A friend, who's had a spotty time with jobs lately, contacted me with "good" news. "I've got a job offer on the table to go be a ramp supervisor at Dulles! That's a load off!" Upon closer examination, the job pays less than half, he's done it before and it's a go no where job, he's putting one more pin in a job map that's been all over the place, and he's mainly worried about improving cash flow at the house with a kid coming. So I sent him this -
"My Friend
The problem that always intrudes into these situations is - if you have a new job there's always the spin up time, and then the basic expectation that you will be focused on your work. This means not focused on a different job - aka the job of finding that better career opportunity.
I have said a number of times that finding a job is a full time job in and of itself. One of the ways that you can impress a potential employer is by demonstrating that you understand that, in the way you have been conducting your job search. After all they have little else in terms of real performance that they can look at.
This is where the notion of faith has to enter the picture... not it terms of Christianity or Buddhism or anything religious but the simple function of belief in yourself and what you are doing. It is easy to "settle", to take the easy path, to do something that is less than what you want to do, because it covers the bases. When it gets right down to it, that's not much better than the subsistence worker, like a Masai who come in from the bush, gets a menial job just long enough to pay for the pots and knife that he wants, and then heads back to the bush.
I am not trying to talk you out of this but there really is a point, for any of us doing this, where you have to be able to make that wager and say "I'm betting I can do better!" and then really WORK the plan to do better. Part of the process requires faith in yourself, and part of the process requires action based on that faith. Where are you on the path we set out before? How far are you with your tickler list of contacts? If you want to have the bases covered while your hunt that's fine but you better be real clear with yourself about what time and effort you will need to put in to work the issues, above and beyond the time required for that job. Depending upon when that job is, you may or may not have much time during normal working hours, when you can realistically contact people, to work the better job issues. The odds on shot is that the next time you'll have the time to no kidding, actually WORK the problem of improving your job situation will be the NEXT TIME your out of work.
Just make a pass through all this and let it mull for a couple hours, then, make your decision. Silence the clamor of worry and fear. Set aside the anxiety of the moment. To quote something useful from Dune - the Bene Gesserit "Litany Against Fear" :
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
This is that point in life where you have to make a decision that will effect the rest of your life. There are probably moments like this every day. What message do you want to send yourself? your wife? your life? It is a simple thing with vast potential. Are you really going to fall into the river with the crocodiles, or are you going to get your leg over that pipe, get across the river, and complete your mission? You have to decide what, and how much, you believe about you. It is Herculean to tell the panic to take a fuckin' hike the first time you do it, but it gets easier after that. How much of you is chutzpah, how much schmuck? How much is cajones, and how much is frijoles? In your soul of souls only you know. I have expectations and beliefs, my wife has expectations and beliefs, your wife has expectations and beliefs, but only YOU can make the decisions that determine the answer to those questions. Whatever you decide - understand this. Life is to be lived without regret. Whatever you decide, if you then spend your life regretting it, you made the wrong decision. Whatever you decide, decide something you can be happy with and then, be HAPPY!
Regards
John
He called me ten minutes later and wanted to know how I could read inside his soul like that. I said I didn't need to read inside his soul, I simply paid attention to those moments in my own. We all KNOW what is right, what we really want but how often do we have the fundamental courage to put it out on the table and lay claim to it? That's where the rubber meets the road!!
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Obama-Nation is an Abominition...
It's not like no one else has noticed (thank god!) but for those of you still think Jerome Corsi has something meaningful to say - get a life, grow up, and stop forfeiting your intelligence to fringe elements. If fact checking were a requirement in modern literature, Obama-Nation wouldn't be a book, and Jerome Corsi wouldn't be considered an author. Despite what any of you may feel about John Kerry, the swiftboat debacle was a reprehensible act in any light and Obama-Nation is another attempt at the same. The only recognition needed here is that Simon & Schuster, the otherwise quality publishers of books, has wanted to figure out a way to collect some of the vast sums of money burning holes in the pockets of the unwashed heathen and that is regularly collected by tel-evangelists and the National Enquirer (you know, "Expiring minds want to know!"). Well they've done it, by owning a small side publisher, where editorial control is accomplished by someone with the scruples of the average dump rat, the literary selectivity of a goat, and as greedy as the S&S CFO. Congratulations S&S, you can now get rich the same way the "robber-barons" of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century did, by exploiting this country's ignorant, misguided poor to your own personal benefit. Has anyone stopped and taken a close look at our internationally vaunted market economy lately to see how much of it rests on exactly that premise??
For some other relevant thoughts on this subject see:
Obama Nation an Abominition
and
Obama-Nation
Thanks for reading - have a great day!
Smokemaster
For some other relevant thoughts on this subject see:
Obama Nation an Abominition
and
Obama-Nation
Thanks for reading - have a great day!
Smokemaster
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Chain Political Emails Are Bogus...
I have extracted part of a posting from FactCheck.org, a group dedicated to fact checking everything that comes out on either side in a political campaign. This piece is TOO good, TOO accurate not to recognize here - mainly because I get SO MUCH CRAP chain email forwarded by people who think that because we are part of a common community (veterans), they think they are doing me a favor by keeping me "informed" .
That Chain E-mail Your Friend Sent to You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously.
I’ve noticed that chain e-mails, particularly those about politics, have a lot of things in common: urgent and frightening messages; spelling errors; a tendency to blame mainstream media for not telling the real story; and false, misleading, utterly bogus, and completely off-base claims.
If there was ever a case where readers should apply a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard, this is it. We at FactCheck.org ask the public to be skeptical about politicians’ claims. With these e-mails, outright cynicism is justified. Assume all such messages are wrong, and you'll be right most of the time.
Yes, there are a few chain e-mails floating around the Web that are actually true – but not many. And when it comes to messages about the top presidential contenders, truth in e-mail is an elusive quality. In our Ask FactCheck feature, launched late last year, we've looked into several e-mails our readers have sent to us. We're just getting started, but overwhelmingly they have turned out to be false. Snopes.com has been investigating e-mail and other urban legends since 1995, and the site's founders, Barbara and David Mikkelson, have written articles about 31 e-mails about Barack Obama and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. Only two e-mails were completely accurate. While a handful had elements of truth in them or couldn’t be verified, the vast majority were flat-out false.
Another writer who debunks rumor and lore is David Emery, author of About.com's Urban Legends page. He lists seven e-mails about Hillary Clinton and five about Barack Obama. His verdict: 12 false and misleading, 0 true.
We have yet to see e-mails about John McCain, and Emery notes a decidedly anti-Democrat tilt to the bulk of the e-mail chatter. But there's still plenty of time before the election. In 2004, a left-leaning e-mail claimed the Bush administration was quietly pushing legislation to reinstate the military draft. The claim was bogus, but the e-mail prompted such paranoia that a GOP-controlled House overwhelmingly voted down a bill to reinstate the draft just to show that it rejected the measure. Snopes has chronicled two claims about McCain – both were true, and one was a positive story...
Often, the message itself includes major red flags that should alert readers that the author is not to be trusted. Here are just a few of what we’ll call Key Characteristics of Bogusness:
http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html
This raises the serious question of whether or not, in fact, the basis for popularity of these emails is a problem related to the same folks that managed to squeak George Bush into office twice - being the last gasp and bastion of a massive collection of largely bigoted, hugely ignorant, fundamentally misinformed, nearly misanthropic white anglo-saxon protestants, who's deviant manifestations in the Clu Clux Clan and neo-nazi thinking hold sway in various enclaves around the country but who may have greater sympathy in the populace than any thinking American wants to admit... for the most part because of their collective insecurity and their deep seated, gut level understanding that there is not real future for them the way the world is headed. More significantly, in my case, there is a direct correlation between the number of people who pass me this junk, the amount of it they pass, and their branch of service. Unfortunately the correlation lends creedence to the fact that Army recruits rank at the low end off the intellectual scale, Marine Corps and Navy somewhere in the middle and, Air Force is at the top.
(while we're at it - Want to know how misanthropic you are? Click Here)
Well it's something to consider - but in the meantime, an ounce of skepticism is worth a pound of idiocy.
Have a great day!
Smokemaster
That Chain E-mail Your Friend Sent to You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously.
March 18, 2008
by Lori Robertson
I’ve noticed that chain e-mails, particularly those about politics, have a lot of things in common: urgent and frightening messages; spelling errors; a tendency to blame mainstream media for not telling the real story; and false, misleading, utterly bogus, and completely off-base claims.
If there was ever a case where readers should apply a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard, this is it. We at FactCheck.org ask the public to be skeptical about politicians’ claims. With these e-mails, outright cynicism is justified. Assume all such messages are wrong, and you'll be right most of the time.
Yes, there are a few chain e-mails floating around the Web that are actually true – but not many. And when it comes to messages about the top presidential contenders, truth in e-mail is an elusive quality. In our Ask FactCheck feature, launched late last year, we've looked into several e-mails our readers have sent to us. We're just getting started, but overwhelmingly they have turned out to be false. Snopes.com has been investigating e-mail and other urban legends since 1995, and the site's founders, Barbara and David Mikkelson, have written articles about 31 e-mails about Barack Obama and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. Only two e-mails were completely accurate. While a handful had elements of truth in them or couldn’t be verified, the vast majority were flat-out false.
Another writer who debunks rumor and lore is David Emery, author of About.com's Urban Legends page. He lists seven e-mails about Hillary Clinton and five about Barack Obama. His verdict: 12 false and misleading, 0 true.
We have yet to see e-mails about John McCain, and Emery notes a decidedly anti-Democrat tilt to the bulk of the e-mail chatter. But there's still plenty of time before the election. In 2004, a left-leaning e-mail claimed the Bush administration was quietly pushing legislation to reinstate the military draft. The claim was bogus, but the e-mail prompted such paranoia that a GOP-controlled House overwhelmingly voted down a bill to reinstate the draft just to show that it rejected the measure. Snopes has chronicled two claims about McCain – both were true, and one was a positive story...
Often, the message itself includes major red flags that should alert readers that the author is not to be trusted. Here are just a few of what we’ll call Key Characteristics of Bogusness:
- The author is anonymous. Practically all e-mails we see fall into this category, and anytime an author is unnamed, the public should be skeptical. If the story were true, why would the author not put his or her name on it?
- The author is supposedly a famous person. Of course, e-mails that are attributed to legitimate people turn out to be false as well. Those popular messages about a Jay Leno essay and Andy Rooney’s political views are both baloney. And we found that some oft-quoted words attributed to Abraham Lincoln were not his words at all.
- There’s a reference to a legitimate source that completely contradicts the information in the e-mail. Some e-mails will implore readers to check out the claims, even providing a link to a respected source. We're not sure why some people don't click on the link, but we implore you to do so. Go ahead, take the challenge. See if the information you find actually backs up the e-mail. We've examined three such e-mails in which the back-up material clearly debunks the e-mail itself. One message provided a link to the Tax Foundation, but anyone who followed it would have found an article saying the e-mail's figures were all wrong. Another boasted that Snopes.com had verified the e-mail, but Snopes actually said it was false.
- The message is riddled with spelling errors. Ask yourself, why should you trust an author who is not only anonymous but partially illiterate?
- The author just loves using exclamation points. If the author had a truthful point to make, he or she wouldn’t need to put two, three, even five exclamation points after every other sentence. In fact, we're developing another theory here: The more exclamation points used in an e-mail, the less true it actually is. (Ditto for excessive use of capital letters.)
- The message argues that it is NOT false. This tip comes from Emery, who advises skepticism for any message that says, "This is NOT a hoax!"
- There’s math involved. Check it. One message that falsely claimed more soldiers died during Bill Clinton’s term than during George W. Bush’s urged, "You do the Math!" We did. It’s wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html
This raises the serious question of whether or not, in fact, the basis for popularity of these emails is a problem related to the same folks that managed to squeak George Bush into office twice - being the last gasp and bastion of a massive collection of largely bigoted, hugely ignorant, fundamentally misinformed, nearly misanthropic white anglo-saxon protestants, who's deviant manifestations in the Clu Clux Clan and neo-nazi thinking hold sway in various enclaves around the country but who may have greater sympathy in the populace than any thinking American wants to admit... for the most part because of their collective insecurity and their deep seated, gut level understanding that there is not real future for them the way the world is headed. More significantly, in my case, there is a direct correlation between the number of people who pass me this junk, the amount of it they pass, and their branch of service. Unfortunately the correlation lends creedence to the fact that Army recruits rank at the low end off the intellectual scale, Marine Corps and Navy somewhere in the middle and, Air Force is at the top.
(while we're at it - Want to know how misanthropic you are? Click Here)
Well it's something to consider - but in the meantime, an ounce of skepticism is worth a pound of idiocy.
Have a great day!
Smokemaster
Saturday, July 26, 2008
You're so pretty, and witty, and ... gay?
On the anniversary of a daughter's long ago declaration of her "gayness" I reviewed a response I made to her then. The world hasn't gotten any better in the intervening years and, as the blog is the staunch defender of the functional middle ground, I am very clear on the fact that the world isn't and shouldn't be made up of nothing but gay rights activists or gay bashers. With a view toward "declared" gays understanding a rational viewpoint on the subject, and people in the middle finding SOMETHING to identify with in print (there is VERY little that is not arch extremist from either perspective) I offer the following response to my daughter from that time some ten years ago -
" If you want to exist within a given social structure - if you want the benefits and functions of that social system - you have to be willing to pay the price, make the sacrifices in relation to pure personal autonomy that go with co-existence. This is true for everything from marriages to neighborhoods to communities and societies in whatever form they may take. This is an immutable law that exists in every instance of human society or civilization that exists. My discussion with them ended at this point. For you I will take it a step further.
The function of "being gay" has understandable roots in a recognized biological anomaly. As such, it IS NOT the "normal" biological direction intended for the species and therefore constitutes a deviation from "normal". Reproduction does not occur in gay pairing and reproduction, not recreation, is the fundamental reason for sexual function in humans. Whether we like it or not we are ALL "pawns" in a huge numbers game played by a very numbers oriented function called "survival of the species". That's WHY it feels so good - the pleasure center can create some of the strongest drives in humans to repeat certain behaviors (witness the problems associated with drug addiction). We're wired to survive - or not, in the case of those who are legitimately, biologically gay. Some so-called straight people are more at ease with tolerating broad variations on the human theme, others are not. In turn, some gay people are more effective at living life first as humans, and then in the context of their sexual orientation.
This is where paragraph two ties in - there is a fundamental misconception among those who constitute the (validly) gay community that by simply declaring their existence openly (coming out of the closet as they say) they can make a legitimate claim to special treatment and/or rights. I don't agree with or believe in supporting this misconception, as you know. The overall values and morals of any given civilization or community of whatever size are going to fundamentally revolve around what is collectively seen as best for that community, which in turn is going to trace it's roots to survival of the community. Survival of any community is inherently linked to it's capacity were reproduction/procreation are concerned. This puts the gay element on the fringe if not outside the pale in all instances - legitimate biological gay IS NOT a genetic path of survival and, like mules, dies out in one generation. The denegrating use of the term "breeders" by gays to signify straight people as much as acknowledges this point.
Advances of modern medicine have obviated much of the process of natural selection in humans thus allowing (if not promoting) vastly more survival of non-viable genetic material. That not withstanding, fundamental alignment toward "natural selection" and "survival of the species" are the underlying basis for societal resistance to and hostility toward the "gay" community. Ancient Sparta practiced the policy of infanticide for any infant not deemed genetically superior. No matter how "broken" the institutions of our society may be or seem, there is still the sense that any tolerance of something as "dead ended" as gay lifestyle is completely against the most elementary "best interests" or values of a community and society. Forget the fact that many myths about gay people exist because of exceedingly poor behavioral choices and value judgments made by earlier gays. Forget that the record of gay relationships throughout history is replete with sexually predatory behavior. Forget the alleged condemnations of gay lifestyle purported to be in the bible. All of that is emotional froth fraught with misinformation and knee-jerk reaction.
This problem is further exacerbated right now in history because of the emergence of a detailed view, and corresponding knowledge, of the myriad skeleton's that have been hidden in many closets for decades if not centuries, almost all of which involve some form of sexually predatory behavior. Sexual abuse of children, spousal abuse, male on male rape, male on female rape, incest, etc. The predatory record of homosexuality tends to get lumped into that sphere.
The bottom line: I am, on the level just outlined, part of THIS social system or community and I AM willing to make the sacrifices necessary to be a contributing part of the process. One of those could be seen as the sacrifices of individual liberty required to have and raise children, rather than hedonistic pursuit of our own earthly pleasures. These children will grow up to contribute to and perpetuate that social process. While it is not horrifying or particularly offensive to contemplate one of our children being gay, there is nothing particularly appealing about it either. I am not avoiding or rejecting communications on this subject as a matter of disrespect or dislike. I simply don't accept gayness as being a valid function of normal community survival or prosperity and don't find anything of happiness about declarations in that respect.
On some level the greater community good is the fundamental driver of all civilization. The natural derivative of that in the individual is commitment to a life that embodies and empowers a value system bigger than one's self. Early Greek and Roman thinkers spent a good deal of time on this subject. Some of the early arguments, pro and con, regarding the good of the individual, democratic thinking, and the notion of a republic all centered around different views of the “greater good”. Not much has changed in three millennia. While most people are, at one point or another, selfish, or may do things that are manifestly self-centered, if the overall balance of society or a civilization operates on an essentially self-centered scheme, devoid of a greater philosophy than personal materialism, it will ultimately fail. Witness the decline of the western Roman Empire, etc.
On a rational or intellectual level, I can accept that a gay couple can be every bit as loving, caring, and concerned for each other, as a straight couple BUT in the final word, all of that serves only the benefit of the couple, if it doesn't yield an incremental increase to the life span or survival of the community and it doesn’t convey the aggregated values of what DOES perpetuate the social process forward. By its very nature, a successful biological coupling brings a broad array of things to the process of forward social and psychological movement, as well as community survival that are either competely absent or severely challenged in an adoption situation, so adoption isn't the "easy" answer either.
Ultimately the works of the gay community over time have contributed and will continue to contribute in substantial and meaningful ways to the QUALITY of human life and civilization, but do not directly contribute in the most fundamental way to the CONTINUANCE of that community, and that will always be the critical focus and point of rejection, at the bottom line. "
" If you want to exist within a given social structure - if you want the benefits and functions of that social system - you have to be willing to pay the price, make the sacrifices in relation to pure personal autonomy that go with co-existence. This is true for everything from marriages to neighborhoods to communities and societies in whatever form they may take. This is an immutable law that exists in every instance of human society or civilization that exists. My discussion with them ended at this point. For you I will take it a step further.
The function of "being gay" has understandable roots in a recognized biological anomaly. As such, it IS NOT the "normal" biological direction intended for the species and therefore constitutes a deviation from "normal". Reproduction does not occur in gay pairing and reproduction, not recreation, is the fundamental reason for sexual function in humans. Whether we like it or not we are ALL "pawns" in a huge numbers game played by a very numbers oriented function called "survival of the species". That's WHY it feels so good - the pleasure center can create some of the strongest drives in humans to repeat certain behaviors (witness the problems associated with drug addiction). We're wired to survive - or not, in the case of those who are legitimately, biologically gay. Some so-called straight people are more at ease with tolerating broad variations on the human theme, others are not. In turn, some gay people are more effective at living life first as humans, and then in the context of their sexual orientation.
This is where paragraph two ties in - there is a fundamental misconception among those who constitute the (validly) gay community that by simply declaring their existence openly (coming out of the closet as they say) they can make a legitimate claim to special treatment and/or rights. I don't agree with or believe in supporting this misconception, as you know. The overall values and morals of any given civilization or community of whatever size are going to fundamentally revolve around what is collectively seen as best for that community, which in turn is going to trace it's roots to survival of the community. Survival of any community is inherently linked to it's capacity were reproduction/procreation are concerned. This puts the gay element on the fringe if not outside the pale in all instances - legitimate biological gay IS NOT a genetic path of survival and, like mules, dies out in one generation. The denegrating use of the term "breeders" by gays to signify straight people as much as acknowledges this point.
Advances of modern medicine have obviated much of the process of natural selection in humans thus allowing (if not promoting) vastly more survival of non-viable genetic material. That not withstanding, fundamental alignment toward "natural selection" and "survival of the species" are the underlying basis for societal resistance to and hostility toward the "gay" community. Ancient Sparta practiced the policy of infanticide for any infant not deemed genetically superior. No matter how "broken" the institutions of our society may be or seem, there is still the sense that any tolerance of something as "dead ended" as gay lifestyle is completely against the most elementary "best interests" or values of a community and society. Forget the fact that many myths about gay people exist because of exceedingly poor behavioral choices and value judgments made by earlier gays. Forget that the record of gay relationships throughout history is replete with sexually predatory behavior. Forget the alleged condemnations of gay lifestyle purported to be in the bible. All of that is emotional froth fraught with misinformation and knee-jerk reaction.
This problem is further exacerbated right now in history because of the emergence of a detailed view, and corresponding knowledge, of the myriad skeleton's that have been hidden in many closets for decades if not centuries, almost all of which involve some form of sexually predatory behavior. Sexual abuse of children, spousal abuse, male on male rape, male on female rape, incest, etc. The predatory record of homosexuality tends to get lumped into that sphere.
The bottom line: I am, on the level just outlined, part of THIS social system or community and I AM willing to make the sacrifices necessary to be a contributing part of the process. One of those could be seen as the sacrifices of individual liberty required to have and raise children, rather than hedonistic pursuit of our own earthly pleasures. These children will grow up to contribute to and perpetuate that social process. While it is not horrifying or particularly offensive to contemplate one of our children being gay, there is nothing particularly appealing about it either. I am not avoiding or rejecting communications on this subject as a matter of disrespect or dislike. I simply don't accept gayness as being a valid function of normal community survival or prosperity and don't find anything of happiness about declarations in that respect.
On some level the greater community good is the fundamental driver of all civilization. The natural derivative of that in the individual is commitment to a life that embodies and empowers a value system bigger than one's self. Early Greek and Roman thinkers spent a good deal of time on this subject. Some of the early arguments, pro and con, regarding the good of the individual, democratic thinking, and the notion of a republic all centered around different views of the “greater good”. Not much has changed in three millennia. While most people are, at one point or another, selfish, or may do things that are manifestly self-centered, if the overall balance of society or a civilization operates on an essentially self-centered scheme, devoid of a greater philosophy than personal materialism, it will ultimately fail. Witness the decline of the western Roman Empire, etc.
On a rational or intellectual level, I can accept that a gay couple can be every bit as loving, caring, and concerned for each other, as a straight couple BUT in the final word, all of that serves only the benefit of the couple, if it doesn't yield an incremental increase to the life span or survival of the community and it doesn’t convey the aggregated values of what DOES perpetuate the social process forward. By its very nature, a successful biological coupling brings a broad array of things to the process of forward social and psychological movement, as well as community survival that are either competely absent or severely challenged in an adoption situation, so adoption isn't the "easy" answer either.
Ultimately the works of the gay community over time have contributed and will continue to contribute in substantial and meaningful ways to the QUALITY of human life and civilization, but do not directly contribute in the most fundamental way to the CONTINUANCE of that community, and that will always be the critical focus and point of rejection, at the bottom line. "
Friday, July 25, 2008
More Obama Related Compost Turns Out To Be... Compost!!
The fun never stops under the big top... another dedicated McCain enthusiast and veteran (who apparently isn't familiar with McCain's voting record on veteran's issues!) by the nickname of Corky sent me another piece of electoral compost the other day that went along these lines:
Subject: This ought to wake us all up!
INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES
Spread the word.....
This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind-sided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry. Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples) McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales
How does this affect you?
If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.
If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6%
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement
accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president.
The experts predict that 'higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward.
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses,
farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to
these taxes.
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA
* New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet
* New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
* New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
* New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least....
* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
******************************
The GOOD NEWS? There's somebody beside me doing the homework on this junk (Hats off to Brooks Jackson!!) and Corky's nephew, who was aware of his work, sent the following response:
******************************
"Call me Alan Colmes (you know, a token independent that only seems liberal because of the company he keeps), but I had to reply to my uncle forwarding this one. A guy named Brooks Jackson thought the e-mail sounded as skewed as I did, and he did a little leg work
researching the "wake-up call."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up. This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.
Our own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to
which we have provided links. (Sender's note: links at bottom)
Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which
results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.
Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.
Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent
and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.
Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to the claim in this e-mail, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue
Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or
mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000.
Doubled Taxes? The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. The comparative rate tables this e-mail provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as we explained in an earlier article March 13 about another false e-mail from which these tables are copied. It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Furthermore, Obama proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in this bogus table.
Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.
The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire
temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.
Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.
"New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water." Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading.
The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also
supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even co-authored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that.
There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now.
Sources
“Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
“Energy and Environment. “Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#reduce-carbon-emissions
News Release: “CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama
>on CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” 27 March 2008. CNBC Web site.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/23835435/site/14081545/page/2/
“Plan to Strengthen the Economy.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief
Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” 20 June 2008.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to everyone who doesn't just auto-magically "buy in" to the bullshit much less waste everyone else's time and disk space to spread it! God save me from zealots who refuse to place honor and truth above their personal cause and will lie if necessary to save their hegemony.
Subject: This ought to wake us all up!
INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES
Spread the word.....
This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind-sided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry. Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples) McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales
How does this affect you?
If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.
If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6%
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock
market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement
accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president.
The experts predict that 'higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward.
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses,
farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to
these taxes.
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA
* New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet
* New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
* New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
* New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least....
* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
******************************
The GOOD NEWS? There's somebody beside me doing the homework on this junk (Hats off to Brooks Jackson!!) and Corky's nephew, who was aware of his work, sent the following response:
******************************
"Call me Alan Colmes (you know, a token independent that only seems liberal because of the company he keeps), but I had to reply to my uncle forwarding this one. A guy named Brooks Jackson thought the e-mail sounded as skewed as I did, and he did a little leg work
researching the "wake-up call."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up. This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.
Our own sources for the following are Obama's own Web site and other statements, interviews with Obama's policy advisers, and a comprehensive analysis of both the McCain and Obama tax plans produced by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, plus additional sources to
which we have provided links. (Sender's note: links at bottom)
Home Sales: The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which
results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.
Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.
Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent
and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.
Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to the claim in this e-mail, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue
Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or
mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000.
Doubled Taxes? The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. The comparative rate tables this e-mail provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as we explained in an earlier article March 13 about another false e-mail from which these tables are copied. It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Furthermore, Obama proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in this bogus table.
Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.
The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire
temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.
Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.
"New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water." Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading.
The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also
supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even co-authored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that.
There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now.
Sources
“Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
“Energy and Environment. “Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#reduce-carbon-emissions
News Release: “CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama
>on CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” 27 March 2008. CNBC Web site.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/23835435/site/14081545/page/2/
“Plan to Strengthen the Economy.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief
Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” 20 June 2008.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to everyone who doesn't just auto-magically "buy in" to the bullshit much less waste everyone else's time and disk space to spread it! God save me from zealots who refuse to place honor and truth above their personal cause and will lie if necessary to save their hegemony.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Joy of Cooking... Bureaucrats!!
So... I was trying to get my business expense report submitted and it wasn't good enough that the online system we have in place at the company I work for (which shall remain un-named!) is a convoluted mess and harder than a rubic's cube to use. I submit the report and get it tossed back for not itemizing the rental car section and making the GPS a personal expense. We send of an email to ask why the GPS isn't reasonable and get the following response:
"GPS is an add-on to the rental car and is considered a personal expense. If your program would like to reimburse it, it would be considered unallowable and would require your Business Group Director’s approval. As for the reasonable consideration…the only thing I can say is that this is only the 2nd time since January that I was made aware of an employee seeking reimbursement for GPS navigation. It is not part of what we would consider a standard travel expense.
Amany"
Now that was just too friendly and helpful for words - not to mention being irrational when it comes to any practical exposure to the word "reasonable" so I wrote a response:
"Amany,
If your new to an area and you need to get around efficiently with no wasted time or effort it makes a hell of a lot more sense than juggling a map book or Google mapping it while you're driving. A car provides the means to get where you need to go - directions provide you with the knowledge to get there - especially when meeting venues are being changed on the fly. That's reality. If it's a personal expense then so be it - but that's policy, which, in my experience, is formulated and then rarely reviewed to keep it in touch with "on the ground" reality. When that policy was formulated there probably wasn't GPS available. That would make the policy, and thus the "standard" travel expense, at least 3 years out of touch with the new reality.
When all the OTHER add on expenses associated with operating the vehicle are refused because I'm covered by my own car insurance (that I pay for) or they are un-necessary fluff, it seems slightly ludicrous to make an issue out of a GPS charge that helps me do my job better AND and be a more compelling representative of ########## in the competitive marketplace we call defense industry.
Just so we keep things in perspective -
1) I bought my own laptop for business travel needs
2) I buy my own car insurance WITH coverage for rental cars for business travel needs
3) I pay for any other incidental expenses during business travel
4) I (now) will be paying for my use of a directional device for business travel needs
But as my business travel and responsibilities increase, there is NO indexing of my compensation
Oh, that's right! - that's because I'm supposed to be able to get reimbursed for reasonable expenses.
As for your response to the word "reasonable" - I can't account for what you have or have not been informed of, what you have or have not remembered, or any other aspect of the historical period you mention, but the points noted above do present the basis for "reasonableness", using the reasonable person theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person).
Thanks
John"
Then it occurred to me - why send this back to her when I can send it to the world! She wouldn't get it because she's a bureaucrat and bureaucrats don't connect with reality. They hide in verse and phrase because they couldn't do their jobs if they didn't - but there are lots of other folks who will get it so here it is for general public consumption. Till next time! :-)
"GPS is an add-on to the rental car and is considered a personal expense. If your program would like to reimburse it, it would be considered unallowable and would require your Business Group Director’s approval. As for the reasonable consideration…the only thing I can say is that this is only the 2nd time since January that I was made aware of an employee seeking reimbursement for GPS navigation. It is not part of what we would consider a standard travel expense.
Amany"
Now that was just too friendly and helpful for words - not to mention being irrational when it comes to any practical exposure to the word "reasonable" so I wrote a response:
"Amany,
If your new to an area and you need to get around efficiently with no wasted time or effort it makes a hell of a lot more sense than juggling a map book or Google mapping it while you're driving. A car provides the means to get where you need to go - directions provide you with the knowledge to get there - especially when meeting venues are being changed on the fly. That's reality. If it's a personal expense then so be it - but that's policy, which, in my experience, is formulated and then rarely reviewed to keep it in touch with "on the ground" reality. When that policy was formulated there probably wasn't GPS available. That would make the policy, and thus the "standard" travel expense, at least 3 years out of touch with the new reality.
When all the OTHER add on expenses associated with operating the vehicle are refused because I'm covered by my own car insurance (that I pay for) or they are un-necessary fluff, it seems slightly ludicrous to make an issue out of a GPS charge that helps me do my job better AND and be a more compelling representative of ########## in the competitive marketplace we call defense industry.
Just so we keep things in perspective -
1) I bought my own laptop for business travel needs
2) I buy my own car insurance WITH coverage for rental cars for business travel needs
3) I pay for any other incidental expenses during business travel
4) I (now) will be paying for my use of a directional device for business travel needs
But as my business travel and responsibilities increase, there is NO indexing of my compensation
Oh, that's right! - that's because I'm supposed to be able to get reimbursed for reasonable expenses.
As for your response to the word "reasonable" - I can't account for what you have or have not been informed of, what you have or have not remembered, or any other aspect of the historical period you mention, but the points noted above do present the basis for "reasonableness", using the reasonable person theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person).
Thanks
John"
Then it occurred to me - why send this back to her when I can send it to the world! She wouldn't get it because she's a bureaucrat and bureaucrats don't connect with reality. They hide in verse and phrase because they couldn't do their jobs if they didn't - but there are lots of other folks who will get it so here it is for general public consumption. Till next time! :-)
Friday, May 2, 2008
Panem et circensus
In the March/April 1995 edition of Log Homes Illustrated, the editor, John H. Leeper, wrote:
" It is the nature of mass news media - and particularly television - to concentrate it's coverage on the spectacular, the unusual, the sinister, and the absurd. After all, circus side shows have drawn crowds for centuries, while reasonable debates of substantive issueslack mass appeal. of course, the problem with the "side show" approach to issues is that the barker with the loudest voice or the most garish slogans usually get's the lion's share of the attention. Voices of reason are left to beg in the streets. Therefore, it should be no wonder to any of us that when decisions are made on the federal level, they often turn out to be the wrong decisions. Elected officials listen to the cries of their constituents and their financial backers who, in turn, listen to the carnival barkers loudly shouting their propaganda slogans. In other words, I am a firm believer in the statement of the late cartoonist Walt Kelly, creator of the comic strip Pogo: "We have met the enemy - and he is us!" I also like a quote from rock musician Jerry Garcia: "Constantly choosing the lesser of two eveils is still choosing evil."
The only way to resolve complex problems in a society is first to realize they are complex and there are no simple answers. Next, we have to tune out the barkers and start looking for the opinions of men and women inclined to thoughtful consideration rather than hysteria or myopia... Perhaps it is time to turn down the volume and start listening to the "still, small voices" of reason who are all around us, but are simply ignored."
To which I simply add "No truer words were ever spoken!" Depending upon your choice of circus, you can hear Glenn Beck, or Lou Dobbs, or Rush Limbaugh, or any number of others trying to get you to pay attention to their personal freak show. Let's calm down and listen to the voices of reason. Think about it - you KNOW it's a freak show, and you know it's fun to watch but would you choose who's going to lead your community based on what you saw at the circus?
Remember, "Panem et circensus" - It was Juvenal that coined this system, a mechanism of influential power over the Roman mass. "Panem et Circensus", literally "bread and circuses", was the formula for the well-being of the population, and thus a political strategy. This formula offered a variety of pleasures such as: the distribution of food, public baths, gladiators, exotic animals, chariot races, sports competition, and theater representation. It was an efficient instrument in the hands of the Emperors to keep the population peaceful, and at the same time giving them the opportunity to voice themselves in these places of performance.
Makes you think, doesn't it? "If all they need to do to keep power is provide food and circuses... so much for the informed electorate!" The more times change the more things stay the same.
" It is the nature of mass news media - and particularly television - to concentrate it's coverage on the spectacular, the unusual, the sinister, and the absurd. After all, circus side shows have drawn crowds for centuries, while reasonable debates of substantive issueslack mass appeal. of course, the problem with the "side show" approach to issues is that the barker with the loudest voice or the most garish slogans usually get's the lion's share of the attention. Voices of reason are left to beg in the streets. Therefore, it should be no wonder to any of us that when decisions are made on the federal level, they often turn out to be the wrong decisions. Elected officials listen to the cries of their constituents and their financial backers who, in turn, listen to the carnival barkers loudly shouting their propaganda slogans. In other words, I am a firm believer in the statement of the late cartoonist Walt Kelly, creator of the comic strip Pogo: "We have met the enemy - and he is us!" I also like a quote from rock musician Jerry Garcia: "Constantly choosing the lesser of two eveils is still choosing evil."
The only way to resolve complex problems in a society is first to realize they are complex and there are no simple answers. Next, we have to tune out the barkers and start looking for the opinions of men and women inclined to thoughtful consideration rather than hysteria or myopia... Perhaps it is time to turn down the volume and start listening to the "still, small voices" of reason who are all around us, but are simply ignored."
To which I simply add "No truer words were ever spoken!" Depending upon your choice of circus, you can hear Glenn Beck, or Lou Dobbs, or Rush Limbaugh, or any number of others trying to get you to pay attention to their personal freak show. Let's calm down and listen to the voices of reason. Think about it - you KNOW it's a freak show, and you know it's fun to watch but would you choose who's going to lead your community based on what you saw at the circus?
Remember, "Panem et circensus" - It was Juvenal that coined this system, a mechanism of influential power over the Roman mass. "Panem et Circensus", literally "bread and circuses", was the formula for the well-being of the population, and thus a political strategy. This formula offered a variety of pleasures such as: the distribution of food, public baths, gladiators, exotic animals, chariot races, sports competition, and theater representation. It was an efficient instrument in the hands of the Emperors to keep the population peaceful, and at the same time giving them the opportunity to voice themselves in these places of performance.
Makes you think, doesn't it? "If all they need to do to keep power is provide food and circuses... so much for the informed electorate!" The more times change the more things stay the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
