Behind the curtain

I’ve been neglectful of this blog the last several months; my entries have been few and far between.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that I have been trying to follow my new policy, do only what you have to do (i.e., I’m a lazy sod). Second, I’ve just been too pissed off about too many things.

I would like to try to encapsulate that second reason.

Since the Great Bust of 2008, I have been astonished by the exhibition of corporate greed in the face of social turmoil. However, I have come to realize that my incredulity is hardly appropriate.

What I finally figured out is that things are exactly as they ought to be—in a capitalist society.

Capitalism is about profit, and American Big Business has been in a profit-taking heyday for nearly 40 years. In that time, we have morphed from citizens into consumers and from wage-earners into borrowers while at the same time “spreading democracy,” with the blood of America’s young adults, into heretofore unavailable markets.

As a result, the American market has been sucked nearly dry while other markets around the world, particularly in Asia and the Indian sub-continent, have become the focus of American manufacturing, marketing and capitalist profit-taking.

That the U.S. government is wholly supportive of these conditions is likewise not remarkable. It is, after all, bought and paid for by corporate campaign contributions.

Vote Republican. Or Democrat—it really doesn’t matter. That’s the benefit of a system designed for only two political parties. Any choice you make is the right one.

So, relax. Everything is at it should be.

What, too sarcastic?

!

Faith of our fodder

For many years, I was of the opinion that religions—Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindi, traditional, etc. and their various and sundry sects—were responsible for a great deal of the bloodshed throughout humankind's history. A few years ago, I realized that was not the case.

God doesn't kill people—people kill people.

People have simply developed the belief systems (some call them faiths) that provide the rationalization for the slaughter of their fellow human beings and the appropriation of their land and goods.

Let's kill those godless heathens!

See ya' in church (temple, mosque, synagogue, whatever)!

!

Something to think about

For most of my life, I took human intelligence for granted. It never occurred to me that our intelligence, extraordinary as it may seem to us, might not be all that remarkable in the grand scheme of things.

This “discovery” came about as I made inquiry, in recent decades, into certain areas of metaphysics, cosmology and anthropology: specifically, the nature of God, the nature of time, and the nature of man’s much-too-common inhumanity to man.

Encountering several, shall we call them, unsolved mysteries in these fields, I finally realized I had simply assumed that we humans were about as smart as it was possible to be. In fact, I came to understand, it wasn’t necessarily that these mysteries or problems were unsolvable, but more that it was likely our minds were not capable of the types of formulaic thought required to deal with them. In other words, I concluded that our brains were simply not adequate to the task.

“How can this be?” one might ask. To which I would answer: what conceit of human beings would expect it to be otherwise? Do we actually think our minds are of infinite capability? Actually, that type of expectation would tend to point up our limitations.

I do not mean to suggest that we humans have reached the limits of our abilities to determine the answers to any specific questions, but rather that our minds were not expressly designed to deal with all such issues, nor is it realistic to expect our mental processes to be without limit.

I’m just saying: something to think about.

!

No class?

CNN June 27, 2011 Washington DC  The Supreme Court has tossed out an Arizona law that provides extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups.

A conservative 5-4 majority of justices on Monday said the law violated free speech, concluding the state was impermissibly trying to "level the playing field" through a public finance system.

Arizona lawmakers had argued there was a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups.

Once more, and again by a narrow majority, the United States Supreme Court has decided that money trumps fairness in the question of free speech.

As I’ve made mention before, I can’t really disagree with this interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, I know this: until such time as money is separated from elections, we will not have a genuinely democratic republic. At the present time, and for the foreseeable future, this country is and will be an oligarchy, with a government controlled by a relatively few wealthy individuals and corporations.

Whether you are conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, male or female, Red State or Blue State, gay or straight, blue collar or white, unless you are among the very rich, your influence among our elected leaders is far less than those wealthy few who make the large contributions to campaign funds.

We are not a classless society. There are the wealthy and then there are the rest of us, deluding ourselves that voting rights equal freedom. Have you ever wondered why politicians make campaign promises but never live up to them? It's because they can't afford to. They are bought off by campaign contributions, the official bribery system of the United States of America.

!

Don’t get me started: Is everybody stupid?

End of hiatus. Need to rant.

The GOP-controlled House is baying about Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Duh!

The problem isn't healthcare spending, the problem is HEALTHCARE COSTS!

Since the greed-deregulating days of the Reagan administration, healthcare costs have been on a rocket ride to the stars. It’s the free-enterprise system at it’s absolute, money-grubbing, pay-or-you-die worst!

The GOP solution? More "free enterprise!"

When the Dems were in charge in the first years of the Obama administration, what was their solution? Why, to try to put together a system the GOP would like. Hence, the nearly useless Obama-Care. (Wouldn’t it be funny if that Republican derogation stuck—and 150 years from now the federal universal healthcare system—and there will be one—is still known as Obama Care?)

Meanwhile, our so-called Fourth Estate is as useless as teats on a tractor tire. Rather than analyzing the issues, they analyze the issuance and, just for a change of pace, they go after each other. Of course, there’s always NPR—but listen to them for a week, and you start drafting suicide notes.

Finally, let’s not forget who fawns upon every eructation of the GOP fear-mongers, who sucks up the drivel spewed by FOX, who elects these brainless zombies to high office, and who keeps begging to be led to the sacrificial altars of Reaganonomics election after election—it’s you, baby, it’s you!

!

Snappy trails to you

Time for snowbirds to gather and get the flock out'a here. Adios, Arizona; howdy, Colorado. So, for the next few weeks or more, we'll be giving this a rest.

Award Ceremony: The Epitomite

The Epitomite,

brainless and heartless.

I am proud to announce the very first in what I anticipate to be a long series of awards collectively known as The Epitomite.

This humble statuette is presented here to those individuals who most exemplify what is wrong with the world today. Each recipient will have unabashedly demonstrated~

The Epitome

of mindless words, thoughtless deeds,

moral bankruptcy or frank sociopathy

in a leadership role.

Without further ado, I take the most sincere pleasure in awarding the very first Epitomite to:

Senator Jon Kyl

Republlcan of Arizona

Senator Kyl enjoyed a sure and certain spot on the short list of potential recipients. However, his recent performance on the floor of the U.S. Senate, blatantly lying about a non-profit health and social service organization, Planned Parenthood, attempting to paint them in the darkest colors he could invent—coupled with his brazen excuse for that lie—have capped my growing contempt for his politics. He not only epitomizes a national political trend, but is a brilliantly tarnished example of what is wrong with Republican politics, especially in Arizona.

Congratulations Senator Kyl; you have worked long and hard to deserve this award.

!

Don’t get me started: Brain dead bumpkins

First, a joke.

Corporate Interests, American Labor and Tea Party are sitting at a table when a dozen doughnuts are set before them.

Corporate Interests grabs 11 of the doughnuts, nudges Tea Party and whispers, “Watch out, Labor is stealing your doughnut.”

Barring some last-minute compromise, the federal government is set for a major shutdown tonight. Many—a subset made up of the terminally stupid and hopelessly sociopathic—think this is a fine idea. If you need an explanation about why it’s not a fine idea, then count yourself as some part of that subset; I have nothing to say that you would understand or care about.

In Washington, it’s politics as usual, meaning much too much ado about nothing. You know, it’s not government that’s the problem—it’s the lack of government. We are ruled by politics, not government. They’re not the same thing.

Many years ago, I considered running for public office. One of the more embarrassing moments of my life occurred when my boss, a smart woman I much admired, took it upon herself to introduce me to Colorado’s governor-elect as being intent on Congress. Within a few years, though, I came to realize that successful governing in this country meant being able to compromise—a quality no one has ever accused me of possessing. So I shelved those intentions and decided instead to become a curmudgeon, a role in which I have enjoyed unqualified success.

The problem is, I seem to be among the few who got the memo about that whole compromise and democracy thing. Oh, and by the way, President Obama, compromise isn't the same as giving up, either.

I have never been more disappointed in a politician than I have in Barack Obama. I had finally squelched the last embers of any hope that I might have had in our political system, much to my relief, when Mr. Obama went and rekindled them. And then snuffed them out again, all by himself.

I was looking forward to voting for someone else—anyone else—in the next presidential cycle as retaliation for his chicanery and empty promises. I was confident he would fall in oh-so-sweet and ignominious defeat. But now those block-headed, brain-dead, history-ignorant, bustle-mouthed, brack-fingled, brimbonnet Tea Party freshman in Congress are doing all that they possibly can to see that Mr. Obama is re-elected.

I may have to take the advice of my imaginary (but copyright protected) bumper sticker: DON’T BLAME ME—I DIDN’T VOTE!

!

Don't get me started: Lie to me

When we hear lies, like the supposed WMDs in Iraq, which led us into a war of devastating cost both financial and human--when we hear lies out of Washington, or Denver or Phoenix, Albany or Jeff City, Tallahassee or Madison, Columbus or any other state capitol, county seat or city hall, it's not "government" that is lying to us--it's people. People that we elected, and often proudly so, like so many who voted--in two elections--for that good ol' boy liar George W. Bush. Or for that other good ol' boy, Bill Clinton, who found it necessary to lie about the most mundane personal matters, leading the country into a morass that paralyzed our government for years. Or the elected--the elected--politicians who just had to make a big deal out of his ill-advised, but private, sexual dalliance. What exactly was the point of all that? At least the Iraq war is making some rich people richer; uh, too bad about the casualties.

Or like the current crop of havoc-wreaking, so-called "conservative" representatives that we elected to Congress. Conservative my Aunt Polly's prune-bread! Those jokers are as radical a bunch as we've seen since the police riots at the 1968 Democratic convention. They don't care who gets hurt.

Or every pout-throwing, pocket-lining or power-mad governor, county commissioner, state senate president, district attorney or tax assessor that we put in office--that we put in office.

You know what it is that we dislike so much about government? Why it rankles, chafes and ticks us off at every turn? Because it's us. Because we create it, every two, four or six years, we make it, over and over, into a reflection of who we really are.

You want to protest bad government? Then look in the mirror.

!

Nuke it!

!

The truth shall make you flee

A New York Times article on NJ Gov. Chris Christie caught my attention. It describes his particular campaign style, in the words of a NJ Democratic Assemblyman, as an assault.

If this isn't the truth,

then this is what the

truth ought to be.

I found that interesting because Christie's campaigning had begun to remind me of Fox news, particularly its commentators. They often play fast and loose with the truth and will hurl insults, jibes, censure and detractions at issues and people rather than research and parse the details. It's sort of a John Wayne approach that has as much appeal in real life as it did in the westerns the Duke starred in.

This sort of shoot-first-and-dodge-questions-later campaigning is probably nothing new—nothing ever is—and is likely even more attractive because of it's bold disregard for the niceties. It's a very American attitude, in a tame-the-frontier manifest-destiny sort of way. It says, "If this isn't the truth, then this is what the truth ought to be."

Not very scientific. But what do those fancy-pants eggheads know about common sense, anyway?

!

Simple Minded

I believe my problem is the same as just about everyone else’s: I am looking for the simple answers. Answers that could be thrown like a gigantic tarp over a wide range of furious wildfires. Answers that would allow easy categorization, like the assignment of various expenses to budgetary cost accounts. Answers that would make “us” the good guys and “them” the bad guys. Answers as handy as a Swiss Army knife.

Easy answers.

Magical answers.

…?!

Ain’t gonna happen.

Sigh….

Please excuse me while I try to assimilate this. Again.

!

Don’t get me started: Union Busting

As I watch events in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and other states, taking note of the attempts by Republican and some Democratic governors, legislators, and more than a few local governments to undermine organized labor, I see two noteworthy trends of truly remarkable stupidity taking an even deeper hold on this country.

Before I get into that, however, let me clarify my personal feelings about unions. I have never belonged to a labor union, have never wanted to belong to a labor union, have never seen or heard of a labor union I particularly liked. The problem with labor unions is that they became big business and—just like big business—they started thinking they were about money instead of about people, products and services.

That being said, labor unions had their uses and, thanks to the way big business is running things, their time will come again. But big business is just part of the problem, and I’ll get to them later.

First, however, I want to tell every non-management blue, white and no-collar worker in America who wants to see public employees lose their bargaining rights or take cuts in pay or benefits: you are shooting yourselves in the foot!

It’s not bad enough that you sit idly by while one elected body after another gives more and bigger tax breaks to corporations and wealthy business owners; or that you’re so forgetful as to zone-out the obscene profits and the outrageous pay, benefits and bonuses of the leaders of one major industry after another; or that it’s our tax dollars that went to bail out so many of those businesses while we lost our homes and jobs; nor is it that you've twiddled your voting levers for the trickle-down Reagonomists who promised us new jobs for over a quarter century while shipping our old jobs overseas—noo-oo-oo, you have to clamor for the last bastion of decent pay and labor rights to be brought low so that there is nothing left to show for American labor's century-long struggle.

Are you out of your minds? Do you think “misery loves company” is actually a functional employment plan?

On top of that, these are the people that work for us. Do you want the cheapest police officers, fire fighters, teachers, EMTs, dam operators and bridge builders that money can buy? ‘Cause I sure as heck don’t. I want the best people working for me.

Besides, it's not that public employees make so much money, it's that private sector pay scales have fallen so far behind over the last 35 years; American workers had to shift to borrowing money as their paychecks shrank in relation to business expansion. When I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, it didn't take two working parents to provide a good home and private parochial school for four kids. Now it's the exception when both parents don't work, and still quality of life suffers; American workers today put in more hours annually than they did 30 years ago.

Get your act together. You’re being sold a load of swine swizzle and you seem to like the smell.

As for big business, your problem is that you think it’s all about money. It isn’t, but you know what? It’s a subtle topic, I’m going to have to work very hard to make it simple enough for you to understand and, right now I’m tired, and I couldn’t care less.

What a bunch of ... ah, the heck with it!

!

You’re not going to like this

Here are a few policies I think we should pursue to help reduce the federal deficit.

ð  Phase out, over the next 20 years, at 5% increments each year, the federal tax deduction for home financing (mortgage) interest.

ð  Discontinue all home mortgage/financing deductions for new instruments beginning in five years.

ð  Phase out, over the next 10 years, at 10% increments each year, all federal farm and agricultural subsidies, not subject to renewal or replacement for five years.

ð  Sunset all other federal subsidies annually, subject to specific, itemized renewal.

ð  Immediately discontinue federal subsidies, tax exemptions and deductions for all oil, gas, and coal exploration, extraction, production, refining, distribution, marketing, management or other application of any kind.

ð  Increase, permanently, the federal highway fuel tax by 5% for each of the next two years; reserve for transportation use.

ð  Set corporate federal income tax rates to coincide with married-couple tax rates.

ð  Make all individual and (for-profit) corporate income, including all benefits, bonuses, contributions, discounts, stock options, personal perks and the like, subject to federal income taxes beginning at the federal poverty level plus one dollar (fpl+$1). No exclusions; this means Social Security retirement and disability and other now-exempt incomes.

ð  In conjunction, revamp the tax code with a lowest rate of 10% and a highest rate of 33%, the latter for income in excess of $1.5 million; graduated in an exponential curve with gradients not to exceed $500.

ð  Tax carbon emissions.

And that’s just for starters.

!

If you're so smart, why ain't you intelligent?

Earlier this week, I observed an e-free-for-all on the New York Times (NewYorkTimes.com) web site regarding race, intelligence and conservatism versus liberalism. Many readers were incensed by an article, “Social Scientist Sees Bias Within,” and the subsequent comments by other readers. It was quite the feeding frenzy. Unfortunately, even though I read the article before 8 AM, I was too late to join in, as the comments, having already reached the 500 mark, were closed. I joined the also-rans, sending an e-mail to the hard copy Times, which may or may not be printed. I did not join the general debate, but instead criticized the methodology of the research, mostly anecdotal, cited in the article.

But I do want to talk about intelligence here.

As you may be aware, intelligence testing has gathered itself some controversy in recent decades, with special concerns over how disparate scores often are when looked at in terms of race. Some social scientists have been caught up in this controversy as a result of their research, being demonized for the results that they compiled.

Apologists have suggested that there are different types of intelligence, by way of explaining some of the racial divides. This has caused other controversies in kind.

Personally, I think the problem is the supposed concept of "intelligence."

Intelligence is an arbitrary value. In other words, we—or some of us, somewhere, sometime—made it up. We decided what was intelligent and what was not. And whoever it was that decided those things had very specific reasons of their own for making those decisions. He or she was not handed the first IQ test on a mountain top from a burning bush. No, those people simply decided what they, and we, were going to call intelligence.

Here’s what I think: forget intelligence. I think the important factor is cognition. Cognition, the ability to receive, process and apply information, including such functions as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

And people receive, process and apply information in quite a variety of ways. I’ll give you two personal examples.

I hate reading directions and instructions. My normal approach to any new task is to take a quick glance at the directions, give them a exasperated “Huh?” and then proceed to attempt the task until I run into trouble. At that point I can look at that part of the instructions and have a much clearer understanding of what the heck they’re talking about. But I know many people who can sit down and read the instruction manual and then get right down to it. I’m more of a “Help screen” type of guy. Other folks much prefer to see a diagram than written instructions. Still others do better when they see a demonstration.

I think that these are different ways of receiving and processing information. Different ways because our brains are different, though still roughly categorized because our sensory receptors are of finite variety.

Another example: My daughter can think in math—almost like it’s another language. Me, I always got good grades in math, but it was always a chore. My daughter enjoys math. Go figure. She was even considering getting a teaching degree so she could teach math, but then decided on a music major instead. Well, guess what. Turns out math and music are just two facets of the same general concept. Hey, don’t ask me to explain it; I just read it somewhere. Not surprisingly, the music my daughter likes to play on her tenor saxophone is a very technical style of jazz, unlike any that I was familiar with prior to attending her recitals. She says it is very math based. That didn’t surprise me in the least. My type of jazz is Chuck Mangione; she, however, tends not to share my enthusiam.

So my daughter and I, while both successful in school, still have some very different ways of slicing and dicing the world around us. If we were to go head-to-head in a math challenge, she’d wipe the floor with me. In social sciences, I think I might have the upper hand. Our brains are just different enough that we end up with different strengths.

But here’s the thing: she chose to become a music professional, while I spent my career mostly in various types of social, health and service industries. In other words, we did what we were good at. We found comfort zones, and success, in pursuits that took best advantage of how our brains processed information. One wasn’t better than the other, simply different.

I think that’s a key to understanding cognition as opposed to intelligence. There may be some racial differences, but I would suggest that they are differences in cognition. Further, I would suggest that these differences may have evolved, to a large degree, based on the specific demands of living in various environments or have been self-selecting due to preferences of associating with, literally, like-minded folks. This is a somewhat simplistic explanation for the actual evolutionary processes involved, but I hope you catch my drift.

Intelligence is arbitrary. Cognition is intrinsic.

!

To put a name to it

I need a systemic nomenclature, dedicated terms to help clarify my thinking, especially as it relates to the thought processes described in my last two posts.

We'll start with the basics: names for the two opposed positions on my recent subject continuum.

I have researched some standard terms: liberal, conservative, progressive, reactionary, socialist, fascist and several more in the same vein. Turns out that various socio-political philosophies have mixed and matched these terms for the past few centuries; pinning down a consistent meaning is a task that seems beyond me, anyway.

I decided to go with a couple of other terms. Though they, too, have been used in socio-political contexts, it has not been extensively so in recent decades. These terms have the additional advantage of speaking directly to the continuum of emotional response to which I have alluded over the past two weeks, that of the degree of comfort with or acceptance of change and uncertainty.

The terms I have determined to use are these: reform and resistance. I’ll define these terms here, as I intend to use them. I will also open a new page, “Glossary,” linked on the right under the Pages heading.

Reform: a preference for change in policies and practices that will, from this perspective, be the approach more likely to improve socio-economic conditions.

Resistance: a preference for the status quo or for a re-establishment of ultimately traditional former policies and practices that, from this perspective, are more likely to improve socio-economic conditions.

Let’s call those definitions works-in-progress. I suspect already that they will need further development and clarification. I will update the definitions on the Glossary page and will probably preserve the revisions there for editorial reference.

!

Getting to the point—finally

It is one week later—in a process that has gone on for several years—and I am, not surprisingly, no closer to a solution to the problem I began to describe last week.

I will approach this from the ground up.

Over the last several months I have put forth my arguments and position that behavior is emotion-caused and that emotions are the result of biological processes generally beyond immediate conscious influence. Moreover, I have maintained that emotions trump logic in any significant behavioral choice, even that of supposedly going against one’s feelings.

Let me reiterate, for the record, that this does not mean that I believe individuals are not responsible for their own behavior, only that our confusion over this matter leads everyone to make some very ineffective decisions both in action and in reaction.

To return to my premise: last week I began a discussion of two virtually universal emotional states popularly referred to as liberal and conservative. I suggested that these temperaments probably occurred throughout the population in a continuum of intensity that saw most people clustered toward the center and very few people occupying the extreme manifestations of these outlooks. I explained that distribution of intensity in the population as approximating the classic bell-shaped curve of common statistical analysis and I explained what that meant. I offered no evidence to support my claim but I argue that, given the size of the population being considered, which is everybody, that bell curve of distribution is pretty much guaranteed.

So far, so good.

Now I will appear to digress; don’t be fooled.

Many years ago I had a wise man tell me, “The more insecurity someone can live with, the happier he will be.” He had noted that life was fraught with uncertainty and that this could cast a pall of threat over one’s existence. His suggestion was that, if this uncertainty—which, in any case, could not be avoided—could be accepted and embraced, then one could attend better to the joys that are also presented in life and live more effectively at the same time.

Here, then, is what I consider the crux of this matter and one which I have long hoped to couch in purely neutral terms. But that is what I have been unable to do. So I’ll just go with what I have.

It is my belief that so-called liberals and conservatives find themselves on opposite sides of this acceptance divide. Liberals, generally, are able to accept more uncertainty, while conservatives, comparatively speaking, are more attuned to threat.

. . . ?!

Hmmm-mm. Actually, that came out a lot more neutral-sounding than I expected. I’m a bit flummoxed. I was prepared to provide lengthy qualifying explanations, but maybe not.

More on the ramifications of this at a later date. For right now, I’m going to quit while I think I’m ahead.

!

Throw you a curve

First off, I’ll mention my hew blog, Uncle Genie’s Deep Space. It provides an outlet for some of my speculative concerns about the physical world and how it operates. My interests spring from many years of personal conjecture about the nature of time. Eventually, this drew me to a glancing acquaintance with topics in metaphysics, astrophysics and cosmology, quantum physics and related topics in earth sciences and other subjects. Not to suggest that I have any substantial knowledge or even understanding in those areas, but it is interesting and I enjoy the occasional foray into thematic waters that are way over my head. Feel free to join me in a little mind-bending exercise. There’s a link on the right.

As to my topic on this blog today, well, it’s still in a formative state, like a gelatin mold that’s only been in the ‘fridge for a short time—getting thick, but still kind of loose and fluid. Problem is, it’s been like that for a few years now. So let me lay out the basics.

It seems to me that the general temperaments commonly referred to as conservative and liberal represent personal psychological traits that give rise to our world views. Furthermore, I suggest that these two orientations are, more or less, universal human attributes, though the degree of intensity of those feelings falls on a continuum between the two extremes, most likely in a classic bell-shaped curve.

I reckon I might explain the bell curve.

The bell curve, a shape that shows what "average" looks like.

The bell curve is a graphic (think “picture”) method of showing a normal distribution (“average”) of scores (in this case, think “people’s attitudes”).

For example, let’s suppose all of us took a survey of questions to find out whether we had conservative or liberal opinions. If each of our surveys were converted to a numbered tally to score our outlook, then it is most likely that the majority of us would find ourselves in the groups whose survey tallies place us in the large number of scores just left or right of the center. In other words, we might be conservative or liberal, but not extremely so and generally tending toward a centrist viewpoint while maintaining our liberal or conservative attitude. That is the 34% percent on either side of the center line.

The more extreme the survey tally, the further out from the center would be the score, representing smaller and smaller numbers of people, until the most extreme viewpoints represent only about 2% of each side. The last percent or two (not shown on this curve, but way out there on the flat ends) are the real nut cases.

So basically, if we were all piled up on top one another in stacks that were based on each possible survey score, and somebody stood way, way off and looked at the pile, that bell-shaped curve would most likely be the outline of the stacks.

Stack us up according to our scores and stand way off....

If you don’t understand, then just see me after class.

I don’t mean to suggest that everyone is locked into an attitude that applies to everything or all the time. Just that we have a significant tendency to maintain consistent positions on most issues most of the time.

The big question about this whole matter, though, is why?

I have some notions; unfortunately, this is the messy part. And since I’ve gone into some mind-numbing detail on some boring topics here today, I think I’ll table the issue for now, probably pick it up again next week.

And give me just a few more days to think about it.

!

A rose by any other name

Here’s the essential problem with taxes as I see it: it’s the word “tax.” It just sounds bad. Its pronunciation has a harsh quality, even a threatening tone. Tax is just an unpleasant-sounding word.

In addition, “tax” carries an ancient connotation of coercion and disregard for one’s circumstances, a carryover from the days of free-spending monarchies, overarching empires and the practices of feudalism. Taxes then were collected by force without regard to the destitution of the populous.

Which is hardly the standard today; quite the opposite. Taxes lay lightest on the poorest.

Nor is anyone forced to pay taxes in this American age. In the days of feudalism, the peasants were tied to the land and really had no choice. Today, however, if you don’t want to pay taxes, you don’t have to; you can simply leave the country. Many corporations do it. Just so they won’t have to pay taxes. I wish more people would, too—specifically those always complaining about taxes.

Personally, I’ve always taken the perspective that taxes are more of a membership dues, the fee for allowing me the privileges and benefits of residing in and being a citizen of the United States of America. And that is no small thing. Consider just the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, let alone property ownership protection, the national parks, the interstate highway system and the Department of Defense, among a long, long list of additional and significant benefits.

The United States is a remarkable place, as many of us do notice. And for what we get, I think it’s a bargain. Especially compared to the price that many of our armed forces personnel have paid and are continuing to pay on this very day.

If you are a Citizen, then show some backbone. Quit your incessant whining. Pay your dues. Sure, things aren’t perfect. The whole operation is run by humans; what did you expect? Could it be better? Of course. We keep working on it. But quit thinking of taxes as a penalty.

Perhaps everyone needs to be reminded of exactly what it is we’re paying for: the United States of America. “The greatest country in the world” as many would have it. Well, look at it this way: you get what you pay for.

!