We're all being jipped as Americans. Our news providers feel it's much more important to cover things like YouTube videos and the return of Garth Brooks than a WAR or the health care debate. It's really sad when the only coverage a story like 30 republican senators voting against a bill that would ban government money from contractors that force employees to sign forms that prevent them from suing if they're raped by co-workers is The Daily Show. Why didn't CNN or FOX make this their head story? Maybe they were too busy arguing about why Obama did or didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
These organizations that claim to report news are a joke. If you watch CNN for more than an hour, you'll probably see more twitter submissions from watchers than actual facts from the anchor. Fox News is basically just a series of discussions rather than actual reporting. You get a talking heads opinion juxtaposed with lesser known talking heads agreeing and disagreeing, but never reaching any type of sensible conclusion. There's never a set of actual facts that everybody agrees on. It's sad when two different people can have two completely different sets of "facts" and nobody ever checks them. I remember in high school when I put a fact in a paper I had to back it up with a citation, some sort of proof that the fact was real and from a reliable source. Nowadays it seems more like Wikipedia is the primary source for these news companies.
I understand that real news is a downer and you have to make money, but come on, there's no reason why the front page of The Huffington Post for the past week has been about how tough a decision it's going to be for Obama to make to send more troops to Afghanistan. What happened to the days when people would read the facts and make their own mind up about the issues? Instead we're now spoon fed opinions with no actual evidence regarding any actual truth and we're just supposed to pick a side. Have we truly become so illogical that our news isn't even news? CNN may as well come on the air and say "Obama won the Nobel Peace prize, here's what some douche bag with no professional training typed into his cell phone when he heard the news" and sign off for the day.
Wake up people, think your own thoughts.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Universal Healthcare
Every body's pretty sick of the whole health care debate. Everybody seems to agree on what the problem is, but nobody can agree on the solution. Right now there are two major sides to the argument. Liberals support a government run public option, leaving private insurance companies mostly how they are, but creating market competition, giving citizens the option to choose between corporate or government provided health insurance. Conservatives are mostly just opposed to a public option, but support tort reform, such as a setting a cap on malpractice lawsuits. The real question though, is what happened to universal health care? So many members of congress were elected (along with President Obama) with a promise to pass universal health care. So why was that the first option thrown under the bus? Could it be that our country is really that scared of anything resembling socialism? Whatever the reason, the biggest flaw in this debate is the fact that universal health care is the only way to fix the problems we face with the health care industry. You may think that's a bold statement, but from an economic outlook it absolutely true.
Let's start by laying out what the problems are we are trying to fix with health care right now. There are two major problems. First, too many people are turned away for treatment because their insurance company refuses to pay due to a pre-existing condition, and second, premiums are too high and there's no restriction on how high insurance companies can raise premiums. You'd think that these would be easy problems to fix, just pass legislation that makes it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and set a cap on premiums, which is what the Baucus bill that recently passed the senate finance committee basically proposes. Unfortunately it's a near mathematical certainty that this will completely destroy the health insurance industry, and it's pretty easy to understand how.
How do insurance companies make money? They offer a flat rate to a group of people and collect profit from the people that don't use the full cost. To borrow from the pages of Charles Wheelan's Naked Economics, suppose that the average cost per year to insure a fifty year old man is $1250.00. An insurance company offers a plan to a large group of fifty year old men for the cost of $1300.00 per year, making a $50 off of each customer. Not every man will cost the insurance company $1300.00 to insure throughout the year, but some will cost the company more than $1300.00 to insure. The company makes up this difference from the money that the healthy men don't use but still pay in premiums. Now imagine that there are more illnesses among these men one year. They file more claims and the company pays out more money to treat their illnesses. The gap between what the healthy men don't use and the ill men do becomes smaller. The company begins to lose money and it becomes more difficult for them to pay out for any claims presented since they can't cover the cost.
Let's start by laying out what the problems are we are trying to fix with health care right now. There are two major problems. First, too many people are turned away for treatment because their insurance company refuses to pay due to a pre-existing condition, and second, premiums are too high and there's no restriction on how high insurance companies can raise premiums. You'd think that these would be easy problems to fix, just pass legislation that makes it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and set a cap on premiums, which is what the Baucus bill that recently passed the senate finance committee basically proposes. Unfortunately it's a near mathematical certainty that this will completely destroy the health insurance industry, and it's pretty easy to understand how.
How do insurance companies make money? They offer a flat rate to a group of people and collect profit from the people that don't use the full cost. To borrow from the pages of Charles Wheelan's Naked Economics, suppose that the average cost per year to insure a fifty year old man is $1250.00. An insurance company offers a plan to a large group of fifty year old men for the cost of $1300.00 per year, making a $50 off of each customer. Not every man will cost the insurance company $1300.00 to insure throughout the year, but some will cost the company more than $1300.00 to insure. The company makes up this difference from the money that the healthy men don't use but still pay in premiums. Now imagine that there are more illnesses among these men one year. They file more claims and the company pays out more money to treat their illnesses. The gap between what the healthy men don't use and the ill men do becomes smaller. The company begins to lose money and it becomes more difficult for them to pay out for any claims presented since they can't cover the cost.
The company now has two options, either raise every body's premiums, or find a way to insure a larger margin of healthy customers who will cost them less money. If the company raises premiums, the healthy men will eventually realize that they are not getting a good return on their investment, and stop paying for health insurance they're not using. This leaves the company with more sick customers and no way to make up the cost. The only way they can cover their costs is to avoid sick people as much as possible. This is where pre-existing conditions come in. If the company can weed out the people that are more likely to cost them more than they pay in premiums, they can red flag these customers and deny them coverage that will cost the company money and make it more difficult if not impossible to run their business.
Now there is another solution to this problem besides universal health care, but it is again inherently flawed. This is what some republicans, namely Mitt Romney, support, the mandate. They have a plan that requires every American to buy insurance, thus apparently guaranteeing an even mix of sick and healthy individuals for the insurance company to collect premiums from. This plan however breaks down though because it leaves the door wide open for price fixing. If everybody is required to buy health insurance, then all of the companies that offer said insurance could simply sit down at a round table and agree that no company charge less than x amount of money for any insurance plan. This guarantees that every company CEO gets their annual bonus and sets the stage for each company to slowly raise this minimum premium year by year. This of course is illegal, but it happens every day in dozens of other industries. All it takes to disrupt this is for one company to break the rules, but that would just attract a mafia-like consequence, where all of the other major insurance companies take out the small fish breaking the rules.
The only real answer is for universal health care. With universal health care, you have no profit margin, you have no price fixing. All of the money that the government would use to provide insurance for the people would come from the people. Every person would see a slight increase in taxes, and those who had higher than average medical costs would pay a little more at the end of the year when they file their taxes. The administrative costs would go down because there would be no files to transfer from one doctor/company to another, there would just be one big database that all doctors could draw information from. Employers wouldn't need to pay employees less because they can't cover insurance costs. They could actually pay employees more, because anytime you lessen an administrative cost for a company, you increase their profit. The simple fact is that the only way insurance companies stay in business is by avoiding paying to cover sick people. I truly wish that our elected leaders would realize this and rather than drawing out the inevitable conclusion of universal health care by slowly destroying insurance companies, they would just actively work toward universal health care and let the employees of this dead end industry move on to more profitable and sustainable occupations.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Glenn Beck is an Anarchist
Glenn Beck, what can be said about such a person? He draws millions of viewers every day away from the other news stations by preaching hysteria. I don't think a lot of the people that watch his show, like viewers of any other show on Fox News, actual research his claims. It scares and depresses me to think that so many people are listening to him.
Beck has a few problems with Obama and the current administration. The one he names most frequently is the government 'Czars'. He claims that these appointments are unconstitutional and have no checks or balances established on them. The truth could not be further from Beck's opinion. Now, it's a little difficult to research the history of Czars in America, since their title is NOT 'Czar'. With just a little Google searching, one can easily discover that 'Czar' is a term coined by the media, and never actually used officially by the government. Members of the media began calling these appointed officials Czars in the 40's. The actual titles of these 'Czars', is usually director. For instance, Byron Price, appointed Director of the office of censorship appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, or William J. Bennett, Director of the office of national drug control policy appointed WITH SENATE CONFIRMATION by George H.W. Bush. Now, I emphasize 'with senate confirmation' because Beck implies that these Czar choices are never voted on. Now maybe he was just talking about Obama's Czars, but oops, what about Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence, confirmed by the senate in 2009? One of the others things that's interesting to see is that one of Fox News's best friends nowadays Karl Rove was actually Domestic policy Czar under George W. Bush. Look out Glenn, you've got a Czar in your midst! The fact is that anybody in government can be called a czar. Any single government employee that is the director of a specific group or policy can be tagged as a Czar by the media because after all, the term Czar, is nothing more than a nickname the media has given to somebody. Much like calling Obama a 'racist' or a 'Nazi'.
Now why would Beck focus so much on these Czars when it's just a made up term by his own colleagues in the media? Beck says that Obama is establishing a shadow government, an organization poised to take over complete control of the U.S. government in response to some event. Beck wants you to believe that the longest lasting constitution in the world is in danger. He wants you to believe that a revolution is coming. He's showed this belief even when he was on CNN. This is one of the reasons why he deems those he disagrees with as 'revolutionaries', because you don't talk to revolutionaries, you kill them or imprison them. This is a classic war propaganda strategy. You can't depict your enemy as logical or somebody you can reach an agreement with, you must establish a clear Us vs. Them scenario, which is exactly what Beck is doing. He uses terms like racist, revolutionaries, shadow government, and Nazis to break down arguments into single sentence attacks that can be blindly repeated and cannot be argued against because they do not adhere to rules of logic.
Beck is a huge supporter of the TEA parties that continue to 'spontaneously spring up' whenever right wing organizations e-mail times and places. These tea parties are a call back to the Boston tea party, the most influential moment next to the "shot heard round the world" in beginning the revolutionary war. Beck also wrote a book called Common Sense, a direct reference to the essay by Thomas Pain with the same title that made the strongest argument for revolution against England. Is it surprising that Beck wants you to think of his enemies with such an anachronistic viewpoint? It would seem that he is trying to invoke an uprising.
Please do your research. This is not a way for me to speak out against somebody I just don't like. There are times in history when enemies are made clear rather than created by a member of an opposition. Glenn Beck has claimed to side politically with libertarians. Libertarians can justly be classified as anarchists in some instances. It is my opinion that Glenn Beck is an anarchist. He does not want a centralized government as it stands today. I'll leave you with the lyrics to a song titled Anatomy of Your Enemy that proposes 10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war. Think about how many of these tactics Beck uses and ask yourself if these are the tactics of truth or manipulation.
First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits, or fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!
Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information this can be done through state run media.Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information.Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.
Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.
Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."This can also be achieved by the use of flags.
Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."
Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.
Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears. Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear
Beck has a few problems with Obama and the current administration. The one he names most frequently is the government 'Czars'. He claims that these appointments are unconstitutional and have no checks or balances established on them. The truth could not be further from Beck's opinion. Now, it's a little difficult to research the history of Czars in America, since their title is NOT 'Czar'. With just a little Google searching, one can easily discover that 'Czar' is a term coined by the media, and never actually used officially by the government. Members of the media began calling these appointed officials Czars in the 40's. The actual titles of these 'Czars', is usually director. For instance, Byron Price, appointed Director of the office of censorship appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, or William J. Bennett, Director of the office of national drug control policy appointed WITH SENATE CONFIRMATION by George H.W. Bush. Now, I emphasize 'with senate confirmation' because Beck implies that these Czar choices are never voted on. Now maybe he was just talking about Obama's Czars, but oops, what about Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence, confirmed by the senate in 2009? One of the others things that's interesting to see is that one of Fox News's best friends nowadays Karl Rove was actually Domestic policy Czar under George W. Bush. Look out Glenn, you've got a Czar in your midst! The fact is that anybody in government can be called a czar. Any single government employee that is the director of a specific group or policy can be tagged as a Czar by the media because after all, the term Czar, is nothing more than a nickname the media has given to somebody. Much like calling Obama a 'racist' or a 'Nazi'.
Now why would Beck focus so much on these Czars when it's just a made up term by his own colleagues in the media? Beck says that Obama is establishing a shadow government, an organization poised to take over complete control of the U.S. government in response to some event. Beck wants you to believe that the longest lasting constitution in the world is in danger. He wants you to believe that a revolution is coming. He's showed this belief even when he was on CNN. This is one of the reasons why he deems those he disagrees with as 'revolutionaries', because you don't talk to revolutionaries, you kill them or imprison them. This is a classic war propaganda strategy. You can't depict your enemy as logical or somebody you can reach an agreement with, you must establish a clear Us vs. Them scenario, which is exactly what Beck is doing. He uses terms like racist, revolutionaries, shadow government, and Nazis to break down arguments into single sentence attacks that can be blindly repeated and cannot be argued against because they do not adhere to rules of logic.
Beck is a huge supporter of the TEA parties that continue to 'spontaneously spring up' whenever right wing organizations e-mail times and places. These tea parties are a call back to the Boston tea party, the most influential moment next to the "shot heard round the world" in beginning the revolutionary war. Beck also wrote a book called Common Sense, a direct reference to the essay by Thomas Pain with the same title that made the strongest argument for revolution against England. Is it surprising that Beck wants you to think of his enemies with such an anachronistic viewpoint? It would seem that he is trying to invoke an uprising.
Please do your research. This is not a way for me to speak out against somebody I just don't like. There are times in history when enemies are made clear rather than created by a member of an opposition. Glenn Beck has claimed to side politically with libertarians. Libertarians can justly be classified as anarchists in some instances. It is my opinion that Glenn Beck is an anarchist. He does not want a centralized government as it stands today. I'll leave you with the lyrics to a song titled Anatomy of Your Enemy that proposes 10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war. Think about how many of these tactics Beck uses and ask yourself if these are the tactics of truth or manipulation.
First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits, or fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!
Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information this can be done through state run media.Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information.Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.
Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.
Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."This can also be achieved by the use of flags.
Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."
Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.
Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears. Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Swiss Banks
Been a while since my last post. I'm working on somewhat of a manifesto that is getting larger and larger in my head as I go through it. Hopefully it will turn into something substantial. For now here's a pretty interesting thing I'm sure will be buried in the headlines. The largest bank in Switzerland agreed to reveal the names of 4,450 wealthy Americans holding offshore accounts. This could be a big blow to American tax evasion if followed through with. Perhaps the plutocracy in America will see some change soon. Read about it here.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Freedomworks.org
Is the movement behind "grassroots" citizen protests completely spontaneos and organized simply by citizens like Fox news would have us believe? All the TEA parties going on across America were supposedly just concerned citizens that got the word out to eachother right? All the people standing up in town hall meetings shouting at congressmen were speaking of their own accord using their own words right? Wrong.
It's recently come to my attention that there is one organization behind all of this. Freedomworks is the organization that organized the original and continues to organize the TEA parties around America. They are also the organization that has printed and distributed literature explaining exactly how to disrupt the health care town hall meetings happening around the country. So when Fox puts out a story saying that Americans are upset about health care reform, don't believe it. These are not spontaneous reactions from concerned citizens, these are scripted, orchestrated disruptions, and they are a hinderance to our democratic process.
The fact is, according to Gallup, 41% of Americans want health care reform passed by the end of this year.
Just a friendly reminder that the liars are still lying.
It's recently come to my attention that there is one organization behind all of this. Freedomworks is the organization that organized the original and continues to organize the TEA parties around America. They are also the organization that has printed and distributed literature explaining exactly how to disrupt the health care town hall meetings happening around the country. So when Fox puts out a story saying that Americans are upset about health care reform, don't believe it. These are not spontaneous reactions from concerned citizens, these are scripted, orchestrated disruptions, and they are a hinderance to our democratic process.
The fact is, according to Gallup, 41% of Americans want health care reform passed by the end of this year.
Just a friendly reminder that the liars are still lying.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Well Defended Ignorance
Lately I've been trying to take as pragmatic a view toward current events as possible. I listen to the reasons why all political views, especially libertarians since there seems to be a fast growing support behind such thinking, agree or disagree with presented options for our country's future. As new problems arise in the country, I've noticed a pattern that I follow with my regard to the governments' suggested solution. With almost every option given I first take an initial reaction, usually negative, then research the reasons for this suggestion, then research the reasons against this suggestion, then I come to agree with the suggestion. The initial opinion I hold almost always becomes the hard stance of influential libertarians.
For example, when Obama first proposed "bailing out" the car companies and financial institutions, I thought this was a horrible idea. Throughout America's history companies have prospered and faltered, major companies falling by the wayside often. Why should these companies be any different? If they make bad decisions, they should pay for it. This, I came to realize through research, was a very inconclusive view, leaving out huge details behind the failings of these companies. I first began to change my mind when I was presented with the argument that sure the bailouts weren't ideal, but they were a better option than another great depression. This got me thinking and researching how this situation came about in the first place. Would the country really fall into another depression if we hadn't sent money to these companies?
So I listened to all sides of the story. Some said banks were failing because they were loaning money irresponsibly. Others said that the war on terror was taking up too much money, and even others blamed the citizens themselves for taking loans when they knew they couldn't afford to pay back the borrowed money. All the experts seemed to say the same thing though, that this was the result of the deregulating of our financial sector that began under Reagan. I heard story after story of how our economy was so succesful after the great depression because of the tight regulations our government placed on the banking system, not allowing them to give out loans they thought wouldn't be paid back, and only borrowing enough credit to cover what was needed without excess insurance. This is logical to me, but brings up an important question. When irresponsible lending is happening, who's to blame, the lender or the lended to?
Libertarians tend to take the side against the government in the financial crisis. They say that it was the fault of polititians and laws being too strict and regulative. Of course, this fits with the opinion of libertarians not trusting the government. However, this seems very contradictory to me. Libertarians believe on the one hand that the government is at fault for being restrictive and not letting banks make the decision on their own to lend to high risk customers, dealing with the consequences whatever they may be, but on the other hand don't blame the individuals they feel should have the highest level of freedom for making unwise investments. One would think that if libertarians hold such disdain for large government, and put individuals on such a pedastal, then they would logically be required to hold the individual to a higher standard than the government in a case such as this financial meltdown. The government is too easy of a target. The deep thinking libertarian would realize this and move on from the obvious target to the more logical culprit.
Libertarians want the government to leave citizens alone. Their beliefs are borderline anarchist. This belief must be accompanied by a strong trust in the individual, which to me at least, takes a whole lot of faith. In order for a society to function the ideal way a libertarian would like, individuals would need to be self sufficient, honest, and incredibly intelligent, and not just some individuals, but all individuals, otherwise, the few intelligent would just end up governing the many unintelligent, dishonest, and dependant, defeating the whole purpose of stripping government in the first place. Given the example human beings have given for thousands of years, we're not anywhere near instituting anarchy, or anything anywhere near it. This makes the libertarian values contradictory to begin with, but we'll give it a little leway. If you believe that a society of individuals are capable of surviving without a constantly present governing force, then you must believe that each individual, or at least most, are capable of making rational decisions. So why then, when an individual makes the decision to borrow beyond his/her own means, do you blame the person lending out the money?
It seems to me that libertarians for the most part are not actually intellectuals, but rather oppertunists. By this of course I'm refering to the most mainstream examples of libertarians (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). Like I said earlier, my initial reaction to the proposal of the bailouts was to be against them. I made this decision without any prior knowledge to the system being put in place to monitor the bailout, or where the money was specifically going to. My opinion was formed simply on uneducated pure reaction, and again is the opinion adopted and held firm to by mainstream libertarians.
As pompous as it may come across, I consider myself somewhat of an intellectual. I like to get all the facts before forming a concrete opinion. This often times prevents me from even reaching a conclusion on many matters because it is simply impossible to gather every necessary piece of information in order to make a completely unbiased decision. This process seems to be the exact opposite of how libertarians make up their minds. Rather than gathering information and then coming to a conclusion, they come to a conclusion and then gather as much information as possible to support that conclusion. This is not intelligence, but rather well defended ignorance.
For example, when Obama first proposed "bailing out" the car companies and financial institutions, I thought this was a horrible idea. Throughout America's history companies have prospered and faltered, major companies falling by the wayside often. Why should these companies be any different? If they make bad decisions, they should pay for it. This, I came to realize through research, was a very inconclusive view, leaving out huge details behind the failings of these companies. I first began to change my mind when I was presented with the argument that sure the bailouts weren't ideal, but they were a better option than another great depression. This got me thinking and researching how this situation came about in the first place. Would the country really fall into another depression if we hadn't sent money to these companies?
So I listened to all sides of the story. Some said banks were failing because they were loaning money irresponsibly. Others said that the war on terror was taking up too much money, and even others blamed the citizens themselves for taking loans when they knew they couldn't afford to pay back the borrowed money. All the experts seemed to say the same thing though, that this was the result of the deregulating of our financial sector that began under Reagan. I heard story after story of how our economy was so succesful after the great depression because of the tight regulations our government placed on the banking system, not allowing them to give out loans they thought wouldn't be paid back, and only borrowing enough credit to cover what was needed without excess insurance. This is logical to me, but brings up an important question. When irresponsible lending is happening, who's to blame, the lender or the lended to?
Libertarians tend to take the side against the government in the financial crisis. They say that it was the fault of polititians and laws being too strict and regulative. Of course, this fits with the opinion of libertarians not trusting the government. However, this seems very contradictory to me. Libertarians believe on the one hand that the government is at fault for being restrictive and not letting banks make the decision on their own to lend to high risk customers, dealing with the consequences whatever they may be, but on the other hand don't blame the individuals they feel should have the highest level of freedom for making unwise investments. One would think that if libertarians hold such disdain for large government, and put individuals on such a pedastal, then they would logically be required to hold the individual to a higher standard than the government in a case such as this financial meltdown. The government is too easy of a target. The deep thinking libertarian would realize this and move on from the obvious target to the more logical culprit.
Libertarians want the government to leave citizens alone. Their beliefs are borderline anarchist. This belief must be accompanied by a strong trust in the individual, which to me at least, takes a whole lot of faith. In order for a society to function the ideal way a libertarian would like, individuals would need to be self sufficient, honest, and incredibly intelligent, and not just some individuals, but all individuals, otherwise, the few intelligent would just end up governing the many unintelligent, dishonest, and dependant, defeating the whole purpose of stripping government in the first place. Given the example human beings have given for thousands of years, we're not anywhere near instituting anarchy, or anything anywhere near it. This makes the libertarian values contradictory to begin with, but we'll give it a little leway. If you believe that a society of individuals are capable of surviving without a constantly present governing force, then you must believe that each individual, or at least most, are capable of making rational decisions. So why then, when an individual makes the decision to borrow beyond his/her own means, do you blame the person lending out the money?
It seems to me that libertarians for the most part are not actually intellectuals, but rather oppertunists. By this of course I'm refering to the most mainstream examples of libertarians (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). Like I said earlier, my initial reaction to the proposal of the bailouts was to be against them. I made this decision without any prior knowledge to the system being put in place to monitor the bailout, or where the money was specifically going to. My opinion was formed simply on uneducated pure reaction, and again is the opinion adopted and held firm to by mainstream libertarians.
As pompous as it may come across, I consider myself somewhat of an intellectual. I like to get all the facts before forming a concrete opinion. This often times prevents me from even reaching a conclusion on many matters because it is simply impossible to gather every necessary piece of information in order to make a completely unbiased decision. This process seems to be the exact opposite of how libertarians make up their minds. Rather than gathering information and then coming to a conclusion, they come to a conclusion and then gather as much information as possible to support that conclusion. This is not intelligence, but rather well defended ignorance.
Mainstream libertarians such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't do unbiased research. They go by their first reaction, which, when you're distrustful of the government, will always be negative. It's only after this decision has been made, that research is done, and only in order to support their argument. Any facts that are presented in contrast are quickly dismissed as misquided and wrong, no matter the amount of evidence against such a sentiment. They always come up with the same enemy, whoever is easiest to blame, which is almost always the government. After all, if you try and understand your enemy rather than just blindly disagreeing with everything they say, then you can't fill an hour show with reasons they're so bad. The blaming of the easiest target and the firm grasp held to initial, uninformed opinions is the norm for mainstream libertarians. They don't make smart decisions. They are not intelligent. They are in a business, and they know just how to look out for the person they hold most dear, themselves, the individual.
Friday, July 17, 2009
The lack of a community mentality
More and more everyday I find a reason to hate Utah. This should come as no surprise of course, but the thing that's shocking is the fact that it's incredibly difficult to peg why this state is so void of enjoyment. Some people will say, "oh it's the Mormons, they ruin everything" but this can't be. Most of the Mormons in the state don't even agree on what they believe. I will admit that there is a strong bias toward Mormon morals in the state government, but this could easily be overcome if there wasn't lacking a very key ingredient to what one could call the counter culture. This ingredient is exactly what has kept these morals as the norm in Utah for so long. It is a sense of community.
This state lacks a community mentality even among the Mormon majority. People are generally exclusive with their friendships and social activities. If you're not part of a very specific group of friends then you're not invited, it doesn't matter if you're Mormon or not. This of course comes from the judgemental attitude of the state, everyone trying to keep up with the Jones's. This obviously leaves the moral majority of the state, which everybody complains about, incredibly vulnerable to the possibility of a counterculture. Unfortunately, the counterculture in Utah has the same problem. It's very few and far between that you find a group of people that are accepting of anyone entering their midst based solely on the fact that they're a good person. People do not seek out the best in people here, they rather ignore any good qualities and find a way to bring a new acquaintances down below their own level so they can appear better than them.
My own opinions on this of course are biased due to my upbringing. I grew up in my adolescence in New Hampshire, less than an hour from Boston. In that area, the mentality is not one of bringing people down to a level below you, but rather a level on par with you. Nobody is better than anybody else. This works in both social directions, because not only does the community bring people acting more deserving than those around them down, but as a consequence they act to bring those worse off than themselves up, so all are part of the same community, no quasi-caste systems.
People in Utah need to develop a social mentality more like this. Mormons need to realize that not everybody in the state holds the same beliefs as them, and that it does not compromise their own beliefs to accommodate these people, and non-Mormons need to stop taking the cop out of blaming it on the Mormons and being prejudice against them. If everybody stopped letting their beliefs be so ostensible then the state would make a huge shift toward more of a community, rather than thousands and thousands of people all struggling against each other to be the best. Abolish your hierarchical mindset and ask yourself what you like about the person you shrug off on the street or give a dirty look to.
This state lacks a community mentality even among the Mormon majority. People are generally exclusive with their friendships and social activities. If you're not part of a very specific group of friends then you're not invited, it doesn't matter if you're Mormon or not. This of course comes from the judgemental attitude of the state, everyone trying to keep up with the Jones's. This obviously leaves the moral majority of the state, which everybody complains about, incredibly vulnerable to the possibility of a counterculture. Unfortunately, the counterculture in Utah has the same problem. It's very few and far between that you find a group of people that are accepting of anyone entering their midst based solely on the fact that they're a good person. People do not seek out the best in people here, they rather ignore any good qualities and find a way to bring a new acquaintances down below their own level so they can appear better than them.
My own opinions on this of course are biased due to my upbringing. I grew up in my adolescence in New Hampshire, less than an hour from Boston. In that area, the mentality is not one of bringing people down to a level below you, but rather a level on par with you. Nobody is better than anybody else. This works in both social directions, because not only does the community bring people acting more deserving than those around them down, but as a consequence they act to bring those worse off than themselves up, so all are part of the same community, no quasi-caste systems.
People in Utah need to develop a social mentality more like this. Mormons need to realize that not everybody in the state holds the same beliefs as them, and that it does not compromise their own beliefs to accommodate these people, and non-Mormons need to stop taking the cop out of blaming it on the Mormons and being prejudice against them. If everybody stopped letting their beliefs be so ostensible then the state would make a huge shift toward more of a community, rather than thousands and thousands of people all struggling against each other to be the best. Abolish your hierarchical mindset and ask yourself what you like about the person you shrug off on the street or give a dirty look to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
