42
At least that's the answer Douglas Adams came up with in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I've come up with a different answer. It might even make sense, although I wouldn't count on that.
If you were to find three words to explain humanity, what words would you choose? My opinion is that all of human history can be summed up in three simple words: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. Everywhere you look, these three words seem to apply. Let's try some examples.
What is the one word parents say the most often to their young children? The answer is "no". Every time the child is about to do something wrong, or dangerous, a resounding "no" is heard. Usually the denial is a response to greed, the child wants something that is off limits. When denied their greed, overreaction sets in, often in the form of a tantrum. Check Genesis for the story of Adam and Eve: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. "You can't have this", "I really want this", "You are banished" (instead of just putting a fence around the off-limit fruit). That theme is repeated throughout the Old and New Testament.
Our history is also riddled with examples of the big three. Every war can be summed up by these three words and every major event as well. From prohibition to the civil rights movement, slavery to the cold war, it all revolves around denial, greed and overreaction. Take a look and see if I'm right.
In my opinion, the road to lasting peace and universal prosperity requires the ability to moderate and reduce the power of these three things. If the first two can be addressed, the third ceases to be an issue. Ecology and our environment are one place we might start. For years, (at least 50) scientists have been warning us about the potential harm of global warming (or mankind induced climate change, if you want to be technical about it). For years, there has been a very powerful lobby denying any possibility of such a problem. Even in light of significant evidence, the denial rages on, unchecked. Why? Very simple, greed. Combating and overcoming the damage that is being done to the environment will require drastic changes, changes resulting in lost or decreased revenue to many industries. The overreaction is to try and get as much now, before they are forced to curtail their indiscriminate raping and pillaging of the planet. When the changes finally come, they will most likely also involve an overreaction.
The problem with addressing these issues, is with the denial itself. The entities that stand to gain, will naturally deny any problem exists. That is to be expected. However, through propaganda and marketing, they are able to convince a significant segment of the population that no problem exists, thus, the problem itself can not be addressed until the will of the public is turned. Whether the issue is gun control or government spending, until the public accepts the existence of a problem, no solution can be sought.
Unfortunately, the only way I see to prevent the widespread public denial is to force the companies who gain from such denial, to disclose the truth about their operations and their knowledge of potential problems, and I see no way to do that. Congress could do it, but there is no way that they will. All we can try to do is to get people to look at the truth, look at the facts and understand the industries do not operate for our benefit. They operate solely for their own profit.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Welcome to my Nightmare
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, which is a fairly accurate depiction of this blog and my life. At least my insanity is completely non-violent, and usually keeps me smiling. Just make sure my crayon box is always kept full and we won't have any problems.
It would appear the Republican Party is suffering from the same insanity. I hope they have burnt umber, I ate mine. Last month, the GOP controlled US House of Representatives, for the 37th time, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare". That comes out to once every month. I would think after 15 or 20 times, they would either come to accept the reality of the situation, or just get bored with doing the same silly thing every month. Maybe they need a better selection of crayons.
Here's the $2.99 primer on the legislative process:
A bill is presented. The bill may be something frivolous such as the Idaho law making it illegal to give your sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 lbs., or it may be something as vital as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Typically, the bill is simple, providing one solution or remedy to one problem. The bill leads a brief normal life, and most of them die. A few however, make it to the next phase, where they go into a cocoon (or committee) for their metamorphosis. When they come out, instead of the beautiful simple solution they are an ugly conglomerate loaded with pork barrel project funding, special interest appeasements and all types of ridiculous legislation. After a lengthy process, the original intent of the bill is removed, so the only trace of its original purpose is the title. The bill is then used as a shuttlecock in a Congressional badminton tournament, until both sides have agreed upon everything contained in the bill. The bill is voted on, passed and unless the President actually reads the bill, it is signed into law.
The end result: less than perfect laws that require improvements and changes. If a law is something very bad, then it might need to be repealed. For a moment, let's assume ACA is such a law. If an attempt to repeal fails (which it did, 37 times), there is another option, modify the bill. Find the most offensive part of the bill, enact legislation to modify that part to something more acceptable and move on. After a few changes (probably less than 37), an offensive or bad law can be made into an unoffensive or good law. This creates a win-win cliche moment. By taking something bad from the other party and making it good, you can claim any benefits from the altered legislation, while still blaming any downside on the originating party. By sitting on their thumbs and stonewalling any attempts to implement legislation, the Republican party is showing they are more interested in taking shots at the Democrats than dealing with the country's problems. Now we have the lose-lose situation. If the ACA turns out to be a great thing, the Democrats get all the credit, and if it's a failure, the Republicans get all the blame.
Granted, it is much easier and a lot more fun to throw insults and exaggerate minor issues into major scandals, but it serves no purpose, other than to make the Democratic party look better. It's hard work to address the issues and find solutions to problems, but isn't that why the people voted for you?
It would appear the Republican Party is suffering from the same insanity. I hope they have burnt umber, I ate mine. Last month, the GOP controlled US House of Representatives, for the 37th time, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare". That comes out to once every month. I would think after 15 or 20 times, they would either come to accept the reality of the situation, or just get bored with doing the same silly thing every month. Maybe they need a better selection of crayons.
Here's the $2.99 primer on the legislative process:
A bill is presented. The bill may be something frivolous such as the Idaho law making it illegal to give your sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 lbs., or it may be something as vital as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Typically, the bill is simple, providing one solution or remedy to one problem. The bill leads a brief normal life, and most of them die. A few however, make it to the next phase, where they go into a cocoon (or committee) for their metamorphosis. When they come out, instead of the beautiful simple solution they are an ugly conglomerate loaded with pork barrel project funding, special interest appeasements and all types of ridiculous legislation. After a lengthy process, the original intent of the bill is removed, so the only trace of its original purpose is the title. The bill is then used as a shuttlecock in a Congressional badminton tournament, until both sides have agreed upon everything contained in the bill. The bill is voted on, passed and unless the President actually reads the bill, it is signed into law.
The end result: less than perfect laws that require improvements and changes. If a law is something very bad, then it might need to be repealed. For a moment, let's assume ACA is such a law. If an attempt to repeal fails (which it did, 37 times), there is another option, modify the bill. Find the most offensive part of the bill, enact legislation to modify that part to something more acceptable and move on. After a few changes (probably less than 37), an offensive or bad law can be made into an unoffensive or good law. This creates a win-win cliche moment. By taking something bad from the other party and making it good, you can claim any benefits from the altered legislation, while still blaming any downside on the originating party. By sitting on their thumbs and stonewalling any attempts to implement legislation, the Republican party is showing they are more interested in taking shots at the Democrats than dealing with the country's problems. Now we have the lose-lose situation. If the ACA turns out to be a great thing, the Democrats get all the credit, and if it's a failure, the Republicans get all the blame.
Granted, it is much easier and a lot more fun to throw insults and exaggerate minor issues into major scandals, but it serves no purpose, other than to make the Democratic party look better. It's hard work to address the issues and find solutions to problems, but isn't that why the people voted for you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)