Bitter Empathy

My friend Alan wrote this after the election of 2012:

"It's deeply saddening to realize that over 50% of voting Americans can look at the past four years and enthusiastically ask for four more years of the same.

Welcome to four more years of continued economic decline, political mistakes, foreign-policy disasters, and violations of individual rights. Brothers and sisters, YOU asked for it."

Here are some items for your consideration that I hope will help you get through the coming days:

• You don't know the future.  I know you have a strong feeling that the future will suck based on the suckage of last four years.  Still, stuff happens and your fear of what you think will happen could be unfounded. 
• You don't know what the Romney Administration would have done.  Your fear of the future is based on your perception of the past (and it could be entirely rational), but not even the smartest amongst us can really know what President Romney would have done with the economy, foreign relations, etc.  He may well have done much better than President Obama, but he may have done worse. 
• Republicans still control the House, the Supreme Court and countless other offices.  They might be down but they are a long way from out.  Conservatives will be back to fight again very soon.

The general lesson I have learned is that when faced with anxiety about the future, it is sometimes helpful to embrace doubt.

Now the bad news. I'm basing my advice on the rationalizations I used when President GW Bush was re-elected to his second term.  I was emotionally invested in the success of Senator Kerry and failure of President Bush, convinced that a second Bush term would mean disaster in economic conditions and foreign policy.  I clung to the above bullet points for those first few days after the election of 2004 and they did help me make it through those first few weeks after the election.

My fears were largely irrational, as fear often is.  I saw disaster for me and my family, death for many of my fellow humans and many threats to my values and faith.  As it turned out, my fears were realized in the economic meltdown of 2008 and the continuation of the Iraq War.  I was personally devastated by the 2008 financial crash.  I watched my country kill countless Iraqis and saw American servicemen killed and maimed in the process.  I hope your fears are not realized and you make it through the next few weeks without suffering too much anxiety.

Maybe you should start a blog and call it Buck Ofama.

President Mittens' majority

President Mittens recently said this to defend his secretly taped fundraising comments:  "I recognize that those people who are not paying income tax are going to say, 'Gosh this provision that Mitt keeps talking about, lowering income taxes,' that's not going to be real attractive to them. And those that are dependent upon government, and those that think the government's job is to redistribute -- I'm not going to get them."

If he's right, he should lose because the vast majority of the American people are dependent upon government in some way, but many don't realize or acknowledge it.  I think he's wrong, and will win.

Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now seems to mean...

A well regulated militia no longer exists for the security of a free state. Despite the elimination of this context of the original second amendment; the right of the people to purchase, carry in a concealed manner, lock and load, threaten each other, keep and bear any weapon as might be developed by the firearms manufacturing industry shall not be infringed. Amen.

Obamneycare and a Former Michigan GOP Spokesman

The bullshit is deep over the Supreme Court's decision on the "individual mandate".  I like this one -
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17151
Here are my rational answers to this tool's stupid questions.


"Implicit in Benjamin Franklin's fabled response at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention was a dire warning: That the Republic would one day devolve into tyranny unless we the people prevented it."
Franklin's words were not a fable.  They were not prophetic.  Franklin was a mortal, speaking about an actual political process in his lifetime.


"If government can mandate that I pay for something I don't want, then what is beyond its power?"
Everything not outlined in the Constitution, subsequently legislated, executed by government officals and tested in the courts.

But even further, look up the word "mandate".  That is not what is happening in the actual context of this real law. This is not a command or order.  The real mandate is that health service providers (like hospitals) are commanded to provide services to anyone who comes in their doors demanding health care.  The Romney Plan (as it is known in Massachusetts) requires that taxpayers pay for some of the cost of this real mandate.

"If the Supreme Court's decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist?"

It didn't to part 1.  This is untrue because of the reasons I just stated.  The slippery slope logic is wrong, and the second part does not follow from the untrue premise.


"If so, then is armed rebellion today justified?"
Not so, then not.

"God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired."
Now this is completely ridiculous.  No basis in reality, logic or modern context at all.  Just plain stupid, but with great dramatic flare.

Anachronistic Fundamentalism

Defined:  A system of beliefs which is outpaced by the passage of time.

Any proper philosopher, economist, messiah, prophet or like-minded group of thinkers must create their system of stated principles in the context of their time and place.  When stars align, these principles will attract followers.  The followers will carry the torch of these principles forward during and after the lifetime of the great thinker(s).

A set of principles can become the fundamental basis for the beliefs and arguments in defense of beliefs long after the passage of time erodes the context in which those beliefs were originally stated.  And yet, the passage of time can also lend strength to the convictions of the believers.  I call this phenomenon Anachronistic Fundamentalism.

An informed person of education might be aware that this concept has been advocated by philosophers of a previous age.  I am not such an informed person.  I'm just an asshole with an opinion and some time on my hands.  With that in mind, I move forward to examples.

Socialism
Socialism is a political philosophy that has many, many schools of thought.  I'm not going to talk about the 'socialism' which is the fiction of the current American right wing as a bad word they wish to attach to the Democratic Party.  I'm talking about real historical socialism.  It was born and grown in Europe and America during the time that the economic system of mercantilism, colonialism and slavery was evolving into industrialism, unionism and easier international trade.  A central precept of all schools of socialist thought was the model of class struggle, which was best (and most famously) expounded by the brilliant Karl Marx.

These models of class struggle were created with the conditions of their time in mind.  They were so brilliant and flexible that many thinkers were able to adapt the class struggle model to conditions in many cultures and places for over 100 years.

But as time has passed, world economies have evolved in ways that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Debs could not and did not envision.  The world economy is more united now than it has ever been.  Nations are interdependent because  technology in communication and transportation has dropped structural barriers to trade.  This changed the nature of capital and labor markets, rendering socialist models of capitalist vs worker almost completely invalid.  And yet, there are fundamentalists who cling to the language and thoughts of these models that economic evolution has left them behind.

Jewish and Christian Love
Christianity (or new age Judaism) is loaded with anachronistic fundamentalism.  My favorite Jewish AFs are in the Ten Commandments of Moses and The Burning Bush of Yahweh fame.  "Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother" did not have the generic meaning of respecting one's elders that it has today.  It meant that by authority of the church, people had to support their parents financially.  Latter day Jews and Christians  changed the meaning of one of God's top 10 because cultural and economic conditions have change and yet these laws are still largely held to be the perfect word of the Almighty and are not to be trifled with under threat of ostracism and eternal damnation.

My favorite example in Christianity is the concept of empathic love.  Empathy is a philosophical concept that appears nowhere in any Jewish or Christian scripture because the concept did not exist until European philosophers invented it in more modern times.  And yet empathic love has got to be up there in the top 3 bestest and highest forms of love of all time.  Now, you might say "Come on Buck!  That whole 'love others as you would love yourself' deal is pretty empathetic.  Besides, Plato said that stuff long before Jesus appeared in them swaddling clothes.  Don't you think?' 

I don't think so.  The simple use of the word 'love' does not infer empathy even though we might think so in modern times given the importance that empathic love has taken on since philosophers dreamed it up in the 20th century.  Jesus may have been thinking about empathic love, but his scribes had no knowledge of any word or model to express it.  Here's a reference for more on the subject of empathy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empathy/

American Libertarianism
This is where my energy for this topic came from.  I would call this constitutional fundamentalism.  The US Constitution (and the first 10 amendments) went into effect in 1789.  Consideration, debate, practical application of parts of its principles and compromises amongst the founding fathers began in 1776 with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation.  A little simple math shows that nearly 13 years of bureaucratic process led to this holy document of American government.

The main combatants were the Virginia plantation owners led by Jefferson and Madison, versus the New York and New England bankers and merchants led by Hamilton, John Adams and joined by Washington in the latter stages of the bickering.  Their fight was bitter and very partisan.

The bi-partisan negotiations that led to passage of the US Constitution were conducted in a time when there were no automatic weapons, aircraft, medically safe abortions, open discussion of homosexuality, publicly held multinational corporations with mutual funds and pension plans investing in their stocks, telephones, telegraphs, instant global communications, nuclear fusion or centralized production of nuclear power.  Slavery existed.  I could go on, but the short version is that the world was a different place.  These geniuses could not and did not make any provisions in their documents for the existence of the world that we live in.

Today we have a branch of the Republican Party that has a rigid belief in how the current US government should be run based on strict interpretation of the US Constitution.  They call themselves Libertarians.  Their most prominent current adherent is Ron Paul.  Ron Paul rarely sees a US government action that he doesn't declare unconstitutional and suggest that it should be eliminated.  Since the constitution didn't mention a specific power to deliver mail, the US Postal service is unconstitutional.

One of Paul's biggest targets of this fundamentalist fervor is the Federal Reserve Bank.  True, it is not listed in the US Constitution as a power granted to the federal government.  This is not because the founders had the foresight and genius to stay out of the banking business.  The reason is that the founding fathers could not agree on central banking.

The Articles of Confederation failed because the finances of the country were ruined.  Hamilton (as a New York banker) saw the practical necessity for central banking and convinced Washington (as the most politically powerful man in the country) that something stronger was needed.  The Jefferson/Madison contingent hated bankers and would not agree to any of Hamilton's banking provisions.

And yet Libertarians cling to the words in the Constitution as if they were handed down by Yahweh via a burning bush on Mount Sinai.  They were not.  The Ten Commandments may have been handed down from God, but stuff changed.

Curt Schilling and his case for small government

“It really is not that complicated, I just don’t understand HOW people don’t grasp the concept of ‘Free Market’, and why left alone, it WORKS!” - Curt Schilling, March 2010

"Massachusetts has done nothing but spend, and grow, at a time when we have no money to spend and absolutely unequivocally NO need for a larger government." Big Schill in 2010, backing Scott Brown (R) for the US Senate.

‎...but this has gotta be my favorite from January 2010 -
"As a company that is looking to bring anywhere from 100 to 500 new jobs (at salaries north of 75k a year) into the state it does business in over the next 5 years, how can anyone on this planet say this system the Democrats want to impose on this country is smart? Ethical? Beneficial? There are TRILLIONS of other ways to fund health care rather than penalizing the current system right? How about this bloated, criminal laden Government we are saddled with? Hell in this state alone how many elected officials SHOULD have gone to jail in the past 12 months?

Are we truly NOT fed up with ‘status quo’? Because that’s what we’ve gotten the past 12 months. Well that and “It’s Bushs’ fault” as an excuse to (When does the statute of limitations run out on that btw?)

Massachusetts can change it all in 2 weeks, elect Scott Brown and stop the madness, stop working for the Government and start making these people work for us, again, now.

No one to blame but ourselves, we’ve elected these buffoons, and we’re paying through the nose for it. The Government has done nothing but spend, and grow, at a time when we have no money to spend and absolutely unequivocally NO need for a larger government. If you think it’s going to change, you’re wrong. Unless we elect Scott Brown to become a legitimate check/balance into the system we’re screwed, very screwed."

So, after defaulting on a state backed loan payment, missing payroll and laying off his entire workforce of hundreds, I can assume that these employees are left without any health insurance at all.  The state of Rhode Island is left with a bad debt of tens of millions while many cities and towns are bankrupt.

I wonder who Curt is backing in the current Massachusetts Senate race.  Small Gubment Scott Brown, or big gubment socialist Elizabeth Warren.  I'm going to guess that anyone willing to write him a check would get his support.

Asshole.

Buck platform

Here, in no particular order, are the points of my plan to improve my country.

Secession declarations by the States in 1860 and 1861 will be re-instated and honored as written.  This includes South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.  Contiguous States may also leave my country with special Buck encouragement to the States of Oklahoma, Arizona, Kentucky and New Mexico.

Repeal and rewrite the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution to read something like...The second amendment is hereby repealed.  State militias may be organized to support the military of the national government as led by the Commander in Chief.  The right of citizens to keep and bear lethal weapons should be regulated by the national government for the safety of all citizens, whether they be armed or unarmed.

Federal income taxes should be augmented by federal wealth taxes.  Financial institutions should provide information to the IRS on the holdings of all citizens by tax id number.  Tax returns filed by individuals would include a schedule of holdings.  Income tax rates would be based on the level of assets held by individuals.

Federal income taxes paid by publicly held corporations would be similar to the current tax code of individuals in both the rate of tax and method of taxable income calculation.

Health care would be entirely funded and regulated by the federal government.  This includes services for abortions, birth control, addiction rehabilitation and all health services without regard for religious or moral objections by individuals.  If medical science can help an individual be healthy, society will help them secure their health.

Voters who cast their ballot for George W Bush's election to a second term as President will forfeit their right to vote for a period of 12 years.

That's a good start.

Bold predictions

RomneyObamaCare will be defeated in the Supreme Court.  That's an easy one today.
George Zimmerman (who killed Trayvon Martin in Florida) will walk without any offical guilt.
Mitt Romney will be President of the USofA.

Abortion, RomneyObamaCare, The Church and War

"Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country."

 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

"Never before in our US History has the Federal Government forced citizens to directly purchase what violates our beliefs. At issue here as our President of the Conference stated it this past Friday, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for conscience and religious liberty,”

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=3d619541-9d05-4335-a3d9-460cf2a84bf9

"What the Church and the state need is not another war, but a shared language — a language for Catholics and non-Catholics alike; a universal reference point for rights and laws. What the Church in the United States needs to remember is nature."

HH Ambrose, National Catholic Register
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/recipe-for-a-rights-war/

This is a tough one to dance around, but the Cardinal is overstating his case.  When President Obama and Congress negotiated and passed the Health Care overhaul early in his Administration, the touchy decision about birth control (such as abortion) insurance coverage was dodged until now.  Secretary Sebelius was left with the dirty job of announcing the only decision she could. The leadership of the American Catholic Church responded in the only way it could: with highly charged rhetoric.

Of course The Church must comply with the law.  It is an institution subject to the laws of the State.  Unless there is a radical change in the leadership of both branches of government brought about by a dramatic shift in popular sentiment in the Fall election, this rule will go into effect next year and The Church will comply.

Personally, I am committed to full freedom for women to receive all contraceptive procedures and services that medical science deems safe.  My opinion is an unmovable product of experience, conscience and spirituality.  No amount of argument or propaganda will sway me.  I believe abortion should be available 'on demand' for little or no cost to anyone who is pregnant.  I do not accept any restrictions at all.  Restrictions on this freedom are a threat to the health and lives of women and men who find themselves facing a pregnancy.  That's my view, and I'm sticking to it.

There is a need for some sort of "shared language" to take the edges off this rancorous debate.  Words that dull the edges of discussion would be a great help.  Given the fact that I just flatly expressed my view in what is probably an offensive way to some people, I don't think "shared language" is possible.  I doubt Cardinal DiNardo does either.  So maybe we can agree on something.

God speaks about President Obama

"Your country will be torn apart by internal stress. A house divided cannot stand. Your president holds a radical view of the direction of your country which is at odds with the majority. Expect chaos and paralysis. Your president holds a view which is at the odds with the majority -- it's a radical view of the future of this country, and so that's why we're having this division. This is a spiritual battle which can only be won by overwhelming prayer. The future of the world is at stake because if America falls, there's no longer a strong champion of freedom and a champion of the oppressed of the world. There must be an urgent call to prayer."  God, via Pat Robertson January 3, 2012 AD.