If you live long enough, everything you have ever read comes in useful at some point. I was an avid reader of Greek myths and children's fairy tales, and I have finally come across a use for the story about how three goats managed to fool an ogre living under a bridge they wanted to cross. I mentioned this in my last blog and the more I thought about it, the more the story seemed a good parallel for today's politics.
But first some background. One of my contacts on facebook is almost a charter member of the Tea Party. Over the time I was on his friends list, he forwarded cartoons, rages, and rants from various sources, mostly attacking Obama but also taking on the general universe of "liberals" by which they seemed to mean anybody who disagreed with them. After a while, I got bored and unfriended him.
Recently, he send me another friends invitation. I debated a while before accepting. I really didn't want anymore cartoons about growing water melons on the White House lawn. With the passage of time, I wondered if the party had begun to substitute electability for howls of outrage. I lobbed a few grenades into the comments section: i.e. I started asked where the statistics had come from. I can now safely report that I have been called a liberal (which I am not really) and directed to go read the "evidence" for myself, which generally consisted of so-called surveys and studies from very right-leaning organizations--the kind I would trust no further than I would a study from MSNBC (which openly admits to being out there purely for fun and outrage).
So--no. Nothing had changed on the tea party front. Same old. I unfriended again. Nothing against him except his politics.
So what it is that irks me so much about the Tea Party? Well, I guess I see them as the ogre under the bridge.
It seems to me that successful politics, the kind I define as moving a nation forward in some way and improving the collective lot of its citizens is composed of two major parts: knowledge of the past and some intuition about the future, particularly some form of anticipating the outcomes, intended and otherwise, of particular policies. In other words memory and imagination.
The Tea Party is strong on memory. They feel that the past is the bastion of all that was ever good about this county and only a return to it will launch us into a future that is changing daily before our eyes.
Essentially, the past is the Tea Party.
Where they are woefully lacking is in imagination. By this, I mean that they are unwilling to consider or they don't even see the consequences of the ideology that drives them to want to destroy government. They can't imagine the future. They find it impossible to see that the world has changed unimaginably in the last fifty years and that there is no way back even if the majority of this country wanted it.
End Obamacare? Be prepared to deal with the furious medical-industrial complex that has invested in the new plans. And if the drowned refugee child created international distress, wait until it is a dead American child who could not get medical treatment because his family lost insurance.
Deport all the illegals and build a wall? Even Alcatraz was breached, so will every wall the US builds. Besides, many of those illegals have families in the US that they are trying to get to. Our policy to have Mexico discourage people from south American countries is going to be the next scandal since there are some genuine refugees that are being brutally killed along the way.
End all abortions? I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard Dr. Carson propose this. Even when I was of childbearing age, there was always a clause about saving a woman's life.
Shut down the government and stonewall budgets? Does the party really want to return this country to barter? Don't they realize that a lot of people are going to get very angry? And don't forget, these people are all now armed.
I could go on, but I won't. I want to get to the Billy Goats Gruff.
Right now, as I said, I see the Tea Party as an obstacle to building the future we need as a nation. They are the ogre under the bridge and only the very cleverest of billy goats can get past them. What a waste of time.
Today we are faced with a mass migration of people, probably among the largest movements since people moved out of Africa. These people are coming from the Middle East and South America and are not going back. It remains to be seen how the world's richest nations deal with a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude.
Today, whether we realize it or not, we are fighting WWIII in the Middle East. Eventually, the fight against radical ideologies will encompass us all and it will take generations to settle. Will it involve nuclear weapons? We must all hope not.
Today, we face changing weather patterns, whether natural or not, that may threaten our water and food supplies and may even lead to an invasion of this country by hungry, desperate people. How do we deal with this?
In the face of all this, what is the Tea Party worrying about? Whether the world they "leave" their children is the same one they grew up in. No, it won't be, I want to yell back at them. It won't even be the world we now live in. And, frankly, isn't that rather wonderful?
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
No, Government is Not the Problem--We Are
This is the first blog I've written in almost a year. The reasons for that are varied, but they sound fairly understandable to me as I look back. We've had health issues, hospital issues, and issues involving moving into a new house.
All are perfectly acceptable explanations in their own right, except that they are really only half of the picture. The main reason, the one that really hurts to think about, was my feeling that nothing I could do would make any difference.
It seemed that the trolls had taken over the bridge and rather than just charging a toll were actually trying to pull the bridge down.
But time changes things. Sitting in ERs has given me time to think about this and realize that perhaps I have something to say, even if it is really more of a question.
Why is it, I want to know, that people want to tear down that bridge instead of looking at who uses it, what its future might be, and how best to keep it safe and fulfilling its utility. Shouldn't we be discussing the nature of bridges, what we need them for, and how to have them still get us over future rivers?
I am questioning, of course, the anarchist idea of tearing down government. The burn, baby, burn school of economics, larded with various insanities such as millennial prophecies of world destruction.
Up until this point, I figured that the urge to destroy was merely ideological and that if people really looked into what they were calling for--in other words, put some thought in place of emotions-- they would see the folly of removing the one entity that supposedly protects us from one another.
But over the past year I noticed enough instances where these people have come up against fact and they have simply thrown it aside. Education only works when someone wants to be educated. Evidence works only if someone wants to listen. I have sadly watched as words such as truth have sunk into the morass of people choosing to use the word personally to mean exactly what they want rather than adhering to any agreed upon standard of meaning.
What is truth? Well, if the world isn't confused enough already, I can only say what it isn't: truth is not something that people can demand to be changed to suit personal ideas. Truth has to exist independently. Truth is not shouting that no one has proved that FOX distorts news when a search on the internet reveals dozens of instances--which wouldn't be so bad if FOX didn't claim to be unbiased. Just repeating an idea over and over doesn't make it true.
That's really why I haven't written. I found myself asking: What is the point when people read the US Constitution and claim to know what it means when in fact the Constitution means only what case law and Supreme Court opinions have interpreted it to mean? What is the point when everyone demands equal respect for their ideas regardless of whether there is any experience or knowledge to back them? What is the point when people want entertainment rather than serious engagement about ideas?
Well, I've finally decided that I am not going to be silenced by the trolls. Like the Billy Goat Gruffs, I am going to try to cross the bridge and stamp my feet at them--because I realize that silencing little voices like mine is what the trolls want.
All are perfectly acceptable explanations in their own right, except that they are really only half of the picture. The main reason, the one that really hurts to think about, was my feeling that nothing I could do would make any difference.
It seemed that the trolls had taken over the bridge and rather than just charging a toll were actually trying to pull the bridge down.
But time changes things. Sitting in ERs has given me time to think about this and realize that perhaps I have something to say, even if it is really more of a question.
Why is it, I want to know, that people want to tear down that bridge instead of looking at who uses it, what its future might be, and how best to keep it safe and fulfilling its utility. Shouldn't we be discussing the nature of bridges, what we need them for, and how to have them still get us over future rivers?
I am questioning, of course, the anarchist idea of tearing down government. The burn, baby, burn school of economics, larded with various insanities such as millennial prophecies of world destruction.
Up until this point, I figured that the urge to destroy was merely ideological and that if people really looked into what they were calling for--in other words, put some thought in place of emotions-- they would see the folly of removing the one entity that supposedly protects us from one another.
But over the past year I noticed enough instances where these people have come up against fact and they have simply thrown it aside. Education only works when someone wants to be educated. Evidence works only if someone wants to listen. I have sadly watched as words such as truth have sunk into the morass of people choosing to use the word personally to mean exactly what they want rather than adhering to any agreed upon standard of meaning.
What is truth? Well, if the world isn't confused enough already, I can only say what it isn't: truth is not something that people can demand to be changed to suit personal ideas. Truth has to exist independently. Truth is not shouting that no one has proved that FOX distorts news when a search on the internet reveals dozens of instances--which wouldn't be so bad if FOX didn't claim to be unbiased. Just repeating an idea over and over doesn't make it true.
That's really why I haven't written. I found myself asking: What is the point when people read the US Constitution and claim to know what it means when in fact the Constitution means only what case law and Supreme Court opinions have interpreted it to mean? What is the point when everyone demands equal respect for their ideas regardless of whether there is any experience or knowledge to back them? What is the point when people want entertainment rather than serious engagement about ideas?
Well, I've finally decided that I am not going to be silenced by the trolls. Like the Billy Goat Gruffs, I am going to try to cross the bridge and stamp my feet at them--because I realize that silencing little voices like mine is what the trolls want.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Big Government and Big Religion: What's the Difference?
I don't get it. All those people screaming about big government and its restrictions on freedom. All those people demanding that every little right they feel they should have (many invented) needs to be protected by something other than the possessor's sense of outrage.
Cases in point: I want to build a soccer stadium in my back yard. How dare they tell me I can't? I want to raise a pet elephant in my basement, why can't I do that? I want to build a ten foot high fence around my property. It's my land. What business is it of the nanny state to tell me what to do? It's a free country. It's my land. I'll do as I damn well please.
Well--perhaps, yes and good. But why are you singling out the government for these so-called restrictions when there is something else far closer to hand that you are not even looking at.
If you don't like Big Government, why are you letting Big Religion slide by?
Consider the ways in which religion (whether your particular one or not) controls your life. Far more than government, I assure you.
Religion is in your bathroom. Men are supposed to say a ritual prayer after using the bathroom and wash their hands outside. It there is no water outside the room, then they may wash their hands but should dry them outside. Hang towels outside the bathroom anyone??
Religion is in your bedroom. At certain times of the month, your wife cannot sleep with you. She is supposed to go to some isolated place while she menstruates and then take a ritual bath before she can return to your bed. Even then, you are supposed to listen to the teachings of old men when it comes to contraception (or not).
Religion is definitely in your kitchen. Look at all the kosher rules for food preparation and even the serving of fish on Friday in the Catholic Church (I think they stopped the rule when fish got both scarce and expensive).
Religion is in the way that you treat your children and your wife, the schools your children attend, and the clothes you wear. And historically, it will also tell you what to think and torture or execute you if you dare to call for intellectual freedom.,
My gosh--is there anything religion doesn not try to control?
So, why are all these people going on about resisting a big controlling goverment not yelling their fool heads off about big controlling churches?
Easy answer: because they have been conditioned not to question religion but to be distracted by governments instead.
As usual the other day, I found myself shaking my head over this hypocrisy and willful blindness. But it's clear that just pointing it out is not enough for the true believers among us.
So, here as my small offering is the list of commandments that governments try to have us follow along with the physical manifestations:
1. Thou shallt not cheat one another (building permits, licensing, required insurance).
2. Thou shallt not harm one another (driving licenses, insurance)
3. Thou shallt not cheat thy children (marriage, bigamy, child support)
4. Thou shallt not commit fraud (FCC, FDA)
5. Thou shallt not harm one another (Police, FBI, Courts)
6. Thou shallt contribute to national resources (IRS, Parks, bridges, roads)
7. Thou shallt have basic educational opportunities (DOE, higher education)
8. Thou shallt have some basic national protection from foreign invasions (Defense)
9. Thou shallt have some basic assurance that you will not sleep in street in old age (SS, Medicare)
10. Thou shallt have some assurance that your sex, age, and race cannot be used against you.
So what's so bad about these?
The biggest problem as I see it is that lots of people want these protections for themselves but don't want them to be offered to others whom they consider "not worthy." You can fill in the not worthy part with whatever you wish. I've heard the same people who raved about social security being the end of the nation as they knew it rush to the front of the line screaming "hands off my social security" when the time came.
Hypocrisy. Oh yes. Rationalized by appeals to an America that never was but in their minds should have been. Oh yes.
Hypocrisy and Greed--the new darlings of American subculture.
Cases in point: I want to build a soccer stadium in my back yard. How dare they tell me I can't? I want to raise a pet elephant in my basement, why can't I do that? I want to build a ten foot high fence around my property. It's my land. What business is it of the nanny state to tell me what to do? It's a free country. It's my land. I'll do as I damn well please.
Well--perhaps, yes and good. But why are you singling out the government for these so-called restrictions when there is something else far closer to hand that you are not even looking at.
If you don't like Big Government, why are you letting Big Religion slide by?
Consider the ways in which religion (whether your particular one or not) controls your life. Far more than government, I assure you.
Religion is in your bathroom. Men are supposed to say a ritual prayer after using the bathroom and wash their hands outside. It there is no water outside the room, then they may wash their hands but should dry them outside. Hang towels outside the bathroom anyone??
Religion is in your bedroom. At certain times of the month, your wife cannot sleep with you. She is supposed to go to some isolated place while she menstruates and then take a ritual bath before she can return to your bed. Even then, you are supposed to listen to the teachings of old men when it comes to contraception (or not).
Religion is definitely in your kitchen. Look at all the kosher rules for food preparation and even the serving of fish on Friday in the Catholic Church (I think they stopped the rule when fish got both scarce and expensive).
Religion is in the way that you treat your children and your wife, the schools your children attend, and the clothes you wear. And historically, it will also tell you what to think and torture or execute you if you dare to call for intellectual freedom.,
My gosh--is there anything religion doesn not try to control?
So, why are all these people going on about resisting a big controlling goverment not yelling their fool heads off about big controlling churches?
Easy answer: because they have been conditioned not to question religion but to be distracted by governments instead.
As usual the other day, I found myself shaking my head over this hypocrisy and willful blindness. But it's clear that just pointing it out is not enough for the true believers among us.
So, here as my small offering is the list of commandments that governments try to have us follow along with the physical manifestations:
1. Thou shallt not cheat one another (building permits, licensing, required insurance).
2. Thou shallt not harm one another (driving licenses, insurance)
3. Thou shallt not cheat thy children (marriage, bigamy, child support)
4. Thou shallt not commit fraud (FCC, FDA)
5. Thou shallt not harm one another (Police, FBI, Courts)
6. Thou shallt contribute to national resources (IRS, Parks, bridges, roads)
7. Thou shallt have basic educational opportunities (DOE, higher education)
8. Thou shallt have some basic national protection from foreign invasions (Defense)
9. Thou shallt have some basic assurance that you will not sleep in street in old age (SS, Medicare)
10. Thou shallt have some assurance that your sex, age, and race cannot be used against you.
So what's so bad about these?
The biggest problem as I see it is that lots of people want these protections for themselves but don't want them to be offered to others whom they consider "not worthy." You can fill in the not worthy part with whatever you wish. I've heard the same people who raved about social security being the end of the nation as they knew it rush to the front of the line screaming "hands off my social security" when the time came.
Hypocrisy. Oh yes. Rationalized by appeals to an America that never was but in their minds should have been. Oh yes.
Hypocrisy and Greed--the new darlings of American subculture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)