I realize, for many of you this comes as no surprise. You've known it for years, but I've been in denial. This is not the way I was brought up, this is not what I was taught was normal and natural, but I can no longer hide from the truth. In order to find true happiness and fulfillment I have to embrace my true nature. I have to be me.
There have always been signs. I prefer herbal teas to coffee, secretly love red wine and I have a weakness for satin shirts, especially in vibrant colors. Fortunately, I've outgrown my spandex phase, but I must admit I looked damn good! At gatherings, I tended to end up in the kitchen gossiping with the women, rather than scratching and belching with the men. Plus, I have simply gorgeous hair and my eyelashes are to die for.
At first, I ignored the yearnings, but over time they've grown stronger. In recent years I find myself crossing that line more and more. Rather than claim I belong to one group or another, I've tried to play myself as in the middle. Taking the best from both sides, I continued to ignore my true destiny. But no longer! Today I stand before you (sitting in front of my computer) and proudly shout out (type) I am a Liberal!
Suddenly, I feel so free. It's as if a giant weight has been lifted from my shoulders. I feel like squealing like a school girl at a Justin Bieber concert. Okay, I just grossed myself out a little. Time to reel in the enthusiasm just a notch. My epiphany came about amidst a series of (I'm being generous by calling them this) debates with several conservative friends. I started thinking about all the different things I've heard over the years from the conservative side. I began to achieve a certain clarity and realized the time had come to join fully with my brothers and sisters who choose reason over rhetoric.
In recent years I've heard, from several conservative sources, our colleges and universities are liberal indoctrination centers. Having spent at least some time attending college, I discounted the idea as ridiculous. However, I've come to realize it is correct. Change comes about through knowledge, and through challenging the status quo. Change is itself a liberal concept. Higher education (when approached correctly) challenges the students to think not of what was, but what can be. Students are taught to think independently and independent thought is conservatism's kryptonite. At the dawn of time, there was probably someone arguing that fire would destroy civilization, that we didn't need a wheel, when dragging stuff was good enough for our ancestors.
Ironically, liberal advancements are indispensable tools used by conservative pundits to argue about the dangers of liberalism. The question I've always had is: Why are conservatives opposed to education, education they have benefited from, education their children are benefiting from. The answer involves a bit of math, but only a little. I'll try to keep it short and simple.
I drive a truck for a living. Many people have asked me why. The answer is somewhat complex, but the easy explanation is that I enjoy it. The average truck driver with 25 years experience has seen roughly a 25% increase in pay over the past 25 years. This increase is not a reward for experience and faithful service, it's merely a reflection of an increase in the standard pay for truck drivers. When compared to inflation, this means the average driver is making less with 25 years of experience than they made their first day on the job.
Over the past 25 years, typical starting pay for college graduates in private industry has increased by 100%. In addition, a skilled worker, who has worked in their industry for 25 years has had their pay increased by 200% or more. Highly valued employees have seen increases of 500% or more. According to many truck drivers, without trucks, America stops. There is a great deal of truth in this statement. On the other hand, getting rid of many mid-level managers, would actually increase industry productivity. Yet, those mid-level managers are valued more than the backbone of our economy.
The conservative leaders and pundits insist that increasing the tax rate for the wealthy would be bad for the country and the economy. At the same time they're telling us to not educate our children, but instead to be happy with our menial jobs. In effect, they are telling us that if we stay in our jobs where we make less money each year, and agree to pay more taxes, then they will take the high paying jobs and make more each year, and they'll also agree to pay less taxes. And by this formula, the country will be better off and we'll all be better off.. I almost forgot! We also need to reduce the money we spend on programs to help the poor, and remove any regulations which are keeping the wealthy from fixing all our problems. I thought it would be simple, but this is obviously delving into a branch of mathematics well beyond anything I've ever studied.
All this leads us to the ultimate threat to conservatism. If you take the lower and middle class, educate them and allow them to rise through the corporate ranks, the lines dividing the upper, middle and lower class start to become indistinct. The wealth is no longer concentrated at one end of the spectrum, but spread throughout. This results in a loss of power to the upper class, and creates more competition for their children. Rather than sharing the wealth, they prefer to broaden the gap.
So, dig ditches if you must. Scrub floors, clean toilets and drive trucks. But do whatever you can to ensure your children pursue a higher education. And teach them, just as you are giving them a hand up, their duty is to give a hand to others. Together we can show the world, thought is good, knowledge is good and change is what brings us to a better tomorrow.
Now excuse me while I sing.. Y... M... C... A...
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Now, Wait Just One 2nd!
The current hysteria over gun control has left me unsure whether I should laugh or cry. The "all guns, all the time" crowd will repeat one propaganda slogan and smugly declare it as the ultimate truth. When you point out the inaccuracies of the slogan, and that the originators of the slogan have a financial interest in the issue, they repeat the slogan as if repetition is a viable substitute for reality. Although the wording varies, the content remains the same. If any type of gun regulation is allowed it will automatically lead to all guns being outlawed and all guns being confiscated. This is the belief and no amount of reason will dissuade those who wave it around as if they just carried it down from Mt. Sinai.
In the realm of debate or public speaking, this is known as a "slippery slope" argument. In essence, the first step, is claimed to guarantee the last step. One method to test the logical consistency of a statement is to replace the key articles. Does the result still make sense? Here are some examples of consistent statements. "If you step in the fire your shoe will get burned." "If you step in the puddle your shoe will get wet." These are consistent statements, and the conclusion is a logical result of the action. Now back to the slippery slope. Just because I start driving west, does not mean I am going to California. Just because I flirt with someone doesn't mean I'm going to have sex with them. While in each case the action can eventually lead to the conclusion, the actual result is uncertain. Although in the case of my flirting, I can tell you it's highly unlikely I'll need to take my shoes off.
In the case of gun regulation leading to outlawing and confiscating all guns, what is lacking is a transport mechanism. The United States Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of laws, and they define limitations and applicability of laws, including Amendments to the Constitution. Their rulings have resulted in limitations being applied to some Amendments, including the Second. Historically, the court has been very reluctant to change rulings, which makes any further restriction placed upon the Second Amendment, highly unlikely.
An Amendment to the Constitution can not be changed. It can only be repealed by passing a new Amendment which cancels the original one. This has been accomplished once when the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st. The process of amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult. The first step is for a proposed Amendment to be approved by a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate. The next step is ratification of the Amendment by 3/4 of the states. At the beginning of the amendment process a time limit is generally placed. If the Amendment is not ratified by this date, the entire process must start over. There is no way to bypass this process, short of a successful revolution which overthrows the government and cancels the Constitution.
With this in mind, do you see any possibility of President Obama, before his term runs out, getting enough votes in the House and Senate to get an Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment passed,and then getting 38 states to ratify that amendment? If you see this as a real likelihood, you might want to make an appointment with your doctor. Whatever medication you are on is seriously impacting your ability to interface with reality.
Briefly, before I close this boring explanation of the workings of our Constitution, I'll address the uproar over President Obama's use of Executive Orders. A certain segment of the media wants you to believe that President Obama is using Executive Orders to bypass Congress and violate the Constitution. While it is possible for an Executive Order to be abused, causing a violation, the order itself can not violate anything. Any order that is a direct violation would immediately become null and void, and depending on the order, could result in impeachment proceedings being initiated. If the orders issued are, as claimed, violating the Constitution, why hasn't Congress responded with the impeachment process? I'll be patient while you work out the math.
There is another internet deception that you've probably seen, claiming President Obama has issued vast numbers of Executive Orders, greatly surpassing past Presidents. Also that he has issued several very alarming Executive Orders. The alarming orders do exist, but they were all issued by President Kennedy, with two exceptions. One issued by President Johnson, the other by President Ford. In total numbers of orders issued, the grand champion was Franklin Roosevelt, followed by Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman. President Obama is struggling along towards the back of the pack when it comes to Executive Orders.
There is some excellent information on all of the above available online. Do a few searches, do some reading, and if you're still freaking out, try breathing slowly into a paper bag.
In the realm of debate or public speaking, this is known as a "slippery slope" argument. In essence, the first step, is claimed to guarantee the last step. One method to test the logical consistency of a statement is to replace the key articles. Does the result still make sense? Here are some examples of consistent statements. "If you step in the fire your shoe will get burned." "If you step in the puddle your shoe will get wet." These are consistent statements, and the conclusion is a logical result of the action. Now back to the slippery slope. Just because I start driving west, does not mean I am going to California. Just because I flirt with someone doesn't mean I'm going to have sex with them. While in each case the action can eventually lead to the conclusion, the actual result is uncertain. Although in the case of my flirting, I can tell you it's highly unlikely I'll need to take my shoes off.
In the case of gun regulation leading to outlawing and confiscating all guns, what is lacking is a transport mechanism. The United States Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of laws, and they define limitations and applicability of laws, including Amendments to the Constitution. Their rulings have resulted in limitations being applied to some Amendments, including the Second. Historically, the court has been very reluctant to change rulings, which makes any further restriction placed upon the Second Amendment, highly unlikely.
An Amendment to the Constitution can not be changed. It can only be repealed by passing a new Amendment which cancels the original one. This has been accomplished once when the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st. The process of amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult. The first step is for a proposed Amendment to be approved by a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate. The next step is ratification of the Amendment by 3/4 of the states. At the beginning of the amendment process a time limit is generally placed. If the Amendment is not ratified by this date, the entire process must start over. There is no way to bypass this process, short of a successful revolution which overthrows the government and cancels the Constitution.
With this in mind, do you see any possibility of President Obama, before his term runs out, getting enough votes in the House and Senate to get an Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment passed,and then getting 38 states to ratify that amendment? If you see this as a real likelihood, you might want to make an appointment with your doctor. Whatever medication you are on is seriously impacting your ability to interface with reality.
Briefly, before I close this boring explanation of the workings of our Constitution, I'll address the uproar over President Obama's use of Executive Orders. A certain segment of the media wants you to believe that President Obama is using Executive Orders to bypass Congress and violate the Constitution. While it is possible for an Executive Order to be abused, causing a violation, the order itself can not violate anything. Any order that is a direct violation would immediately become null and void, and depending on the order, could result in impeachment proceedings being initiated. If the orders issued are, as claimed, violating the Constitution, why hasn't Congress responded with the impeachment process? I'll be patient while you work out the math.
There is another internet deception that you've probably seen, claiming President Obama has issued vast numbers of Executive Orders, greatly surpassing past Presidents. Also that he has issued several very alarming Executive Orders. The alarming orders do exist, but they were all issued by President Kennedy, with two exceptions. One issued by President Johnson, the other by President Ford. In total numbers of orders issued, the grand champion was Franklin Roosevelt, followed by Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman. President Obama is struggling along towards the back of the pack when it comes to Executive Orders.
There is some excellent information on all of the above available online. Do a few searches, do some reading, and if you're still freaking out, try breathing slowly into a paper bag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)