I've always been a believer in the idea that as much as things change, they mostly stay the same. That is to say, everything is a variation on a theme.
Elvis was evil and/or immoral.
The Beatles were immoral.
Long hair, birth control, women's rights, recreational drugs, *rock music = evil and the end of society.
Tattoos, piercings, *music = evil.
I've never bought in. Things weren't better then or worse now in terms of flat comparisons.
You can argue pesticides, lead paint, asbestos, medicine, petroleum use, etc. There are improvements, to our knowledge, and setbacks. We honestly just don't have the luxury of time and perspective to make a factual, conclusive statement.
However, I just cringe at the "news."
We have certainly always been subject to the voices of the most wealthy among us. The Federalists weren't peasant, homeless, or hapless morons. It is true that money talks. But real money makes you listen, and doesn't take no for an answer.
I just flipped past 30 seconds of "news" hosted by Sean Hannity of Fox News. Sean informed me that the "Harvard Law" president doesn't understand a recent S.C. ruling and flat out lied, or in the alternative was an innocent idiot, as to the potential effects. Forget nuclear power. Just pipe me for steam and we will solve our national energy concerns for the next 20 years.
I will not pretend to be an expert on the effects of a SC ruling so recent the ink has yet to dry. However, I'm tired of people breaking out the idiot and incompetent labels on the smartest president in 10 years. Spare me. Why are only intelligent and pragmatic presidents labeled idiots by the party that is supposed to be the high thinking, rational party? Aren't the liberals the bleeding hearts? Aren't conservatives worried about logic, finance, and practicality?
I am a moderate. I'm fiscally conservative, in terms of paying for what you determine to be worthwhile. I like a functional government that acts like a wise, well meaning god parent and is a peacekeeping force but otherwise stays out of my life, for the most part. I will listen to the morality (offered, but not demanded), and I will take the financial support if I have nowhere else to turn, but I have too much pride to get comfortable living in the basement.
My idea of peace keeping is not just police, but economic and health based support to help those on hard times and in hard places. For the right consider this; private property is only accumulated and maintained after and while basic societal needs are met. Don't fool yourself into thinking you are that important or strong. As a smart friend said considering the recent downturn: if things get much worse and education is worth less than brute force I will not survive long [insert further descriptive sailor language]. Keeping the peace starts with meeting basic needs for everyone. Continue to erode that floor and expect 50% of the population to be on police payroll.
As to fiscal responsibility, modern republicans see a one way road. An intelligent driver looks both ways.
Paying for what you expect doesn't mean simply cutting programs until they meet revenues, necessarily, but making the two match. That could mean cutting expenditures. It could also mean raising revenue. Despite the fact that taxes are the lowest they have been since, well, a long time before most people can recall, the right cannot understand how high taxes are. No matter how much is cut there is always more cutting to do. Taxorexia is a disease. The right has it.
I don't like to pay too much for anything. I'm cheap. But I recognize that budgeting means paying and cutting, not one or the other.
I am just as mad at the left. Why is the left so unwilling to consider pragmatic solutions? Why do legislative majorities and control of the White House make the far left feel invincible? Why do they force the President's hand in a way that makes the midterm and next Presidential election uncertain at best? A pragmatist, centrist, intelligent leader is made to look a fool for being what most people should want. The news cycle doesn't help. It feeds the far left, the far right, and the far out of touch by giving them only what they tuned in to hear. Affirmation.
Granted historically radio was no better. With very limited media sources, radio and news print, political leaders could abuse the bully pulpit similarly in the past. However, is it more dangerous to have a political leader potentially abuse their office, jeopardizing their credibility, or to have a moron named Glen Beck or Keith Olberman feed propaganda to people that are barely awake after working 10 hours to bring home $80 with little to no repurcussion via election? I can't be sure. Glen and Keith can feed you and feed you and feed you the BS you want to hear with no duty to negotiate, no duty to tell you how it is or should be, but only a duty to please.
I do know that the current political climate makes isolation and affirmation of completely moronic views much easier.
Rant complete.
No comments:
Post a Comment