGdlwkcFpH/s1600/blog-cartoon.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuuFP53xU_EYQfyhcwEtQvtXWCeTFzzcfHmD5ZvmgOELUIi-3HSDAdnIYvqagyw3RB4mBJ1U0ilHWwS08VlUAMMXSZPmPNZ_-JMCzly326X65dgd73DAgoVC9TJZELv7xldBVGdlwkcFpH/s1600/blog-cartoon.JPG" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-43774903202832415232014-11-23T01:25:00.000-07:002014-11-23T01:25:08.236-07:00A Modest Healthcare Proposal<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Insurance<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I have seen a number of
posts over the last few days about Obamacare and the personal mandate,
basically since the enrollment period opened.
People bitching that they are forced to buy insurance against their
will. Saying that being required to buy
something is un-American. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Not only is this attitude
wrong, but it screws over the hard-working people who want to do the right
thing and not be a burden on society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Here's the thing, unless you
are independently wealthy and able to cover your medical bills out of pocket,
the rest of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> has to subsidize your refusal to pay for insurance. OUR medical bills go up because you can't
pay. You declare bankruptcy, and then
every single one of your creditors has to eat the bills that you have run
up. These bills don't just go away
because you can't pay them. Therefore,
everyone needs to buy insurance so that they can get treated and the bills don't
devolve on the rest of us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This is how insurance works:
the risk pool gets spread around.
Healthy people subsidize the sick, and the cost evens out. This is actually how a free-market survives
in any area, the risk gets spread around so that no single person or entity has
to bear the full weight of risk. This is
the economics that underpin the stock market, by the way. A large group of investors each buys a
segment of a company, so that no single person holds all of the risk. Also, the individual buys stock in many
different companies, so that if one tanks, all of their eggs aren't in one
basket.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But back to insurance. A health care insurance system full of sick
people will go bankrupt, quickly. This
is the motive behind raising the Medicare Eligibility, to completely bankrupt
the system. You see, Medicare depends on
the relatively healthy 65 to 70 year olds, so that the older, sicker people can
be treated. If you raise the age for
Medicare, you shrink the pool of healthy people subsidizing the sick, and the
system fails because the outflow is less than the inflow. It is simple economics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But, I hear you say, it
isn't fair that healthy people have to subsidize the sick. I'm sorry, but that's how it works. In that case, it isn't fair that people who
don't have a house fire have to pay out for the people who do. It also isn't fair that a person with a
perfect driving record has to pay for someone who gets into accidents. But, that is how the system works. Further, in this country, in order to drive,
you have to buy auto insurance. If you
don't, in most states, you face immense fines and probable jail time. So even the argument that you can't be forced
to buy insurance is already false. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">For decades, people have
been forced to buy insurance. If you
want to drive, you must have auto insurance, at least liability. If you don't, you can't buy a car, get a car
licensed or anything else like that. If
you don't buy homeowners insurance, you can't get a mortgage. The entire system is built on spreading risk
through insurance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And health insurance is no
different. The number of people who have
no insurance is the major reason why health care in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is the most expensive in the world. It isn't malpractice suits, it isn't even
corporate profits, it is the fact that vast numbers of people who walk into a
hospital can't pay.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">For example. my childhood
best friend John didn't have health insurance.
Even though he had a good job, it wasn't a great job. He could pay his rent, and eat and even have
a bit of fun, but health insurance was not possible. He couldn't afford it. One day, he got a back ache that wouldn't go
away. After suffering for a few weeks,
the pain go so intense, he went to the ER.
It turns out he had very late stage cancer. He died a week later. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, this isn't about
how he could have been saved if he had insurance. I have
no idea on that. This is about the fact
that for one week in the hospital in intensive care, he racked up about
$150,000.00 in debts. The hospital's
bill collectors then went after John's mother as his next of kin. They filed lawsuits against her, tried to
garnish her wages, and ultimately forced her into bankruptcy. I understand that they should not be able to
do this, and it was probably illegal.
But because she also couldn't afford a lawyer, she would up in that situation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Regardless, someone had to
eat the $150,000.00 bill John left behind.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And that was all of the
people who went to that hospital after John died. His unpaid bill was amortized across the rest
of the hospital billings. Each person
who went there had to pay a small amount of John 's unpaid bill. No one ever say it, because there isn't a
line item for that, but they still saw cost increases in their bills, because
the hospital wasn't going to eat that cost.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And that isn't because they
were being cruel or mean or anything else, it is because there are hundreds and
thousands of "John's" in American hospitals every day. Now we could debate the appropriateness of a
"for profit" health care system that must make money to satisfy the
investors, but really this is the system we are stuck with. (And if you think the screaming about
Obamacare is bad, just imagine what would happen if the government nationalized
the entire medical profession.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So in the end, in order to
make health care remotely affordable, and to be able to allow everyone who has
pre-existing health problems to get health care, everyone has to buy it. You see, health care is a utility. We don't think of it that way, but it
is. Just like fresh water, it is a
service everyone needs. You can opt out
of it, but if you do, then you are forced to figure out some other way to get
it. Water is the most apt utility to
compare it to, because, while people can live without electricity, cable or
phone, everyone has to have water. You
either get it from a well, a truck or a city line, but you have to get it
somehow. The same goes for health
insurance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you are sick, you have a
few options, you go to the doctor, you treat yourself or you die. Not a lot of options here. Therefore, in order for the entire medical
system to work, everyone has to pay for it.
Back to the utility analogy, in some parts of the south, you have to
pre-pay for the fire department. If you
don't, they will literally stand on the edge of your property and watch the
building burn.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And in this idea, heath care
should be treated the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you cannot bear the
thought of being forced to buy insurance, and you can't afford your treatment,
I have a deal for you. Don't get medical
treatment. No matter how bad your illness
is, or how seriously you are hurt, don't go to the doctor, don't go to the
hospital, just deal with it on your own.
If you die, then, I'm sorry, you have to die.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">You want a completely free
market in health care, then you can have it.
You are fee to not buy health insurance, but in return, you either pay
at point of service, or you will be allowed to die. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The choice is yours.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBI1-6ovs8mxjPEhFWxXX4Ss2zd5VGiiTAQghs_hf3QHXhS8StdCpcjOVSqrvRzx7DYnmTf1c0SWaod_y2d2q7-HXOc3lNVyQb1MyWHa110y7stlIRUdmrTCyEiG-zXRH07Ty8mayghSBM/s1600/1290956_orig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBI1-6ovs8mxjPEhFWxXX4Ss2zd5VGiiTAQghs_hf3QHXhS8StdCpcjOVSqrvRzx7DYnmTf1c0SWaod_y2d2q7-HXOc3lNVyQb1MyWHa110y7stlIRUdmrTCyEiG-zXRH07Ty8mayghSBM/s1600/1290956_orig.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-69967123670499910062014-08-16T21:56:00.001-06:002014-08-16T21:56:40.366-06:00A Radical Rethink<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Post-Positional<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Whether or not people
realize this, we are close to the end of everything we know. I am not talking about an End of the World
scenario: an Armageddon of Climate Change, World War or Nuclear Holocaust. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I am however, nonetheless,
talking about a true Apocalypse. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, I am using the term
"Apocalypse" in the actual meaning of the word which is "an
unveiling or drawing back of the curtain."
The curtain that is about to be drawn back is the fact that humans are
soon going to become a completely superfluous ornamentation. We are very quickly becoming unnecessary,
even a liability to the global capitalist economy. And because of this, we will either face a
Terminator-esque future (which I think is highly unlikely) or we will live to
see our economic system completely collapse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In my<a href="http://cult-of-the-dead-birds.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-zombie-in-room.html"> last Blog</a>, I discussed
the fact that automation was going to render humans virtually
unemployable. This point was exactly
copied by CGP Grey in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&feature=em-subs_digest">video Blog</a> on Wednesday, and he expanded on it
considerabily, detailing exactly how this will happen. (And by the way, it always creeps me out when
I hear exactly what I say repeated just a few days later by someone with no
connection to me. Jung's Universal
Subconscious strikes again.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, given the bleakness
of my last blog, and CGP Grey's Video, I
want to propose a very different future, a future, by the way, that Gene
Roddenberry prophesied. And I should
note, that I am beginning to believe that he was as tapped into the future as
Jules Verne was in his day. Both of them
extrapolated existing trends, combined them with a genuine vision of their
implications, and created models of the future we were heading toward.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And that future that we
face, by necessity, is going to be what I call either Post-Economic, or better
yet, Post-Positional. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">"Positional Goods"
is a term used by anthropologists to describe the items that delineate societal
status. This can be anything from the
feathers of the Quetzal bird to a diamond to a private Lear Jet. Basically, anything that shows your class or
caste is a positional good. They
function across all of the classes, but also within a class. Even in the poorest classes, there are
positional goods. For example, a corner
to fly a sign, or a coveted sleeping spot will indicate social position in the
Homeless Community.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So why would I call this new
economic system, "Post-Positional?" Before I answer that question, I want to
describe the economy that we will have to adopt out of necessity. That is, unless we want to go down the drain
of grinding poverty, mass famine, dying children, and ultimately endless
revolution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And that economy is going to
look a lot more like Karl Marx than Adam Smith.
But, I should note, I am not talking about Communism as implemented by
the Soviets or any of their satellite countries. I am talking about a return to a true
Egalitarian Society, a Utopia that Marx envisioned, but with the technology of
the 20th Century was utterly unattainable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Marx's theories were 150
years too early, because we lacked the technology to make them work. In short, with even current technology,
someone needs to service the sewers, someone needs keep the peace, someone
needs to draw the buildings, and someone needs to build them. And lacking any monetary incentive, everyone
wants to do the fun things, and no one wants to do the hard, dirty or downright
disgusting ones. And therefore, to make
the system function, you have to have one of the most draconian, totalitarian
governments imaginable. Basically,
without money, you have to use brute force to make the system function.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this is why, in the end,
Capitalism won; it was the least brutal system that actually brought the most
stability and prosperity. At least for
now. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So to return to my point, we
are going to be forced to adopt an economy straight out of Star Trek: the Next
Generation. In that series, there was an
episode when the crew discovered a set of space-farers that had been cryogenically
frozen for centuries. When they found
out that the Federation was moneyless, and further, no one worked for wages in
the manner they were familiar with, one of them asked "what was the point
of life." Picard responded,
"to strive to make yourself better."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So basically, the future as
envisioned by Gene Roddenberry is one where people do the things they want, to
become better people, and to leave the world (or universe) a better place. While that seems like a Utopian Fantasy, we
will have no choice but to figure out how to make it real. Again, the alternative is to have starvation,
revolution and slaughter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, with the automation
world, very few jobs will remain that cannot be done by robots, or other sorts
of thinking machines. Now, we could
demand that laws be passed to not allow robots to do any job that can be safely
done by a human. This is what I proposed
in last week's Blog. However, this will
not fly with the Capitalist system or the "Masters of the
Universe" They will demand that no
such laws be passed, because that will cut into their maximization of
profits. They are going to insist that
they be allowed to replace all of their workers with automated systems, because
it will put the most money in their pockets at the immediate time. And it is important to note, Capitalism is
somewhat poor at planning past the next economic quarter, and it is terrible in
planning for the ten year horizon.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, you will wind up with
literally billions of unemployed, and unemployable, humans. (And I did mean billions with a
"B") There will be a small
sector of people still employed, probably about 10% to 20% of the population,
but the vast majority will have no employment option. Therefore, in order to feed them, house them
and clothe them, Welfare and other Social Safety Net programs will have to
cover their living. And that will have
to be done, because, just in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, a 25% unemployment rate during the Depression
brought us to the brink of anarchy. Only
the New Deal saved the country from a violent revolution. (And even if you don't think it did, the
majority of people believed it did, and it calmed the people down, because they
knew the government was trying to solve the problem.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So in the end, with 80%+ of
the population on the Dole, the taxes on the remaining 20% will become utterly
unsupportable. I don't mean to get all
Ayn Rand here, but really, that 20% will just stop working, because the
government will HAVE to take almost 100% of the money they make in order to
make the system work. Basically, each
working person will have to fully support at least four other people
completely. It is a completely
unsustainable system.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
said the "Makers" will just all go on strike and stop producing,
bringing the system to a halt and making all of the worthless "Takers"
recognize that they are leaches on society, at which point, they will let the
precious "Makers" act without restriction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">That is a childish fantasy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Oh, for certain, the
"Makers" will stop, go on strike as it were. That will be inevitable. However, the rest of us won't miss them at
all. In fact, without them pulling the
levers of society, we might be able to actually accomplish this transformation
to the Post-Positional system.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Basically, with automation,
there will be essentially no cost, or almost no cost to any production. I know that sounds strange, but everything,
from cost of materials to cost of finished goods exists because people have to
be paid wages to get the raw materials or make the product. If there are no labor costs, then the cost of
something is a purely artificial cost. (I realize this is an oversimplification,
because there are carrying costs, such as environmental damage and such. But for the most part, the actual cost of
anything is the result of having to pay people to extract, grow, finish,
etc.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So with that, food, shelter,
clothing and all of that will essentially become free with automation. This effect will do nothing but increase as
"replicator" technology comes on-line. Right now, we call that technology "3D Printing"
technology. But as it increases in
quality, and the types of things that can be made increase in diversity, it
will emulate the replicators of Star Trek.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And at this point, there
will be no want in society that is not instantly filled, and filled for no
actual monetary cost. Of course, this is
dependant on us not imposing some sort of arbitrary barrier, just to make sure
that societal status gets preserved.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this is why I call this
Economic System, "Post-Positional."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">When anyone can have anything
for free, barring the passage of arbitrary sumptuary laws, good will no longer
be able to be used to indicate social status.
If you can replicate a plate of diamonds, how can diamonds show your
economic class? (Sumptuary laws were
laws passed in </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in the Middle Ages up to modern times that forbid
certain classes from owning or wearing certain things. For example, no one was allowed to wear
purple except royalty. To do so would
land you in jail or even get you executed.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So in this world what
happens? Well all of the work is done by
the machines and by the bots, leaving people completely unemployed. However, people need to occupy their time in
order to feel fulfilled. For the most
part, people don't handle idleness well.
Which leads to the other part of the Star Trek future; people will work
at self improvement. They will spend
their lives learning, practicing, experimenting. They will be free to explore whatever takes
their interest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There will still need to be
some jobs, especially in the creative arts, but the people who do them will be
doing them because they want to, not because they have to. And the amount of time spent on them will be
far less than we spend today. And here,
I would like to point out the brilliance of the Star Trek Universe. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Federation was an
absolute necessity. Without the
Frontier, humans stagnate. If we have no
challenges, we become overwhelmed with inertia.
This is what the exploration culture of Star Trek promoted. It provided the drive to keep humanity
advancing, developing and improving.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So basically, the world we
will be forced to adopt because of technology will be one where each human
becomes occupied with personal growth, and one where all of the necessities of
life are just provided. Further, there
will be no more class, or status, at least no status based on goods or
possessions, because anyone will have equal abilities to access anything they
want. This will not be because of any
sort of actual egalitarian thought, at least not initially, but because there
will literally be no inherent costs to any goods. And because of this, there will ultimately be
no need for services to have any cost either, because the people providing the
services will have no expenses. People
will become free to essentially do what they want, without any economic
fetters. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And ultimately, that is
where we will have to go, unless we want the Apocalypse of Automation to become
an actual Armageddon. Of course, the
rich and powerful will view this future as an Armegeddon, and they will likely
fight it to the bitter end. However,
they will lose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">History is not on their
side. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVh-EMKfgaKCe-ZpIiI0CDKFKSE0bhWNR87RbCtXFWrLt3jsVwMPiJ_Xnt6aZQhBNph5uj_TcDzzxMfpMRde8k08b_WSJdYbtPOFZIP7R_1TdkSW6PaUXnyDYuCXyEMplujDwwQKyfTXeo/s1600/Automation102s.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVh-EMKfgaKCe-ZpIiI0CDKFKSE0bhWNR87RbCtXFWrLt3jsVwMPiJ_Xnt6aZQhBNph5uj_TcDzzxMfpMRde8k08b_WSJdYbtPOFZIP7R_1TdkSW6PaUXnyDYuCXyEMplujDwwQKyfTXeo/s1600/Automation102s.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-58611901424980281152014-08-06T23:16:00.000-06:002014-08-06T23:16:16.008-06:00The Zombie in the Room<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Automation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Capitalism is dead. It isn't apparent yet, because it is still
shambling around like the zombie it is, but for all of that it is dead. Really in the end, it was the victim of its
own success. It survived for centuries,
outlasting revolutions, adversarial paradigms and even outright attempts to
stack the deck in the system. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The one thing it cannot
survive, however is automation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I know that seems like an
odd thing that would kill off a dominant economic system, but it has and it
will. The reason, automation
eviscerates the center. And just like a
person cannot live without a digestive tract, capitalism cannot survive without
a middle class.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">People see that capitalism
is failing, at least intuitively. Right
now people are focused on a number of things that they claim are destroying
capitalism. However, they are focused on
symptoms or phantom causes, not on the actual rot at the heart of the
tree. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Right screams
regulations, minimum wages and health care spell the end of the system, and we
will be left with socialism or communism.
To a certain extent, they are correct; we will have to turn to a form of
socialism if we continue on this path, but not for any of the reasons they
claim. The Left, on the other hand,
blames income disparity, greedy business tycoons and mega-banks for the
downfall. Again, as with the Right, they
have some correct points, especially where greed is concerned. But again, they miss the forest for the
trees. Not that the individual trees are
unimportant, they are, but the larger picture is being ignored.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And, as I stated before, the
root problem is automation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But why is it such a
problem? The reason is simple, automation
destroys the low-education, focused skill, high paying jobs, that built the
system. It destroys the jobs that are
central to making things. And these
jobs, not professional positions are central to a strong capitalist
economy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There are certain realities
to the professional world. We only need
a certain number of doctors and lawyers and other professionals. For example, unless we deliberately infect
people so they are sick more, or change the system to require all people to be
needing a lawyer at all times in their lives, there is a saturation point to these
jobs. They are population ratio
jobs. You only need a set number of
these people to serve a set number of members of society at large.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Similarly, there are only a
certain number of teachers that were need, because, again, it is a population
ratio profession. Even at the most
generous staffing levels, you only need about one teacher to every 15 full time
students. That's a lot of teachers, but
overall, it isn't an overwhelming number, and it is completely driven by a
limited resource, namely, the number of people seeking education.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Almost every profession is
similar, architects, engineers, even bankers are limited by the number of
people who will seek their services. The
only profession that I would say is exempt from this would be scientists, because,
there is always far more to explore than there are people to explore it. However, this is also a self-limiting
profession in another way; only a certain percentage of the population has the
inherent talent to excel in the sciences.
And honestly, that limitation also applies to the other professions as
well. Only a certain number of people
have the skills for law, or design or teaching.
Yes, you can teach some of that, but, honestly, there is a need for
aptitude as well. And I would like to
note, aptitude is not equivalent to intelligence. A person could be brilliant, but if they
cannot deliver a good oration and handle themselves in a debate, they are not
going to make it in law or politics. It
just won't happen. Similarly, as we see
over and over in our current crop of politicians, you don't really need to be
smart to be elected, you just need a great stump speech and a powerful delivery
of that speech.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, manufacturing jobs
are not a limited field, at least not in the same way as the professions. And by manufacturing, I am including all
types of making, from a baker, to a carpenter, to an auto assembly line worker. These jobs are demand driven. The more cakes, the more buildings and the
more cars people want, the more people will be employed in those
professions. On a side note, this is why
most companies created planned obsolescence, to make sure that people kept
buying. It is also why "in"
colors, and other fashion and styles change, it keeps demand high. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But to return to the point,
making is typically a focused skill, instead of one requiring extensive and
wide ranging education. Further, any
needed education in making is typically done through an apprenticeship. There are schools that have stepped in with
vocational education, but often these are six month to two year programs. In the traditional apprenticeship, you didn't
even have to pay for your education, you got paid to learn. Although the pay was certainly lower than it
would be for a journeyman, it still was income during the education process.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Further, these jobs were
typically high paying, often even higher paying than professional
positions. My uncle, who was a licensed
engineer, educated at Perdue, left engineering and became a pipe-fitter,
because he made significantly more money at it.
After he made the switch, he was able to pay off his mortgage in 7 years,
instead of the 20 more that it would have taken before. He also found it to be more satisfying work,
but that is another topic for another time.
For now I will just say, often people engaged in making things have a
very high level of satisfaction and pride, because they see the product of
their labor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So in the end, in a
workforce with a large manufacturing component, you get a lot of people
employed at high paying jobs, without needing years of expensive
education. Further, these jobs can be
done by almost anyone who gets the necessary training. My uncle always said that he could pull
anyone off the streets and make them an excellent pipe-fitter in six months if
they put their mind to it. And with the
wages of a pipe-fitter, they could have a nice house, a nice car and send their
kids to college, if the kids wanted that.
And even with all those expenses, they could put aside enough for a very
nice retirement.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, automation has
wiped out a vast majority of these jobs, and is on track to obliterate even
more in the coming years. Already, they
have developed 3D printing technology to build simple houses. How much longer will it be before they can 3D
print skyscrapers? And when they do,
what will happen to the carpenters, steel workers, concrete guys and
bricklayers? They will go the way of the
assembly line worker. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And pushing this is the
inevitable drive to maximize profits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you don't have to pay
wages, insurance, unemployment, and taxes on thousands of employees, and can
replace them with robots, or printers, or other machinery, you save yourself a
fortune. Of course, the equipment costs
a lot of money at the outset, but that is a one time expenditure, and further,
it can be depreciated, saving even more money when tax time rolls around. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Not only is this good for
the bottom line, it is actually a mandate of the capitalist system. Failing to maximize shareholders' profits is
at best dereliction of duty, at worst, possibly a criminal fraud. Regardless, the economics require the
companies to lower overhead and increase profit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And we have seen it over and
over. There are virtually no
receptionists left in the American corporation, and increasingly all basic
customer service calls are handled by automated systems. Grocery stores rely more and more on
self-service checkout lanes. Assembly
lines use robots.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Its even creeping into the
professions. Fifty years ago, the
average architectural firm had a couple of dozen draftsmen (and yes, they were
almost all men at that time) cranking out detail after detail, by hand on
Mylar. Then came AutoCAD, and those two
dozen could be replaced by six, because the details could be cut and pasted
from one drawing to another, no effort required. Now, Revit is reducing the six to three, and
further, with the internet, those three can be in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">India</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, just as easily as in the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Pretty soon,
given how BIM is evolving, the architect will be able to click a set of menu
options, design the building and instantly produce a set of CDs without a
single other person needed: one step production. And with that, what jobs will there be for architectural
interns, job captains or technicians, or any other employee beyond possibly an
accountant to manage the books? And
really, with Quickbooks, is that even needed?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this is how capitalism
dies, not with a bang, going out in some sort of proletariat conflagration, but
with a whimper of disappearing jobs, with no hope of employment for the vast
percentage of people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, the Right is correct, in
their minds, by saying all that will save it is for labor to become so cheap
that it actually doesn't make sense to automate the jobs. They don't acknowledge the actual problem,
and I doubt they consciously recognize it, but intuitively, they understand
this. However, what they fail to
understand is that if everyone is receiving poverty wages, no one will be able
to buy anything. And since this model
depends on demand, it enters a death spiral.
For certain, the captains of industry will get even more fabulously
wealthy, at least until the bottom drops out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">At the end of this death
spiral is a sad fact, either the world embraces a radical socialism, where
almost everyone in the bottom 2/3's of society is on the Dole, or we accept
that we will unleash a string of violent revolutions. People who are starving, and who have no
hope, will overthrow a government, and kill everyone who has the things they
want. Then, a small faction gets the
power and the money, and the cycle repeats.
Over and over, into eternity. </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">France</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> had this happen for about a hundred years;
Revolution, brief prosperity, disenfranchisement, discord, Revolution. Only an embrace of a socialistic ideology and
two world wars completely broke this cycle.
Had those two things not happened, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">France</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> would likely be as unstable today as many of the
countries in </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">South America</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Left also sees some of
what is going on, that the big banks and CEO greed are driving the bus over the
cliff. They also recognize that income
disparity is really impacting the demand based economy. But they are focused on the symptom, not the
underlying disease. They want to
institute policies that redistribute the wealth and level the playing field
somewhat. However, just like the Right,
all this does is delay the inevitable.
Sure there will be a short term spike in demand, as people have more
disposable money, but that increased demand will produce money that is used to
increase automation. The construction
company is suddenly awash in capital, so what will they do? They'll buy that really cool concrete printer
that they couldn't afford last year. And
suddenly, an entire concrete crew is out of work. That crew's prosperity is gone and they stop
buying. This is repeated over and over
in company after company. And then
demand sinks. And once again, we are
back to the point where it is either almost universal Welfare, or revolution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But what about
education? Can't we just retrain these
people for new jobs? Teach them a
profession? Well, that puts us back to
the beginning of this paper.
Professional jobs are based on populations; it isn't a demand system,
unless you create artificial demand.
Therefore, you will quickly get saturation. We are already seeing this in Law and in
Higher Education. There are far more law
school graduates and PhD's than there ever will be available positions. And suddenly a Juris Doctor is handing you
your McDonalds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Further, I am going to be
blunt here, (and probably destroy some of my Liberal credentials) not everyone
is cut out to be a college student. Even
though we like to think everyone is a special and unique snowflake, and that
everyone gets a prize because they tried, that isn't the way it works. Can someone with an IQ of 95, which is
solidly average, but not outstanding, really make it as a neurosurgeon or a
physicist? That is not to say that there
are tons of things they can do, and do very well. But, are they going to succeed in an intensive
and competitive college program? Unless
we genetically engineer everyone to be brilliant, we will have a range of
intelligence in humans. (And don't even
get me started on Eugenics being a "good idea." It isn't.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So what is the
solution. Either we have to develop a
post-capitalist economic model that is not based in employment, and maybe not
even in money, or we have to limit automation.
Although the first option is, in my mind at least, the more realistic
long term solution, the reality is, no one is going to go along with that
strategy, at least not now. We can't
even get the powers that be to move on climate change, which is as close to a
certainty as science can ever get. We
will never get people to move on some sort of change to the fundamental
economic structure of the entire world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So that leaves limiting
automation. I read a science fiction
story by Jack Chalker where they had a law that stated, "unless the job is
too hazardous to be undertaken by humans, no job that can be done by a person
is allowed to be given over to a robot."
Although some would argue that this, for all intents and purposes, kills
off capitalism, in actuality, it is the only way to save the system. At least save it until we can actually come
up with something better.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Why? Because it would re-insert the high paying,
low education but focused skilled jobs back into the economy. If assembly lines and construction sites were
required to be using people instead of machines, we would have a much more
robust middle class. and with a robust
middle class, demand for the products of manufacturing would go up. And this would lead to further expansion of
job opportunities, which would in turn lead to more demand. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I realize that this would
also lead to more resource consumption, more pollution and more environmental
devastation, so this is not really a long term solution. As I said before, it would only be a bridge
to a different system. But it would give
us the time to come to terms with some realities that we don't want to face
right now.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, in the end, it
would give us what we need most, time to solve the problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm9lIyFvpDe-MrWFwgf_N5J0H1naIaswJV2EdLJvdF3aMlAS2_SB77XFIpknPUiqn21LLQGTEV7cbCjBLHJ-1y24-9Oo_Gix27T-AySNCHkm1QPxXdK192SiSwGHAuOWWCiksKO65k8CO_/s1600/capitalism-is-dead-cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm9lIyFvpDe-MrWFwgf_N5J0H1naIaswJV2EdLJvdF3aMlAS2_SB77XFIpknPUiqn21LLQGTEV7cbCjBLHJ-1y24-9Oo_Gix27T-AySNCHkm1QPxXdK192SiSwGHAuOWWCiksKO65k8CO_/s1600/capitalism-is-dead-cartoon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-61446880737145007972014-07-20T16:53:00.000-06:002014-07-20T16:53:06.927-06:00Looking Past the Primitive Hut<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Fundamentals</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">For the last couple of
centuries, a great deal of theoretical architectural discourse has revolved
around the concept of the Primitive Hut.
Although this concept has existed since the time of Vitruvius, it entered
into serious academic discussion after Laugier used it as the frontispiece of
his Essai sur l'Architecture. It is a
fundamental mythologization of architecture.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Although there is absolutely
no archeological record of a hut of the type that Laugier described, nor any
evidence that anyone prior to the Imperial Romans even theorized the elements
of the hut in the manner theorists think about them, it is still an essential
key to understanding architectural form.
The ideas that the column is emblematic of the tree and the pediment
shed water like the leafy branches above.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, this is not the
only way to mythologize fundamental architectural forms. Ching, for example, discusses patterns of
organization and mathematical proportions.
According to Simon Unwin, there are four fundamental architectural
elements; The Bower, the Hearth, The Altar and the Performance Space. These are then housed in enclosures to create
the basic architectural forms of the House, the </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Temple</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and the Theatre.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But it is Unwin's
fundamental elements that I am particularly interested in here. Unwin looks at these from a purely pragmatic,
formal analysis in much the same way the architects who have followed Laugier
used the Primitive Hut as a formal derivation to explain the Orders, and
ultimately even Le Corbusier's Five Points.
But looking at these fundamental elements as formal only completely
ignores the cultural context, and what these elements tell us about ourselves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Before I begin exploring
this, I want to discard one of Unwin's elements, the performance space. If we wish to go back to the most ancient
roots, the hearth in it's broader context was the prototypical performance
space, where tales were told around the fire.
In their most primitive forms, the Bower, the Hearth and the Altar were
the three fundamentals, the performance space followed behind these three as
social structure evolved.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I also want to point out, in
the beginning, these fundamental elements would not have been
"architecture" in the way we currently describe it. However, if you want to state that
architecture is any alteration of the natural environment for human use, then
these elements, even in their most primitive state would be architecture. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I should note here, that I
don't personally restrict architecture to purely human actions on the
environment. I consider beaver dams,
termite mounds and birds nests to be architecture. In fact, any modification of the environment
by deliberate action for the purpose of habitation could be considered architecture. Similarly, any alteration of the environment
for non-functional purposes could be considered art. And yes, animals do make art, from Bower
Birds lavishly decorating their nests to dogs that deliberately place their
toys in specific geometric patterns.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">To return to the point, we
would probably not see the most primitive of these elements as architecture; a
pile of branches for sleeping, a ring of stones to protect a fire, a specific
mark on a tree or in a cave, these are what would have been the original forms
of these elements.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, it is not the
physical that interests me, it is the significance of them that begins to tell
us about the societies. As I have stated
before, architecture is a pure cultural container. How it is arranged, what it is made out of,
even the relationships between uses in proximity tell us volumes about what a
society valued, how they viewed the world, what sort of social structure
existed. In terms of pre and proto
literate societies, or for ones for which we cannot decipher the written
language, it is the only key to understanding them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But these fundamental
elements are also the fundamental elements of mythologization of built
form. Myth the ties of man to man, man
to God and man to himself. Then, in a more
meta-analysis, when you examine the role of all the myths aggregated, you
discover the overarching understanding of the relationship man to nature, which
can be expanded to describe man's place in the cosmos. For example, a broad reading of Greek Mythology
indicates a view that Man is at the mercy of a very capricious an unpredictable
universe, whereas Egyptian Mythology shows a very hierarchical, ordered
worldview.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Each one of these roles of
myth can be tied into the fundamental architectural forms. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First, we will look at the
hearth. The hearth is the gathering
place for the band. (And the period we are talking about would have been band
level societies which are the most primitive.)
This form facilities the role of the relationship of man to man. Around the hearth, the rules of conduct for
the band are laid down. Whether or not
they are explicitly stated, children in the fire circle learn from their elders
appropriate behavior in relationship to each other. Adults who violate the behavioral norms are
sanctioned. Problems are addressed and
plans are made. Social hierarchies are
established, maintained and sometimes even overthrown. Around the hearth, all aspects of how one
member of society relates to any other are established.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Moving on, we have the
Altar. In primitive societies, this
would have been a sacred tree, pool or cave, or some other object in the
environment that would have housed the spirit of the supernatural. In other words, the altar would have been the
band's fetish object. (Remember, a
fetish has no relationship to how we use the word today, but described an
object that literally houses a God.)
This fundamental element describes the relationship of man to God. The forms and ceremonies related to worship,
even the very nature of that relationship is addressed at the altar. For example, does the shaman hold dominion
over the God, commanding and summoning it, or is the shaman the supplicant
begging for intercession? Is the ritual
highly formal or is it more casual?
These are the relationships laid out by the altar and form the second
purpose of myth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The final relationship that
is described by myth is the most esoteric, man to himself, and it is given form
by the Bower. It can be said that dreams
are how we understand ourselves and how we process the experiences of our
lives, and the Bower is the space given over to dreams. Whereas the first two elements look outwards
and upwards, this final element looks inwards.
Sleep is an absolute universal, but how we sleep tells us about our
relationships to ourselves, i.e. how we care for our bodies when we cannot
consciously protect ourselves. As such,
the location of the Bower begins to tell us where the danger is, on the ground,
in the sky, in the earth. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this then begins the
pivot to the final role of myth in architecture, which is found in the
aggregate of understanding all three elements taken together, how man relates
to nature or in broader terms, how man is placed in the cosmos. Does the society view itself as secure or in
peril? Do they dominate or are they
dominated? Are they a part of a greater
nature, or are the separate from it? When
we examine Hearth, Altar and Bower we can build a larger image of how the society
views their place. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">As societies evolve, these
fundamental forms also evolve. The Hearth
becomes the Hall, developing into the Court, the Capitol, the Forum, and
through separation from the fire and union with the Altar, the it transforms
into the Theatre. (This is because
ancient theatre was a scared rite) The Altar
becomes the </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Temple</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">, the Church the Cathedral. The Bower becomes the House, the Castle, the
Palace. But even when this happens, the fundamental
forms are maintained, even if abstracted beyond recognition. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And these fundamental
elements dictate the architectural forms of even modern buildings. How man relates to man dictates whether the
administrative spaces place all people on the same level, or if it reinforces a
strict hierarchy. How man relates to God determines the ritual
space that surrounds the altar, if it is centered on ritual and procession, or
if it is a gathering of a congregation.
The Bower defines the house, as the purpose of the home is for rest and
refreshment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">By looking at the basics,
and their mythological purpose, we can begin to analyze all societies, even
modern ones, through their built form.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPqO6g2uER9c5JO3SegPKKlRTkG_NyY-UQAMTWyh9fV5mv9rkR0B8fWHgs39OgxaEHTo4R8ZZC4DAdds8KAh-OW-5TZpPPWVqJpPxXMZW9dP43oDM_5gNaxAkR-FR_mzNmqgpy2mmsH7MO/s1600/IMG_0003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPqO6g2uER9c5JO3SegPKKlRTkG_NyY-UQAMTWyh9fV5mv9rkR0B8fWHgs39OgxaEHTo4R8ZZC4DAdds8KAh-OW-5TZpPPWVqJpPxXMZW9dP43oDM_5gNaxAkR-FR_mzNmqgpy2mmsH7MO/s1600/IMG_0003.jpg" height="579" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-65128017210753529092014-07-06T20:38:00.000-06:002014-07-06T20:39:35.080-06:00OK World, It is time to Admit you have a Problem<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Intervention<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I think it is time to be
blunt: the world is as addicted to oil like the way Amy Winehouse was addicted
to meth. And like Amy Winehouse, if we
do not get help and rehab for our addiction, we will all die a horrible and
painful death.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This is especially important
to me, as a Coloradoan, given that under the<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852"> world's largest oil reserve</a> sits under my
state. In fact, bound up in the Green
River Formation is an oil reserve equal to double all of the worlds proven oil
reserves, if we could find out how to tap it.
It's called Oil Shale, and it holds approximately 3 trillion barrels of
oil. Just for comparison, throughout all
human history of oil production, we have used approximately 1 trillion
barrels. In other words, there is enough
oil in Oil Shale to fuel the world at current consumption rates for probably
200 years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There's just one problem
with this. It would require basically
removing most of </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Western
Colorado</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Eastern Utah</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">'s mountains.
Basically, Oil shale has to be heated to 5,000 degrees to extract the
oil. It also would require most of the
water that the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Western United States</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> consumes for life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">You would think permanently
ruining some of the most beautiful lands in the world, and basically taking all
of the West's water would make this an non-viable solution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And you would be wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And this is where the
addiction thing comes in. Addicts do not
make rational choices. Period. For an example of this horror, look at the what
is happening in </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Alberta</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">, arguably it was as beautiful of an unspoiled
wilderness as </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Western
Colorado</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Now it is a smoking pit from the depths of
Hell.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFcR09ZSDrqXjI4_yIP7wnZR1NlBRUh5e2AjoWk8kBN0VLLwwJTA1BOQvmFPgxEt3iNYJSz84iZPge7k3G4ljZhpPwNxmpC6gD779eOSINq8NTLqg7NhYzjTO_viq3VD5b8J3oayGjkSoq/s1600/web-Alberta-Tar-Sands-9.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFcR09ZSDrqXjI4_yIP7wnZR1NlBRUh5e2AjoWk8kBN0VLLwwJTA1BOQvmFPgxEt3iNYJSz84iZPge7k3G4ljZhpPwNxmpC6gD779eOSINq8NTLqg7NhYzjTO_viq3VD5b8J3oayGjkSoq/s1600/web-Alberta-Tar-Sands-9.jpg" height="256" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Alberta Tar Sands (After)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">An addict will throw
everything away for their next fix.
Spouse? Forget it, the next hit
is far more important than that. Bank
accounts? Gone. Irreplaceable family heirlooms, sold. Roof over their head? Nope.
Health? Destroyed. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING is as important
as that hit.<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And that is how it will be
with the environment. As soon as the
easy to get to oil is gone, we will move to the not easy to get oil. Right now, thanks to our addiction, we are in
the process of <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0703/What-s-causing-all-those-earthquakes-in-Oklahoma">destroying the stability of </a></span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0703/What-s-causing-all-those-earthquakes-in-Oklahoma">Oklahoma</a></span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">. In just the first six months of this year, </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Oklahoma</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;"> has summered from 241 potentially damaging 3.0
quakes. This is more than double all of
the quakes for 2013, at 109 and almost equals the total for the last five
years, which was 278. And before you
think a 3.0 is nothing, realize that in the type of rock of </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Oklahoma</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">, a 3.0 can tear apart a foundation and cause lasting
damage to a structure, even if there is no collapse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And whether or not the
extraction industry wants to admit it, it is most likely the result of
fracking. We should have learned this
lesson in the sixties, when </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Colorado</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">, normally a very stable state, suffered a swarm of
earthquakes resulting from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal disposing of chemical
wastes by pumping it underground. The
earthquakes started after they began the pumping and stopped shortly after the
pumping ceased. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The problem with things like
fracking is that the earth is a far more complex system than we like to
acknowledge. We have far more potential
for devastation than we are comfortable in admitting. Further, we turn a blind eye on things that
are correlated, because we dismiss them as a correlation does not equal
causation fallacy. That's not to say
that fallacy is incorrect in terms of logical arguments. However, falling back to that position means
that we typically refuse to investigate whether things are just coincidental or
actually a causal chain. While vaccines
causing Autism is a correlation, not causation, that does not mean that any
similar thing is the same. Also, before
they actually proved it as a correlation not causation situation, they tested
the potentiality extensively.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, when something is
as seemingly necessary as oil and gas, people want to stick their fingers in
their ears and not hear any potential issues.
In other words, it is in their own self interest to refuse to acknowledge
that there is a problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This is the same thing as
with addicts, especially in the early stages of addiction, before the
devastation to their life begins in earnest.
Getting drunk before going to bed every night is just "to help me
unwind." Taking a shot of vodka
first thing in the morning is just a "hair of the dog." Even a spouse leaving is, "they didn't
understand me and support me." It
is only when the addiction has completely destroyed someone's life that they
will acknowledge the problem. Sadly,
even then, they often won't do anything to cure it. They fall into the, "I can't change so
why try" trap. You see hundreds of
these people littering the streets of most American Cities. And because we condemn addiction as a
personal failing, the larger society does not have much inclination to
help. Worse we often enable that
behavior.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is a nation of enablers in terms of our oil
addiction. Even people who take the
steps of using mass transit, buying electric vehicles, putting PV on their
roofs, etc either continue to elect the oil addicts to office, or just complain
about them. We do not hold their feet to
the fire to actually do something.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I even see that enabling
attitude in myself. Sometimes I think,
maybe we should just go ahead and do things like open up the Artic Wildlife
Refuge to drilling now, when we can at least win significant concessions to
protect the environment, rather than wait until our reserves are running out,
when the drilling will just be a rape and scrape operation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, this is no
different than me buying an addict a bottle of Vodka or a crack rock so that
they don't sell their Grandfather's watch.
They are getting their addiction fed, and I'm delaying the point before
they hit rock bottom. Sooner or later,
they will sell that watch, and sooner or later, we will rape the earth to
satisfy our addiction. All environmental
protections do is delay the inevitable, because they don't attack the root
problem, which is the addiction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And getting over an addiction
is not easy. An intervention is not
easy. But an intervention is exactly
what the world needs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Before you think it is
impossible, realize that even a sizable number of Republicans are admitting
that Global Warming is real, and further that it is being caused by
people. However, getting them to turn
against the extraction industry will be harder.
Even Democrats from Coal and </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;">Oil</span></st1:placename><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-family: Arial;">States</span></st1:placetype></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> can't stop their enabling ways. Our own Governor, Hickenlooper, wants to
develop compromises to allow the fracking to continue in the state. This is no different than payoing for drugs
for an addict so that they don't have to choose between drugs and life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It is up to each of us to
hold our representative's feet to the fire.
Further, it is up to us to say, no to drilling, no to fracking, no to
environmental devastation. If we rise
up, as in an intervention, and say, "You have gone this far, but no
more," we stand a chance. It is
hard to get an addict to recognize the problem, even harder to get them to
accept help. However, we owe it to our
children to try.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJwiyghcuwmx3IQM9xEsGJbUS3CThRHxAVc16k-4Smo7Yi5i9R0rJUSQwBqWGLzw6yXDt_a7WIzhGrhvAH6uhdc42jTlGtBSu4M6WAZ8OIPvklL9bPUiiIOCuT0gbZAbpXUQiZTZeQQ5GU/s1600/the_worlds_addiction_to_oil_164255.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJwiyghcuwmx3IQM9xEsGJbUS3CThRHxAVc16k-4Smo7Yi5i9R0rJUSQwBqWGLzw6yXDt_a7WIzhGrhvAH6uhdc42jTlGtBSu4M6WAZ8OIPvklL9bPUiiIOCuT0gbZAbpXUQiZTZeQQ5GU/s1600/the_worlds_addiction_to_oil_164255.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-21082948899420583822014-07-02T14:32:00.001-06:002014-07-02T14:32:40.597-06:00Pro-Life or Just Pro-Fetus?<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Pro-life<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It is a commonly held belief
on the Left that the Right is all for rights for fetuses but once it is
actually a baby, they could care less.
And unfortunately, this view is fairly accurate. Conservatives want to outlaw abortion in all
cases, even rape and incest, and even to save the life of the mother. However, at the same time, they actively
pursue policies that guarantee the perpetuation of abortion, by absolutely
refusing to consider anything that would actually reduce the need for the procedure.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, in light of the Hobby
Lobby decision, which goes back to one of the specific root causes of abortion,
I am writing this to call out the Right on it's hypocrisy. If they want to actually limit the number of
abortions, they need to begin to change positions on a number of things.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Before I continue, though, I
just want to dispel one common myth, that women use abortion as birth control
and that they do it lightly. I have
known a number of women who have had to have an abortion, and was one of the
hardest decisions any of them ever made.
It is not something they did quickly, or without anguish. However, in all of their cases, it was
necessary, and they deserved to be treated respectfully for having to do what
they did. And in this, it is time to
stop shaming women who chose to have an abortion. It is their decision, and no one has a right
to criticize or second guess them.
Period, end of story.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Also, we need to accept that
abortion will always be a necessity.
When a woman is raped, she should not be forced to bear her rapist's
baby. If she chooses to, from her own
belief system, that is also her decision.
But that must be her decision and hers alone. To do otherwise is to essentially state that
she was complicit in her own victimization, and that is absolutely
unacceptable. No woman (or man for that
matter) deserves to be raped.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Also, when the woman's life
is in danger, she should not be forced to continue a pregnancy that could kill
her. Many times, when a mother's life is
threatened by a pregnancy, the fetus will not carry to term, or will suffer
profound disability. To forbid an
abortion in this situation makes a clear statement that a woman's value is in
her status as a walking womb. No woman
should have to face her own death just for
the possibility of giving birth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Accepting that these types
of abortions will always be a necessity, what could be done to reduce the
others that don't fall into these categories?
First, we need to understand what situations cause the majority of abortions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> 1) Unplanned Pregnancy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> 2) Financial instability<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> 3) A defective fetus (sorry to be so inconsiderate here,
but I can't think of any
other way to describe this that isn't blunt)
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Often, it isn't even just
one of these factors, often two or all three apply. Like I said earlier, abortion is not
something that isn't an anguishing decision for a woman, and often it takes
several factors to put a woman in a spot where she chooses to terminate a
pregnancy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So how do you reduce the
need for abortion? Mitigate the
circumstances that force it as the only rational choice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First, make pregnancy
something that is always a decision and never an occurrence. This is where the Hobby Lobby decision really
screws up. In fact, I have seen a number
of Right Wing bloggers say that contraception allows for consequence free sex,
as if a baby was a punishment. This
attitude that if you screw around, you deserve to get pregnant is one of the
most anti-child and anti-woman things I have ever heard. Babies should always be a choice, never
something imposed on you. A baby in
certain situation is basically an 18 year prison sentence that can ruin one (or
two) people's lives. I absolutely respect
people who have an unplanned pregnancy and chose to have the baby, but that is
their decision, no one forces them to.
However, outlawing abortion would turn an unplanned pregnancy into a
prison sentence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">To mitigate this, two things
are needed. First easy and unrestricted
access to effective and reliable contraception.
In all cases, at any age. Coupled
with that is the need for detailed and scientifically accurate sexual education
that begins when people can potentially reproduce. I know this will enflame a lot of people, but
it is a simple fact.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">We have artificially extended
childhood for at least a decade beyond sexual maturity, and then expected
children to abstain from their biological urges. The human body is at it's most fertile, and
the sex drive is at it's strongest in the late teens, yet we expect our
adolescents to ignore all of those urges.
We compound that by making masturbation equally sinful, so they can't
even get relief that way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This goes against biological
law and historic traditions. Until the
last century or two, a woman was of marriageable age as soon as she began to
have her period. This changed in the
Victorian Period, but then, they fought it by depicting sex as terribly
unpleasant and a duty that a woman must submit to. This worked then, but now the cat is out of
the bag, teenagers today know sex is fun and feels good. Pandora's box is open. (I'm sorry I couldn't resist)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Therefore, the only way to
combat teenage, and actually any unplanned
pregnancy is to give people proper sex ed and to make sure that they can
obtain contraception without shame or judgment.
The reality is that they will have sex regardless, but at least we can
make it safe.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This is in direct conflict
with the Right's view that STD's and Pregnancy are punishment for sex outside
of marriage. If they were truly serious
about reducing the number of abortions, they would be insisting that everyone
have access to proper knowledge.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The second reason for
abortion is that the parents cannot afford to raise a baby in their current
financial situation. This could be
easily changed with a whole host of "Liberal" solutions that are dead
on arrival.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First, there is the student
loan problem. Many adults are delaying
or even forgoing having children because of their debt from college. The latest numbers indicate that people with
a high debt burden delay both children
and house purchases until they are well into their thirties just because of the
crushing burden of student loans. Returning to low cost or even free higher
education would dramatically reduce the financial encumbrances that make people
unwilling to start families.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Second, we need to be able
to have people support families on one income, or provide a long term, paid
family leave. This would allow a parent
(mother OR father) to remain home with the baby for that critical first year. The </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">United States</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is the only industrialized nation that does not provide
this sort of paid time. Some countries
even pay for people to have babies, which actually incentivizes reproduction.
Even something as simple as setting a minimum wage above poverty level
and indexing it to inflation would create a cushion of stability that would
make a child more financially possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Third, we need to provide
free daycare for all children above the age when paid family leave ends, say
one year old. This would allow parents
to return to work and not have to work just to pay for day care. I have one friend who quit her job after
realizing that her family would actually have more money if she didn't work and
didn't have to pay for a daycare. Combine
this with vigorous after school and summer programs for kids and you remove a
huge financial burden.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And before you claim that
you are shifting burdens from individuals to society, and the taxpayer is
subsidizing the children, realize we already do that with welfare, food stamps
and other social safety net programs.
This is just a more pro-active and dignified way to provide the help.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Finally, there is the issue
of the health of the child, and how much it costs to care for and raise a
disable child. Also, how much of a
grinding burden it is. These are also
easy issues to solve. Universal, single
payer health care, that has no lifetime limits or throws the bulk of the care
burden onto the parents would ameliorate this problem. If a national insurance
program provided in-home and lifetime care for a disabled child, there would be
less reason to abort. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Right now, many parents with
handicapped children fear what will happen to their child when they die. That is a very valid concern. They can make sure their offspring is well
cared for while they are healthy and functioning, but what happens after the
parents are gone. Sometimes siblings or
other family will step up, but often the reality is that they know when they
are gone, their child will know nothing but suffering in some sort of nursing
home. I would not want to sentence a
child to that future, and that is a very responsible attitude.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So, in the end, you can
embrace a suite of Liberal Social programs that would drastically reduce abortion,
or you can try to force people to have children they don't want or can't care
for. And before you claim, just put them
up for adoption, remember, there are far more children in foster care than
there are forever homes for them, and very few people want to take on a
handicapped child. Also, unfortunately,
many people don't want to adopt outside of their race, or at least adopt African
American babies. Instead they adopt from
</span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Eastern Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">, and the brown American babies languish in foster
care. I hate to be this blunt, but it is
a sad fact.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Basically, my challenge to
the Anti-Abortion crowd is put up or shut up.
Be actually Pro-Life, for the entirety of the child's life, or remain
simply Pro-Fetus, and acknowledge that you could care less about actual babies,
you only care about an abstract
idea. Believe me, if God is actually
Pro-Life, He does not stop caring once the baby is born, unlike a lot of people
in this country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmklLyu7CDImtyW9RtOtdl4MtzBGklgdao2S17hyphenhyphenaBVPfTsKiDhPbzmlNj_PXSdqMqPiOfTA8bFbyXQTnKFSMo5HdZtpy5UHprbsd9uRwj-E5jtH-FZjI5hyN1U1MGi2j7BfEkM-0lCA-9/s1600/protectinglife_590_438.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmklLyu7CDImtyW9RtOtdl4MtzBGklgdao2S17hyphenhyphenaBVPfTsKiDhPbzmlNj_PXSdqMqPiOfTA8bFbyXQTnKFSMo5HdZtpy5UHprbsd9uRwj-E5jtH-FZjI5hyN1U1MGi2j7BfEkM-0lCA-9/s1600/protectinglife_590_438.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974069966175322542.post-73314274531259324242014-06-27T00:33:00.000-06:002014-06-27T00:33:09.454-06:00Never a More Pyrrhic Victory<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Victors<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I
wanted to follow up on my last post about <a href="http://cult-of-the-dead-birds.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-revision-of-cultural-nostalgia.html">Cliven Bundy</a>, where I alluded to
something critical in our national character that lies at the root of much of
what has consumed this country for the last 150 years. This is something I have been working on for
the last year or so, and had threaded through a number of posts, but I wanted
to put the disparate elements into one coherent piece and actually start to draw some conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Simply
put, you can explain a lot of the tensions in this country down to this simple set
of facts:, the South knows that it lost the Civil War, but does not want to
accept that fact; and the North knows it won the war, but fears that it actually
lost it; and the West just wants to run away from the war. I have detailed some of the reasons for this
in previous posts, but I will sum it up in a brief statement, "Gone with
the Wind" changed a nation's attitude towards the Civil War, and
completely rewrote the sentiments on that conflict. Simply put, a single book reframed the entire
discussion, and tilted the weight of sympathy towards the South, and causing the North to be viewed as the unwarranted aggressor in the conflict. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Let
me explain. The South overtly and
obviously lost the War on the Battlefield.
They were virtually obliterated militarily by the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and for almost a decade treated as an occupied country. There are facts that everyone knows, however,
the South, on some level, still lives in a state of denial which stops them from
fully processing the reality. Similarly,
the North knows that it certainly won the war, but with the collapse of
Reconstruction, it fears that it didn't achieve any meaningful victory. Compound that with the shift in national perception initiated by Margaret Mitchell's book, and you shift the history to favor the South. Then there is the West, which was founded by
people, North and South, who were fleeing the war. Perhaps not literally, but
they could no longer live with the memories that confronted them everywhere
they went and in everything they did and they had find a fresh start.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Before
I fully explain this, and how it impacts our national character though, I would
like to talk about the experiences that I had that led me to begin to develop
this hypothesis. I understand this is
anecdotal, but there is quite a bit written on this subject to back up my
observations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It
began to scratch at the back of my awareness when I first moved to the
South. Before moving to </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Savannah</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">, the sum total of my experiences with the South were
visiting my Great Aunt in </span><st1:place><st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">Cape Coral</span></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">Florida</span></st1:state></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. (and I
realize that </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Southern Florida</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> is NOT culturally the South, at least it hasn't been
for a long time) Other than those trips,
I had never set foot in any part of the South.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">When
I was moving down to that part of the country, I stopped for gas in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Murfreesboro</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and saw a T-Shirt that said the following; "It
is better to have fought and lost than to have never have fought at all - the
South shall rise again." Later, I was lost in the backwoods of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Georgia</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and came upon a compound surrounded by Confederate
flags and fronted by a sign stating "And the Children of Ham shall ever be
servants of </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Man.</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Genesis
9:25." Asking around, I discovered
things like the fact that lists are still maintained in some quarters of the
South that list who belongs to who, so that someday they can "reclaim
their property." All of this
fleshed out the idea of Southern denialism. They flat out couldn't accept that they lost the war, at least not on some fundamental and vital level. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I
do want to state here though, despite my serious problems with the South and
Southern Culture, it is equally wrong to paint the entire region and everyone
from there as illiterate, racist redneck Bible Thumpers. There are many
Southerners who don't idealize the Confederacy and slavery, and who utterly reject those atrocities, just like there are many Northern Racists who idolize the KKK.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But
that stereotype lead to my realization about the North. This also starts with an anecdote that
occurred after moving back to the North.
One of my friends, at a social gathering, went into a complete diatribe
against the South and everything Southern, painting with that broad brush that
I just described. Even though this
person did not have any relatives with firsthand memory of the Civil War, it
was still as personal an affront to him as it was to some of the Southerners I
met in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Savannah</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Then
I went to </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Boston</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Providence</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> last summer.
This was the first time I had really been in </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">New England</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Although I lived in </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">New York City</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">, that isn't the North, nor really anything related
to the Civil War. In </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">New York</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;"> there is the attitude that there are two parts of </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;">, The City, and then the Rest. North/South issues are irrelevant there. (I have also been to </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Hartford</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">, but that was for a job interview so there really
wasn't any chance to explore, and it didn't spark any thought)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">What
shocked me when I went to </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Providence</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">
was the fact that they proudly displayed two cannons from </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Gettysburg</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;">. I found this
odd, given </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Gettysburg</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> had nothing to do with </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Rhode Island</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">, other than possibly supplying troops and such. But, this was significant. </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Gettysburg</span></st1:place></st1:city><span style="font-family: Arial;"> was the definitive turning point in the Civil War,
the point at which Northern Victory really became inevitable. In a sense, displaying those cannons was as
clear public statement about the Union Victory as the T-Shirt showed
Confederate Denial.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">As
I processed these revelations over the course of the summer, I really got angry, especially when at another social gathering, there were both Northerners and Southerners, and they began criticizing each other's part of the
country. I just basically wanted them to
both shut up and stop wearing the War on their sleeves. Seriously, it was a century and a half
ago. There isn't a single person alive
today who even heard firsthand accounts of the war. It is dead and buried., its over, done, finished, and it's time to move on.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">That's
when I realized that I, as a Westerner, am perpetuating the Western escape from
the Civil War. I, like most people in
the West that I know, are sick of hearing about the war, sick of the
recreations, sick of the tensions, sick of the TV shows, and just generally want everyone to shut up
about it. The war is over, we don't need
to keep re-litigating it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But,
being me, I couldn't just figure this out and move on from it, because I knew
that this was a very important realization about the country, and why things
are what they are, and why we are so polarized. Before I go any further here, I want to
say, the polarization of the country is no better or worse than it has been at
any point for the last century and an half.
The reason we think it is worse is the result of two aligned
factors. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First,
we see and hear about the tensions more now than previously. This is partially because of the 24 hour news
cycle, and partially because of the great internal migration of the last 30
years. Before about 1970, if you were
born in the North you generally stayed in the North (unless you moved to </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Florida</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;">, which is why </span><st1:state><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Florida</span></st1:place></st1:state><span style="font-family: Arial;"> hasn't been "Southern" in a
generation) It was similar with the
other regions of the country, except for people continuing to move West. But, as with all of the Western migrations,
North/South allegiance disintegrated at the Colorado/Kansas state line. However, with the recent migrations across the nation,
we are living in regions ideologically opposed to where we were brought
up. We don't like it one bit, when we
have to live in places that give us culture shock, which is a typical ex-pat lament. It is even worse when we are forced to think, "This is
</span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and it's my home too, I shouldn't be feeling this
way in my own country." I know that firsthand, as it was a serious problem for me in Savannah.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The
second reason that we think polarization is worse is because of the proliferation of news;
in our media saturated environment we hear more and we know more, and most of
it upsets us severely. This works two
ways. First we hear a lot of voices
condemning the other side for their essential evil and sharing all of the
immoral, unnatural or even evil things that our opponents are doing. Second, we hear what our government is doing,
specifically, we hear when they are treating with the enemy. And because we hear so many outrageous things
that the enemy is doing, we hold our politicians feet to the fire in such a way
that they cannot broker the kinds of deals that pasted the country together and
created the illusion of a "United" States of America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Now
for my point after this lengthy exposition.
Much in this country can be explained through this filter: the South rejects any political ideology
espoused by the North, the North rejects any cultural ideology tied to the South
and the West just wants to be left alone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">First,
to look at the South, and their part in the play. The South rejects Northern political
solutions. This stems from the
Carpetbaggers and the Reconstruction, where Northerners tried to turn the South
into their own little marionette, where they pulled the strings and made the
puppet dance. This may sound like I
sympathize with the South, and perhaps I do a bit. We made the same mistakes after World War I
in </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">, which directly led to Fascism and Nazism, and
ultimately to World War II. Had we not
punished the South, and instead embarked on an American version of the Marshall
Plan, American might be a much different and more unified place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">By
humiliating the South, the </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Union</span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;"> guaranteed inter-generational hate of the North, and
anything that came from there.
Progressivism, Unions, Equal
Rights, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, all of these things were Northern
political solutions, pushed through by the Federal Government, and more of less
imposed on the South. Further, other than
some brief anomalies, Northern politics and policies, regardless of party, have
dominated in the Federal Government. It
is no surprise that the South is rabidly anti-government, and that disdain is the core of the
Tea Party Ideology. To the South, the
Federal Government has become the symbol of </span><st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Northern </span></st1:place><span style="font-family: Arial;">Aggression, and anything it does is therefore wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But
then, there is the Northern rejection of Southern Culture, that engenders equal </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">derision</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">and
even hate in the Union States.</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Southern
Culture, specifically, their innate cultural conservatism and resistance to
change, is what spurred the Civil War.</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Rather than accept that slavery was rapidly becoming immoral, not just
in the United States, but across the globe, the South stubbornly clung to the
institution, to the point of tearing the country apart to try to preserve
it.</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But
this isn't the only cultural touchstone that the South has imposed on the
North. Religiously based discrimination, Segregation, Creationism, distrust of Science, conservative religious morals, and all that
follows from Confederate Culture has equally been imposed on the North. This has been through both churches and
through control of things like the Texas Board of Education which heavily influences textbook content for the entire country.
And just like most of the country's political solutions has been
Northern Impositions, most of the nation's cultural development has been
restrained and molded by Southern Culture. Just like in the end, we have fairly strong Northern Federal Government model, most of our morality is Southern Christian.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And
this creates a situation where the South hates all political solutions to
problems, regardless of where that solution originates, and the North hates all Southern cultural impositions, again regardless of what type it is. The Southerners still paint all politicians
with the Carpetbagger brush, believing them to be fundamentally corrupt
creatures, and the Northerners stereotype all Southerners with the Slaveholder
image, considering them to be backward, ignorant racists. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And
then there is the West, which really hates both sides of this fight and just wants to be left
alone. Many in the media conflate
Western Libertarianism with Southern Tea Partyism, but they are actually quite
different, although sometimes their goals align. But sometimes the Western though aligns with
the Northern Ferderalism as well. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The
Southern Tea Party wants to get government out of people's lives, so that
religion can take over the guidance of the country. It isn't anti-authoritarian, it is
anti-government. On the other hand,
Western Libertarianism just wants to be basically anarchic to a greater or lesser extent. They are not really pro-government, but they
also aren't particularly sold on religious authority, or any sort of
over-arching system of control.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Remember,
the West was born out of escaping the conflict that tore the East apart. It was also founded in a strong individualism
because there wasn't much out here to rely on until recently. In point of fact, even when I was a child,
you pretty much kept six months of food, a good supply of water, and candles
handy, because, in an emergency, you needed to be able to take care of yourself
and family. This has led to a kind of
survivalist mentality among Westerners. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But
in even in that independence, there is something important wrapped up in
it. Even though you needed to take care
of yourself, you still helped the community.
In the West, the community, whatever that might be, is far more
important than it is back East. Back
East, you help the people you know, in the West, you help the people around
you, even if you don't know them that well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The
other aspect of the independence of the Western mindset is basically, if I'm
not hurting anyone, leave me the Hell alone.
Legalization of Pot, prostitution, gambling, isolationism, gun rights
and anti-regulation are part and parcel of this worldview. We have no problem with being left to our own
resources, but we really don't like being told what to do, even if it is in our best interests. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This
leads to the West being relatively volatile in terms of national politics. Our allegiances shift with the winds,
sometimes we side with the Northern Politics, sometimes with the Southern
Culture, but no one seems to realize out East that these are temporary alliances,
because this group or that group just happens to be going in the direction we
want to go. We have no sense of
commitment to either side. Right now,
because the politics of the North seem to be more about freedom, i.e.
legalization, gay rights, etc, we tend to vote in that direction, sometimes. But if Southern Culture seems to give more
freedom, i.e. gun rights or reduced regulation, we will go that direction, sometimes. And in the end we will go for whatever
freedoms we want more at that moment. We
are a very fickle date, which neither party seems to recognize.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">But
in the end, I think this really frames what is going on in this country. Northern Political Solutions vs. Southern
Cultural Solutions vs. Western leave me alone solutions. </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">It
will be interesting to see over the next decade if we can solve this, and
overcome the bitter legacy of a War that honestly has been over for a century
and a half.</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">Of course, that is just the
Westerner in me talking.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYpX7IH3s2ZaWPalpPxBHGDOfaUPYVdkjKWoWl_XWRTSYTQlkrxKsedCHXDPK6mBC6Ra9aevhafk-drvrtA9Tz-6IaO_mHvYr5VbGoFoei7kiq6LrXu1rFLLBQ5kRe8YKk2N7XaZN0OJTG/s1600/Lincoln.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYpX7IH3s2ZaWPalpPxBHGDOfaUPYVdkjKWoWl_XWRTSYTQlkrxKsedCHXDPK6mBC6Ra9aevhafk-drvrtA9Tz-6IaO_mHvYr5VbGoFoei7kiq6LrXu1rFLLBQ5kRe8YKk2N7XaZN0OJTG/s1600/Lincoln.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></div>
Scott Swortshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07499876683299709817noreply@blogger.com0