Treating Symptoms Will Never Cure the Disease

On January 3, 2010 The Boston Herald ran a story about Tessa Savicki, a single mother of nine children ages 3 to 21 who receives state assistance and who allegedly went to Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, MA for an IUD but received a tubal ligation instead. Consequently, she is suing the hospital. Three days later The Herald ran another story about the public backlash directed at Ms. Savicki in the wake of the original story. Her lawyer, a former obstetrician, stated, "I’m shocked at the virulence....It’s borderline bigotry against somebody that is on public assistance, against somebody that has more than 2.1 children, against somebody that doesn't have a college degree."

Examples of the public backlash also appeared on Facebook. One person posted a link to the article along with the following commentary:

Person 1: "'I take care of my children.' 'It's my right to decide how many children I have.' Well, I hate to break it to this lady, but the taxpayers are taking care of these kids. We need population control over some people ( lol ) and I hate government interventions. Neverthless, we have so many ignorant and stupid people here in America costing the taxpayers trillions and their time (exchanging time for money to pay for these peoples 'Choices, Rights.') UGH...."

then a few minutes later they continued their sentiment...

Person 1: "The hospital doing this procedure is going to end up writing this piece of WT [shorthand for 'white trash'] a huge check. She was there having kids on the taxpayers tab, and now she's going to sue related to her free care. Hmmm, all policy holders premiums will go up to pay for the delivery, and the litigation costs and settlement. Did the hospital do the correct thing? No, they didn't have a legal 'Right' to do so. Do I think society should be able to decide? You BET I do! Government assistance shouldn't be used in this manner. I have a real problem with people milking the hard working taxpayers. But, then again....I'm just 'Judgemental' <--;) Any thoughts?"

In response, one person posted the following:

Person 2: "She started having kids at 14 and three of them arent even in her care. What does she plan to use her settlement money on?"

followed by...

Person 2: "There needs to be limitations on how many babies the government financially 'adopt'."

and...

Person 3: "About time someone sterilized her!! One down...millions yet to go!"

Unfortunately, as is my obnoxious habit, I could not sit idly nor quietly by. I had to voice my opinion...

Theodore Geisel: "What's next, forced abortions? Interesting though....this happened in MA, the model for Obamacare. Government bad, that includes the dole she's on (look up Reader's Digest Oct 1950 St. Augustine Gullible Gulls). Personal liberty good. She is a government created monster...let 'em sue. Her liberty has been infringed."

...and a small comment firestorm ensued.

I'll spare everyone all the boring details and try to just paraphrase some of the sentiment. She "wronged" society; She "steals" money from hard working "taxpayers"; If government wants to govern...this is where they should "intervene"; Government should "attack" these types of people; We should "force" population control; Draconian actions are "justified" because society is full of stupid people who make stupid choices.

Please don't misunderstand me. I wholeheartedly believe all of the anger, rage, resentment and righteous indignation the public has directed toward Tessa is both justified and extremely healthy. At least it would be healthy if it were channeled at the right target. Unfortunately, I wholeheartedly believe it is woefully misdirected. Allow me to explain myself. To begin, I feel obliged to include (for both of my loyal readers' sake...I've been a slacker and will try to write more faithfully) the parable of the gullible gull:

“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …

“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.

“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a handout.

“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?

“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.”
(“Fable of the Gullible Gull,” Reader’s Digest, Oct. 1950, p. 32.)

To begin with, Ms. Savicki does not steal from the taxpayer. She could never take a dime from any of us, taxpaying or not, without the government's help. Rather, it is the government who steals money from the taxpayers every day and gives it to Ms. Savicki, and others like her, in the name of imagined rights which do not exist in the Constitution. She's an unfortunate gullible gull who has willingly allowed her self-reliance to be sapped by government handouts. She's not guiltless, but she's not the problem either...she's the symptom not the disease. A massive government that has usurped power from the people far beyond the original intent of the classical liberal social contract is the true thief. Well-meaning, yet flawed, liberal/progressive policy with it's inevitable unintended consequences is the root of the evil. Government compels us to pay for her...she doesn't. Government compels us to help those who can, but won't, help themselves.

Now, wait a minute! We the people are the government. We, elect these representatives and senators to form policy and laws in our interest. In other words, she steals from the government. I am the government. Therefore, she steals from me — Simple deductive logic.

Granted, but let me draw my argument out a little further. I absolutely agree that "we the people" comprise the government. But all that really means is that we are the true enablers. "We the people" lazily hang back while telling ourselves, "all politicians are bums," and then we don't hold them accountable and remain uninvolved. We erroneously think, "my vote doesn't count," and we stay in our dry, cozy homes on the 2nd Tuesday in November while another corrupt bum gets re-elected. We the people sit stupidly and quietly on the sidelines believing, "government doesn't really affect my life," while they tax us through the nose (e.g. Uuuuuh, but I got a tax return last year. [pause] I think it went to eleven). Until we stand up and seize our government back from an active progressive minority who has gradually eroded our freedoms and vastly expanded the scope of government beyond it's original bounds over the last 100 years, this governmental abuse will continue. Tessa's abuse is our fault — the uninformed, unengaged, non-voting, political correctness-believing, cowed and silent-majority sheep that allow this travesty to continue. She steals from us because we passively allow an arrogant, but, ironically, too stupid to see it, liberal/progressive minority to compel us through government to do so. She remains the symptom, government is the disease and we the people are the rats that carry and continue to spread the disease.

Benjamin Franklin wisely posited, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety [perhaps economic security] deserve neither liberty nor safety." I argue that those who ignorantly allow other people's self worth, dignity and essential liberty to seep slowly away are even less deserving of "safety". Shame on us. Tessa is the natural consequence of our inaction.

I worry that people get irritated with Tessa instead of with themselves and the dirt bag politicians they continue to elect — that their anger is mislead and misdirected. The only way abuses such as Tessa's will become less, rather than more, common is to take back the liberty and representation we have surrendered to our government. "We" the people need to focus our anger on government (elected officials at all levels) and strive to help other "we the people" use their new-found outrage to become, first engaged, and second properly focused on the bloated enemy. Incidentally, both political parties are equally guilty. Blind ideology does not correct, but, rather, exacerbates the problem. We need to expel unnecessary government programs, entitlements and foolishly imagined non-existent rights from our system. We accomplish that goal by searching out, electing and then supporting honest, clear-thinking politicians that both share and represent American principles of moral law, thrift, hard work and self-reliance. Unless we rally to the principles and causes exemplified and fought for by our founding fathers and properly focus our anger on the real enemy, we can expect gullible gulls and corrupt, tyrannical government to be the rule rather than the exception. If we mistakenly focus our anger on Tessa and dictate to her, or anyone else, matters of birth control, sterilization, family size, energy-consumption, parenting methods, diet, exercise or where and whether or not people smoke cigarettes, we become the very same progressive enemy we fight. Regardless of the "ends", compulsion is still the "means", and compulsion is NEVER freedom.

A man once reportedly said, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves," (Joseph Smith). Regardless of the authenticity of the quote, the sentiment is spot on. What we the people lack is knowledge of correct principles of governance, whether personally or nationally (e.g. Follow my, "What's wrong with America? ....Americans," link above). That is why we continually find fewer people capable of governing themselves and consequently we sacrifice more personal liberties to our government in a vain hope that government can make all our problems, even Tessa, go away. We don't need to go after Tessa and control her life based upon the prisms through which we view our own lives. We need to dismantle the programs that have set her up to fail, teach her how to govern herself and allow her to face the natural consequences of her decisions. Symptom...disease...rats. Let's stop being disease-spreading rats and let's stop simply treating symptoms...it is time to eradicate the disease.

These Go to Eleven

I adore all kinds of movies. I could plop down and watch a couple movies every day while feeling no remorse. I'll actually give most movies a chance even when the trailer promises a predicable premise or storyline, and I've been surprised many times. Perhaps my juiciest movie confession, however, is that I'll even watch a movie that stars someone I believe is a political idiot, simply because I believe them to be a good actor/actress—I still wish they would just shut up and act though. I come by my love of movies naturally because my Mother infected me. I grew up watching all sorts of them with her; comedy, drama, Technicolor or black and white. It didn't matter as long as it gripped me. Consequently, I have collected a lot of movies over the years.

This isn't to say I don't have biases. For instance, I find that although I enjoy a multitude of different genres, there are some I don't care for very much. I love suspense and horror, but I'm not a fan of gory "slasher" flicks. Also, with dramas one viewing generally suffices for me while I tend to watch action and comedy ad nauseum. I once had a friend tell me he refused to watch any black and white movies. "How sad," I thought. He could miss out on all sorts of good stuff. Eliminating thirty years of movie magic in one broad, dismissive brush stroke seemed completely arbitrary to me; akin to saying, "I'll never read anything from 500-700 in the Dewey decimal system." Personally, I think the 500-700s contain some pretty interesting stuff, and although I don't share or understand my friends mindset, I do realize he's not alone in having one.

We all need ways to cope with society's complexities, and mindsets are one way to do that. Mindsets allow us to generalize and make sense of all the disparate, seemingly unrelated, random events that comprise life. Without them, I for one would go insane. I have to take some things for granted or I could never make any decisions or arrive at any conclusions. I would be paralyzed by minutiae; constantly requiring another piece of information in order to make the "best" decision. In short, having a mindset is a necessary evil, but it still comes with dangers. The irony of mindsets is that they liberate us, allowing us to cope with life, but simultaneously, they can create a different prison to potentially trap us.

For example, there is an old saying: the only rule that doesn't have an exception is the rule that states there is an exception to every rule. That eloquent, old-timey, wisdom clearly points out one drawback to mindsets; overgeneralizing or stereotyping. That's a glaringly obvious danger that people quickly point out. I know I've been told not to stereotype for years now. I believe, however, another mindset danger lurks about that receives much less attention—the ideologue. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines ideologue as, "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology." In my mind, the key to the ideologue's mindset prison is contained in the words, often blindly. To help me try and recognize the trap I look for what I call "Nigelisms"; So named after a character, Nigel Tufnel, from a movie titled: This Is Spinal Tap.

The movie is a "mockumentary" or a documentary spoof that follows the antics of a fictional band, Spinal Tap, as they tour across America. In one scene, guitarist Nigel Tufnel shows the film producer Marty DiBergi all his guitars and then starts talking about the amps the band uses.

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and....

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don't know.

Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

"These go to eleven" is my quintessential Nigelism. Nigel assumes that because eleven is bigger than ten, his amp is therefore louder than an amp that only goes to ten. Because of this mindset he cannot comprehend just how arbitrary the dial numbers really are. Tear off the sticker behind the knob and replace it with one that goes up to twelve and that amp isn't going to get any louder. When Marty suggests the number eleven isn't really responsible for making the amp louder, Nigel can't accept it. The concept leaves him completely dumbfounded. To his credit, he at least pauses before blindly restating his mindset. Hilarious. A classic comedic movie moment, and everyone laughs; everyone other than Nigel that is. He doesn't laugh because he doesn't see it.

As I mentioned earlier, “blindly” seems to be a key word. There have been countless times in my life where I involuntarily picture another person saying, “Uuuuuuuuuh, these go to eleven?” Sometimes it’s hard not to laugh out loud. Unfortunately, when it comes to ideologues these gaffs can become frightening too. Allow me to share a few examples.

Several weeks ago a friend of mine posted a video from way back on May 22, 2008. During that time oil prices had soared and the average pump price for a gallon of gas reflected those skyrocketing prices. Something had to be done, and the U.S. House of Representatives responded by holding a panel hearing (always a highly effective solution) with top oil executives. The clip my friend posted centered on an exchange between Representative Maxine Waters , D-CA, and John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil. Waters challenged the oil executives to guarantee that the prices consumers pay would go down if Congress allowed the oil companies to drill wherever they wanted off of U.S. shores.

Hofmeister replied, "I can guarantee to the American people, because of the inaction of the United States Congress, ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down." He then went on to declare that paying $5 at the pump, "will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies."

Waters responded, in part, "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …" [The congresswoman hums, haws and pauses for several seconds here to collect her thoughts.] "Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …”

My first example is Maxine Waters. Her "liberal" mindset holds that government best serves public interest when it employs methods of economic interventionism, including socialism, to regulate private business. Isn't that what she just told the president of Shell Oil? I think the only reason she pauses to collect her thoughts where she does is because she knows the word "socialism," and all its permutations, carry a negative connotation for most Americans. Amazingly, she doesn't attempt to back pedal or change tack in the slightest. Instead, she pauses to ponder how she can rephrase "socializing" and then blindly charges on with her original mindset anyway. The video actually captures other Representatives on the panel leaning back and attempting to stifle laughter. At that point all I heard was, "these go to eleven."

My second, and more frightening, example is one of the responses my friend received in regard to his Maxine Waters post.

UNNAMED 3: Incredible. Just remember that not all of us Dems think like that. In fact, I'd say precious few.

I do agree most Democrats don't see the world so radically. I think most of them are reasonable, liberty-loving, self-reliant, red-blooded Americans just like most Republicans, Libertarians or Independents. My complaint is with Democrats and Republicans who are also ideologues, because they have an extremely limiting mindset that potentially impacts every citizen in this country—all Democrats/Republicans (depending on which ideologue you ask) are good and all Republicans/Democrats are bad. So while UNNAMED 3's assessment may represent the truth that "precious few" Democrats are as radical as Maxine Waters appears to be, enough Democrat ideologues shout, "Damn the torpedoes!!!" as they blindly pull the blue “D” lever and keep giving us all the Maxine Waters' of the Democratic party. Why vote for a radical Democrat who doesn't represent the majority of Democrats and not even consider the Republican they might actually have more in common with? Uuuuuuuuuh, because he/she is a Republican? Or phrased another way, uuuuuuuuuh, these go to eleven? All that matters to an ideologue is red/blue .... Dem/Rep.

Just because my examples picked on Democrats doesn't mean Republicans aren't guilty of the same lunacy. Republican ideologues give us Rudy Giuliani who is only "Republican" in name and national defense or Arlen Specter who decides to swap parties when he gets wind that he's finally misrepresented PA Republicans to the point he doesn't think he can get reelected. Why did PA Republicans continue to reelect Arlen Specter time after time? Uuuuuuuuuh, because he is a Republican? Or phrased another way, uuuuuuuuuh, these go to eleven?

This Nigelistic mentality results in a slew of elected officials who no longer represent their constituencies and continue to act in defiance of the will of the people. Referring to protesters at town hall meetings on health care reform, Harry Reid (D-NV) said, " These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having. ... They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas. They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets" 8/6/2009. No, Harry, they aren't. That's just ideological rhetoric and disingenuously false, but politicians sleep soundly at night knowing full well the ideologues will unthinkingly pull their color coded levers like animated, but mindless, Chatty Cathy dolls ripping their own strings from their backs.

Not to be outdone, the media itself also likes to get involved. From talk radio's Rush Limbaugh, who appears to be criticizing Republicans for not being Republican enough, to cable news' Keith Olberman, who claims, "... Fixed [Fox] News has since now migrated completely over to serving propaganda to tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists ..." 8/25/2009, ideologues can hear exactly what they want to hear. Both of these guys routinely pander to their fan base, reinforce Nigelistic mentality and give Republicans and Democrats new ways to yell at each other, "these go to eleven!"

Earlier this year, the media represented tea parties (protests over unprecedented private sector bailouts and government spending) as merely a "Republican" or "right wing" movement (which is just media speak for anyone who isn't a Democrat...and any Democrats who ask too many questions). Now, as citizens struggle to understand health care reform, the media misrepresents opposition to the one and only proposal in Congress the same way. On Aug 4, 2009 Barbara Boxer (D-CA) went on CNBC's Hardball and stated, "So all of this is a diversion of ... by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama." She then went on to claim, "You've heard Republican Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) say it. 'Let's make this Obama's Waterloo. Let's break him.' That's what this is about." No, Barbara, that's not what this is about. That's ideological rhetoric and patently false. While the tactic is disingenuous, politicians, and complicit media, do it because they know ideologues, who don't wish to be associated with such pejorative titles, will dismiss tea parties and town hall protesters without investigating the facts more fully on their own. What if my wife is one of eleven women in labor and there are only three hospital beds? Uuuuuuuuuh, these go to eleven?

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, believed, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." Goebbels would love to work his propagandist magic on a nation of ideologues. Ideologues are unwitting participants devoutly waiting to hear what they hope is truth. Ultimately, the greatest mindset danger is to unquestioningly accept whatever information reinforces a particular mindset while arbitrarily rejecting any information that doesn't. In that light, you make a great point Marty. Maybe I'll look into making ten the top number and just make that a bit louder.

Company Car

Throughout my life I have imagined how certain experiences would play out long before I experienced them. One particular example comes to mind—the transition from high school to college. I signed up for a bunch of classes and lined up an apartment off campus with five of my friends. I knew college would be the greatest event in my young life and it would play out just like in Animal House. Reality soon set in. I quickly learned that although a 7:30 am class didn't sound too bad, without Mom to force me out of bed and onto a school bus, it was, in actuality, a dark, heinous, unearthly hour wholly unfit for human consciousness. Consequently, I had signed up for an expensive trigonometry class I rarely attended and later had to repeat in order to graduate (I retook the class at a much more reasonable time, of course).

I also quickly realized that Dad's income would no longer cover my bills. I needed a job. This lead to a long, unbroken streak of unimpressive employment opportunities. At one point I tried a night "maintenance" job at the health clinic right next door. After spending my first night on the job cleaning carpets only to have my boss tell me in the morning I'd done horrible work, I decided to never go back. Much to my chagrin, my boss stopped by every night for at least two more weeks looking for me. Work at the place right next door? Perception says, "the convenience and commute sound great." Reality says, "never work at the place right next door." As usual, my imagination painted a rosy picture reality never delivered. I don't want to give the wrong impression here, rather, I wish to illustrate the difference between perception and reality. Although I absolutely loved my college years, the reality I experienced differed from my perception of how it would play out.

I had an epiphany about my new company car the other day that relates to political theory, and this is where I need to ask folks to throw out their perceptions about company cars and focus on reality. I understand not everyone has a company car. I am also well versed on gift horses and studiously do my best to avoid gazing into their gaping mouths. Perception says, "hey, quit whining. You have a free car." Reality says, "that car is a vital component of my employment, like a stapler, desk, computer or anything else found in a standard workstation." In addition, if a company requires an employee to attend a meeting, some training or perhaps a conference they will usually pay the airfare, hotel, food and any other legitimate business expense associated with it. In the same vein, employees don't generally purchase the chairs they sit on or those fuzzy partitions covered with pictures and pushpins that make up their cubicle walls either.

In outside sales, travel is part of the job description and salesmen travel A LOT. That's just the job. We don't work in an office. For the most part, my car is my office. Many companies provide a means to defray the out-of-pocket costs incurred by their salespeople due to frequent travel. One way they accomplish this is through the company car. This is a vehicle owned or leased by the employer and driven by the employee. That's how the company I work for does it. Every month $60 gets deducted from my paycheck, and I pay back personal mileage at 10¢ a mile; it beats gas prices. However, I have a good friend who works for another company that approaches the problem in a different way. They give their salespeople a car allowance. They then use their monthly allowance to cover car expenses related to their jobs. Until recently, I though that method stunk compared to the company car method. After all, what if my monthly expenses exceeded my allowance? With the company car arrangement I never needed to worry about that.

My epiphany, the thing I had never realized before, is that these two car approaches exemplify the difference between "the individual"/self reliance and "government"/entitlement. In other words, company car represents big government, one-size-fits-all, we'll manage everything for you. Car allowance reflects small government, you know what's best for you, take responsibility and manage things yourself. The parallels don't end there. They go deeper still.

For example, take choice. The last time I had an opportunity to order my new company car was two years ago. I could choose between a small/mid-size (depending on who you asked) SUV or a sedan. I live in the northwest. It snows; sometimes quite a bit. I routinely need to drive over even snowier more hazardous mountain passes. I also have a wife, two kids and a bunch of family that lives anywhere from seven to thirteen hours away. For some reason they want us to visit often. Hey, we all have a bit of "crazy" in us. Now, based on these parameters the choice seemed simple—pick the SUV. But there's always a catch. If I wanted the SUV I would have to pay an upfront, nonrefundable $1,000 fee for a car I didn't and wouldn't own. But I would get to go online and choose the color! I didn't really have a choice. The sedan simply would not have met my needs.

A few weeks back I got an e-mail from fleet telling me that my vehicle had 90,000 miles on it and they would replace it with a different fleet vehicle with just 7,000 ticks on the odometer. Within a week I had a "new" SUV in my driveway, and just like that, some guy from Tacoma drove my $1,000 away. Time to again throw away perception and grasp reality. My company vehicle no longer has all-wheel-drive, but rather front-wheel-drive; not quite as safe or effective in snowy/icy conditions. It has a smaller four, instead of six, cylinder engine; fun for trying to pass slow vehicles or driving up steep mountain passes. It also has a much smaller cargo area; I can barely fit my products in the back for work let alone all the luggage that accompanies a wife, and two kids. This last difference necessitated the purchase of several hundred dollars worth of roof rack cross bars and a cargo carrier. At least some guy from Tacoma won't drive that money away. In neither scenario did I really have any choices. We'll certainly make due, but this latest vehicle borders on "inadequate" for both my work and my personal needs. Thank you large, faceless, government parallel.

On the other hand, my friend had the opportunity to choose any vehicle he wanted. He could assess both his work and personal needs and then make a selection that met both. He didn't need to rely on some "bureaucrat" or manager to make those decisions for him and then try to figure out how to make that indiscriminate decision work for him. He had his allowance that he could apply to car payments, insurance, maintenance, new tires or just fuel if he wanted. He knew the total amount and could figure out the best balance to fit his unique circumstances. How inefficient is that? His employer only needs someone, whom they already employ, to continue processing expense reports they already process instead of hiring services from a fleet management firm.

Another deeper parallel, is vehicle maintenance and upkeep. My wife loves a clean car and I at least keep the interior "picked up," but not overly clean. The outside is a different matter. I hate to wash cars. Besides, I'm just going to drive somewhere tomorrow and get bugs, dirt, grime, de-icer or something else nasty all over it. So why bother? My wife still harries me to wash it, and maybe once a quarter, when it gets real filthy, I oblige her. Why should I waste my time, effort or money to keep someone else's car clean for them? I'm happy as long as I can see through the windshield and it gets me to my next client's office. Sure, this sounds unappreciative, but when is the last time you offered to keep your neighbor's car clean for him? I already paid my company $1,000 for the privilege of driving their car and I pay them another $60 each month for that same privilege whether I want to or not. Why should I now pay more just to clean it for them?

One day, as I drove down the freeway, the car started making a weird, high-pitched, screeching noise. "Hmm, I wonder what that is," I asked? Several days later I was almost as irritated by the sound as my wife, and decided to get it checked out. I called fleet. They called the local dealership. The dealership called me. We set up an appointment for several days later to take the car in. Then I called fleet back to let them know which day I'd arranged to take it in to the dealership. The dealer also called fleet to get authorization. Fleet called me back to say I could "take it in." For the meantime, they said to just keep driving it. If they didn't seem to care what additional damage that might do, why should I? That was just making arrangements to take the car in and doesn't include any of the rigmarole surrounding what was wrong with the vehicle or which repairs fleet would eventually authorize the dealer to make.

The repair process can be tedious enough that I've occaisionally ignored little things like warning lights. Thanks for the info, but I need to be 200 miles away tomorrow and I'm still 90 miles away from home right now. Often the pesky lights disappear when I turn off and restart the car. One time I accomplished this feat while coasting down the freeway in neutral. Keep in mind I'm not deliberately mistreating the car, I just need a little more out of it. I still have schedules and deadlines I must meet, so it behooves me to keep it running, but that's it.

Conversely, we purchased my wife's car. I change the oil every three to four months even though we're nowhere near the recommended 3,000 miles. If anything starts to act up, I take it very seriously. If I can't repair it myself, I'm happy to pay someone to fix it right as soon as possible. If my company car breaks down I make a phone call and they take care of everything. So what do I have to lose? I'm just out a bit of time on the side of the highway. However, I don't want my wife's car breaking down anywhere or causing my wife any problems. I'd have to pay for that tow so it's easier and less expensive for me to just prevent that from happening. Incidentally, we also keep my wife's car clean--right down to wax and buffing. The difference is it's my car and it therefore matters to me.

Unlike me, my friend with the car allowance keeps his work car clean, and makes fun of how dirty mine is at the same time. I'll even go so far as to suppose he doesn't mess around when his work car makes a weird noise or when a "check engine" light comes on. After all, it's his car and he has a stake in it. He doesn't have to waste a ton of time making lots of truly unnecessary phone calls and begging to get it fixed either.

I argue that one can draw the same parallels with all sorts of things; education, welfare and health care to name a few. Each of those things has the equivalent of a "company car" or a "car allowance" option. I once heard someone ask the question, "which is worse, an unfair, unjust private system or an unfair, unjust public system?" If my company car analogy has any validity, then I have to choose the unfair, unjust private system. It gives me a sense of control over my own destiny. I feel responsible for my own decisions and the consequences of those decisions. I tend to take better care of things that affect me personally and I have a stake in. I can spend my time making decisions that are "right" and "efficient" for myself and my family. Most importantly, when something unfair or unjust happens to me, I can do something about it. I'm not stuck with just one giant, unfair, unjust, inescapable public system. I'm not hindered by arbitrary, one-size-fits-all, no exceptions allowed, regulations or even a dispassionate, faceless bureaucracy. I have options. Basically, when it comes to my next job I want a car allowance instead of a company car, and when it comes to government I definitely want a "car allowance" instead of a "company car."

As I wrote that last paragraph, I think I had a second epiphany. I've always considered myself a realist. I also believed I was analytical, questioning and skeptical enough to avoid being easily fooled. I'm absolutely astonished by how EASILY the allure, convenience and entitlement of a company car has duped me over the last eight years. How else have I been fooled into surrendering my liberty?

The Ninety Percent Rule: Chapter 1 - Dedicated to Unbelievers and Infidels Everywhere

Hurry! Get all the 3-year olds out of the room and quit being so sensitive. Every time I present my ninety percent rule to one of my friends, or a deserving acquaintance, I get one of two general reactions. The first is immediate buy-in and the second is rank denial accompanied by a lecture on pessimism. Nonetheless, proof abounds.

Take, for example, sitcoms. Almost every one of them bludgeons viewers with a ubiquitous "laugh track." The mere presence of a laugh track begs the question, "just how stupid is the average American television viewer?" Certainly, television executives everywhere are driven by ratings. Basically, high ratings tell the executives to "run with it" and low ratings tell them to unplug the life support. Based on a ratings tenet, laugh tracks must really be what viewers want to see/hear when watching TV. Nothing else explains how insulting it is to "tell" viewers where to laugh. "Hey viewer, we know this is going to be way over your head, so here's a little hint about when to laugh and what you think is funny." The existence of laugh tracks proves that ninety percenters must make up the majority of Nielsen households. If they didn't, and all the intelligent viewers found offence in such an obvious slight on their intelligence, then these laugh track sitcoms would fail miserably and intelligent, versus banal, humor would reign silently supreme. On the other hand, if the forty percent rule is really more descriptive of the American viewing audience than the ninety percent rule, the Writers Guild must be comprised of ninety percenters. A bunch of idiot television writers so unfunny they feel obligated to punctuate their lousy jokes with a condescending laugh track and too simple to figure out viewers don't like them. I'll let you be the judge, but I'm pretty certain one of the two groups--if not both--relies heavily on ninety percenter membership.

Sitcoms, however, are just one symptom of the overall disease. I recently happened upon America's Funniest Home Videos for the umpteenth time. Most, and for the sake of continuity I would argue ninety percent, of these videos simply aren't funny. The videos consist mainly of pets and kids doing really stupid things or men getting smacked in the testicles by pets or kids, interspersed with an occasional grandma falling into or off of something, due to the antics of pets and kids, and later needing hip replacement surgery. A quick Google search revealed that this show made its television debut in 1989 and on April 23, 2009 ABC announced they had renewed it for an incredible twentieth season. Really? This show has assailed human intelligence for twenty years. This fact alone should prove my earlier point about Nielsen households and ninety percenters. It should also illustrate the opposite about network executives. Unlike TV viewers, they are wealthy geniuses. Network executives give America exactly what it wants--a bunch of extremely inexpensive, sophomoric reality shows. Then they mockingly deride those TV viewers as they deposit enormous checks into banks they could easily afford to own.

Unfortunately, reality television isn't the only drivel out there. I don't want to fail to give TV game shows some credit. In 2005 NBC gave us Deal or No Deal that challenged average Americans to pit their wits against a tricky nemesis named mathematics. In 2007 Fox gave us Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? which seriously called into question the quality of public education. Time Magazine in January of 2000 had the following to say about game shows in America nine years ago:

-----One of the keys to the success of these shows is the decision to use sub-Jeopardy! questions. "People feel 'I'm better than them,' while in the '50s you may have felt more comfortable saying you had never seen such a smart guy in your neighborhood as you saw on a quiz show," says NBC West Coast president Scott Sassa. Herb Stempel, the one who blew the whistle on the old Twenty-One, has a less upbeat take. "They want the people in the audience to pat themselves on the back and say, 'Gee, I knew the answer,'" he says. "The whole culture is getting dumbed down."-----

Here is a television executive who acknowledges game shows are being dumbed down to help viewers feel they are smarter than they really are. They truly are giving America what America wants. I argue that ninety percenters reign supreme in television viewing America, and since 99% of American households have at least one television, then ninety percent of people must be idiots. The jury is still out on the Writers Guild.

It's not just television entertainment that paints a stark, sad picture of ninety percenters. It's ALL OVER American culture. On August 1, 2007, the W35 Bridge, a major interstate thoroughfare in St. Paul, Minnesota, collapsed into the Mississippi and thirteen people died as a result. Shortly thereafter, a coal mine near Price, Utah caved in trapping six miners inside. Media coverage quickly put the bridge story on a back page while the mine story made endless headlines for weeks. Now don't get me wrong, both of these stories were, and are, tragedies, but which of the two is more relatable to every day life and should be to the general public as well? In the town where I live, I drive over a bridge crossing the Columbia River several times a day. The thought has certainly crossed my mind, "what would I do if, while crossing this bridge, it suddenly plummeted into the icy currents of the Columbia?" I honestly can't recall the last time I thought about what I would do if the seam of coal I was working suddenly precipitated a cave-in. In a move that defies all logic, ninety percenters demanded, and received, more information on a mine cave-in that couldn't affect them less, and less information on a bridge collapse that could happen to any one of them on any given day as they crisscross America's many highways.

News coverage is still more telling than that. In 2007 Anna Nicole Smith died suddenly in a hotel in Florida and actual news suddenly died at the same moment. I don't mean to sound cold, but what contribution did this woman make to society? Is her death really so important that all other news and information needed to be preempted for a solid week? Anna Nicole provided nothing that actually mattered to most Americans' lives--unless you consider large breasts and marrying an 89-year old oil tycoon for his money accomplishments. Regardless, news outlets couldn't report enough about her, let alone the custody hearings over her poor baby daughter that continued on for a good month.

Similarly, Micheal Jackson's passing, in 2009, virtually stopped hard news reporting. Unlike Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson at least left behind a musical legacy, along with ethical questions about plastic surgery, as an excuse for the nauseating amount of press attention surrounding his demise. While I think "Don't Stop 'Till You Get Enough" is a great song, important questions like, "Where is Bubbles the chimp?" and "Where is MJ's body now?" called for serious, around-the-clock, investigative reporting. Now I admit a musical legacy is a wonderful thing to give to the world, but important events didn't stop happening while the world listened to all their favorite MJ hits on their iPods. In fact, Kim Jong-il, in North Korea, threatened both Japan and Hawaii with nuclear missiles that same week. Apparently, entertainment stories rivet Americans' attention like nuclear holocaust never could. Well, they at least rivet ninety percenters while everyone else is left with no choice other than to turn "the news" off.

In addition, look at the rise in popularity of shows like Inside Edition and Entertainment Tonight. Now we have to add TMZ to this list of truly horrid tabloid TV programs. This sort of information once belonged only in supermarket checkout lanes or the "society" page of the newspaper. Every "hard" news channel from CNN to Fox, and every newspaper from The New York Times to the "(insert your town here) Gazette" dedicates entire hours and pages to "entertainment" news (oxymoron). At CNN demand got so high producers decided to fill up spin-off network Headline News' three hour prime time as well. In fact, entertainment news has become so popular an entire cable network, E, has been built up around it and Barbara Walters' once hard-hitting interviews revolve more around getting celebrities to cry than asking world leaders insightful questions. Once again, America speaks and gets what they want--pure crap.

I truly believe the preponderance of evidence points to the ninety percent rule's undisputed existence. If anyone reading this still doesn't accept my assertion that ninety percent of people are idiots ninety percent of the time, at least concede a fifty-one percent majority and consider the underlying premise even more seriously. Society can only benefit when ninety percenters become ten percenters. Who knows, after determining which side of the ninety percent rule they fall on, ninety percenters just might gain the most benefit of all.

The Ninety Percent Rule: Introduction - What the Deuce?

Every fire starts with a spark of some sort, and the ninety percent rule is no exception. It began to form about ten years ago when I had the pleasure of following a lady in her car as we both approached the same intersection. A two-way stop sign controlled the junction with a major arterial and the stop signs only applied to our direction of travel. The gal ahead of me stopped at the stop sign in what some might call a "rolling" or "California" stop. After making this half-hearted offering to the stop sign, she began to pull into the intersection when she abruptly slammed on her brakes in order to avoid a collision with another car. The other car traveling along the arterial didn't have to stop, only side street traffic did. I'm fairly certain this is commonly referred to in the driving world as yielding the right of way. When the vehicle on the busy arterial passed through the intersection, the woman driving the car ahead of me, who had narrowly avoided causing an accident, flipped off the other driver. I did NOT see that coming. I had just witnessed one of the most unbelievable, jaw-dropping moments of unrighteous indignation I had ever seen. Sometimes I tell myself I imagined that angry finger, but sadly, I didn't. That incredibly ignorant, self-absorbed woman, who failed to thoroughly check for traffic in the intersection, virtually ignored a stop sign and very nearly caused a collision, sincerely believed she acted justifiably. In her mind, and "how" is completely unfathomable to me, the other driver in some way had violated her rights at that intersection and her extended finger was well-founded. If either person had the right to hang a bird at the other, it certainly was not her. With my jaw resting comfortably in my lap, I headed home in shock. I didn't know it yet, but a spark glowed ominously in my mind's tinder.

Now I'm pretty sure everyone has witnessed something similarly asinine while cruising the streets of America. After all, aren't such events, or possibly too many speeding tickets, the impetus behind learning defensive driving? Wikipedia defines defensive driving as, "a form of training for motor vehicle drivers that goes beyond mastery of the rules of the road and the basic mechanics of driving. Its aim is to reduce the risk of driving by anticipating dangerous situations, despite adverse conditions or the mistakes of others." Defensive driving assumes the worst about all other drivers which makes it inherently pessimistic. Approach that intersection very cautiously because another person will ignore their stop sign and plow into you. Leave some space between yourself and the next car because that person up there is eating a cheeseburger/putting on makeup/talking on the phone, whatever, and will soon swerve into oncoming traffic or rear end another car. Simply stated, assume all other drivers on the road are idiots and are about to do something completely asinine that will cause you bodily harm or even kill you; all for failing to assume they are idiots. Personally, I call this sort of pessimism-realism.

People generally utilize an analogy about half a cup of water to determine a persons general outlook on life. The optimist looks at the cup of water and gratefully declares it half full, while the pessimist unappreciatively calls it half empty. The reality is that the cup is partially full and neither description changes anything about the quantity of water currently found in the glass. Also, what if it holds poison instead of water? Does it really matter if one is optimistic or pessimistic regarding the amount of poison in the glass? The reality is that both people will soon be dead if they drink it and, I suppose, the optimist will find something wonderful about being dead. Realists recognize, accept and deal with things exactly how they are and leave all the moralizing about full or empty to the optimists and pessimists. To a certain extent, the same concept of defensive driving realism is applicable to every day life.

Over time and through many experiences, the spark in my mind's tinder grew into a flame and eventually a theoretical fire I call the ninety percent rule. The ninety percent rule goes beyond mastery of the rules of social interaction and the basic mechanics of living life. It aims to reduce life's risks by anticipating dangerous situations created by the mistakes, misinformation or ignorance of others. Just like slowing down for that intersection keeps the driver who runs the stop sign from plowing into you, approaching human interaction cautiously lessens the likelihood of being pummeled by stupidity.

That being said, before stating the ninety percent rule, I feel compelled to give an indication of what lies ahead; a general lay of the land. Out of fairness, I want to inform readers about what to expect so they may decide beforehand whether or not to stop reading these essays and avoid more potential harm. For example, "stupid" is a tough word to swallow. I know many parents who, along with the basic four-letter words, teach their kids that "stupid" is a bad word. Few things humble a person more than a 3-year old child informing them they have just used a bad word. And in case that wasn't embarrassing enough, they turn around and tell their parents and any other adults who happen to be in the vicinity. The cold, dead glares that precede statements such as, "we don't allow our children to use that word," should cause any decent person to blush. Nonetheless, I'm writing this treatise on the assumption that no 3-year old will be reading it and that those people who do read it can grasp general concepts regardless of how thick or thin their skin may be. I plan to use four-letter words like "stupid" whenever necessary because, according to the ninety percent rule, it's necessary A LOT.

As I affirmed previously, the ninety percent rule is the concept of defensive driving for life. Every other driver on the road will, at any moment, do something really stupid; so anticipate. By definition, ninety percent includes an awful lot of people. I recognize everyone has those "what the .....?" moments now and again, and that is not what the ninety percent rule is about. I call it the ninety percent "rule" not the ninety percent "exception to the rule". The ninety percent rule predicts consistent idiocy for ninety percent of people at a rate of about ninety percent of the time. Anyone who wishes to dicker about whether it's really fifty percent or seventy percent can do so on their own. I think it's ninety percent. I really wish it wasn't so. I'm absolutely convinced life would be much easier if only ten percent of people were idiots. I am equally convinced that most of that ninety percent just doesn't know they fall into the ninety percent category. I believe anyone who falls on the wrong side of the ninety percent rule has the potential to change and join the ten percent. They just need to take a little time for self analysis and try to recognize their own stupidity; Stupidity recognized becomes stupidity avoided. My ninety percent rule essays will address many divisive and potentially offensive topics such as stupid questions, arrogance, hypocrisy and the death of a horse. They will also touch on ways to recognize and hopefully overcome general stupidity, but the common thread throughout will be the ninety percent rule. Ninety percent of people are idiots. Let me prove it.

Brownies

Although I recognize television is a huge time waster, I really enjoy watching it. Don't judge me. I bet if Karl Marx had lived in the twenty first century he would have named "media" the opiate of the masses. When one watches a lot of TV, they're bound to see a few commercials. I can still see some guy walking down the street eating peanut butter and bumping into a ladder where some other guy is eating chocolate. You got your chocolate in my peanut butter! You got peanut butter on my chocolate! Wait a minute, chocolate and peanut butter taste great together. Why didn't we come up with this a long time ago? Ah, compromise; Is there anything you can't accomplish? Secular progressives want "conservatives" to compromise on everything and for many years I believed compromise could resolve most political conflict. I don't believe that anymore.

Don't get me wrong, certain situations, such as mixing chocolate with peanut butter or reconciling competing needs for and potential uses of public areas/properties, call for compromise to work its healing magic. Basically, compromise works great when used within the actual parameters of government as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Morals and values, however, do not fall into this category. An object lesson, which was mostly lost on me in my youth, has since become immensely valuable to me as an adult and will hopefully serve to illustrate my point.

One evening our youth activity involved baking brownies. We mixed up the dry ingredients, added eggs, milk, all the usual stuff. As we prepared to pour our concoction into the baking pan our leader said, "hold on a minute. I think you guys forgot one of the ingredients." Now I'm not a huge chocolate fan, but I do love brownies and we certainly did not want to risk ruining brownie bliss by leaving some crucial ingredient out. All eyes turned to the little plastic baggie in our leader's hand.....A baggie of dog poop. "Surely a little bit wouldn't hurt," he suggested; Yeah right. Kids are dumb, but not that dumb. No one wanted to add ANY poop to the batter. That night we learned we were the brownies. We might tell ourselves that one little lie is no big deal, just one puff on a cigarette can't hurt much or a bit of language and nudity won't detract from an otherwise uplifting movie, but that lie, cigarette, language or nudity is dog poop.

A large part of the secular progressive agenda (despite their claims to the contrary) challenges traditional morals and values or promotes lifestyle choices that, when chosen, severely impact those morals and values; Positions such as unfettered abortion, gay marriage, restorative justice for child predators and sex education that stops at free condoms for everyone in middle school. As I briefly mentioned in my last post, I do not believe government in general, and specifically the federal government, should have any part in dictating morals any more than they should dictate religion. Nonetheless, left wing activism has consistently politicized moral issues for over forty years. Pandora not only opened the lid but ripped it right off the hinges. Imagine the outcry if the federal government dictated that prayer was an essential component of broader prosperity, better health and greater fulfillment in life. Yet secular progressives find nothing wrong with government dictating the same thing about mandatory availability of the morning after pill.

Back to poo. One ubiquitous part of almost any secular progressive analysis of opposing arguments includes an accusation of right wing or conservative "extremism", quickly followed by an appeal to adopt a more "moderate" stance. They're reasonable. They understand the importance of emotions and empathy. They don't expect "right wing extremists" to change all at once, just reciprocate and be a little more reasonable. Be a "moderate"--which is code for "compromise". Put a little poo in your brownies. I doubt you'll even taste it.

I feel abortion most easily exemplifies how social brownies get tainted with compromise. In the beginning abortion is illegal. Soon, opponents are asked to be reasonable and accept some extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest and risk to the mother's life. Next, reasonable means abortion for simply not wanting the pregnancy or, perhaps, in lieu of the condom that dude didn't wear the other night when that one chick was, like, soooooo drunk. Then reasonable becomes not even informing parents that their fourteen year-old daughter is about to undergo a medical procedure with massive psychological and life altering ramifications. Now, Sweden legalizes abortion for something as petty and selfish as the baby's gender and anyone who thinks that is not reasonable is now a "right wing extremist".

Obviously it is up to each individual to decide for themselves how much poop they like in their brownies. Well.......obvious to anyone who doesn't buy into a secular progressive nanny state, but come on! In the first place, where is the compromise on the part of secular progressives? In the second place, what is a "moderate" view on abortion anyway? Just abort part of the baby? When it comes to morals and values, the problem with "moderate" is that such concessions don't really satisfy secular progressive demands. They don't want to be reasonable about abortion; they just want to wear out and erode the opposition until they get exactly what they wanted in the first place with absolutely no concessions on their part. They are the uncompromising extremists. They want completely unrestricted abortion for anyone at anytime for any reason and will not relent in any way until they achieve that goal. A new concession only leads to another demand. All too soon there is hardly any brownie left in the turd getting crammed down the right wing "extremist's" throat.

The call for compromise and moderation never abates. President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. She believes a judge should base decisions on empathy. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Classic secular progressive mentality (see Moralless Airs of Moral Superiority). Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, says he will, "quietly root for her." Rush Limbaugh, radio talk show host (and in my opinion, tedious ideologue), suggested, "I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I could be convinced she does have a sensibility towards life." Both men appear capable of ignoring her track record of being overturned regularly and her self proclaimed liberalism because she might, just might, be secretly pro life. Again, compromise, be reasonable, find moderate ground. Maybe Sotomayor was right about certain groups arriving at better conclusions than others (sarcasm). As for me, I think this is an example of sprinkling a little brownie into the poo batter. I've eaten my fill of secular progressive poop. I want my brownies untainted. Mmmmm, brownies do sound really yummy right now. I think there might be some vanilla ice cream in the freezer.

Censoring

I've wrestled about whether or not I should blog a facebook experience I had last week and just could not seem to make up my mind. Today I enjoyed a second similar experience and can no longer justify not blogging it. Although, both incidents involved different people, they both illustrate unique facets of the same point--secular progressive closed-mindedness and deep rooted need for mindless sycophancy.

The following Facebook interaction took place on May 26, 2009:

UNNAMED1-- just got back from San Diego and had a lovely time at (Jack) & (Diane's) wedding. California itself was great, but their Supreme Court sucks.

XXXX at 1:01pm commented:
Thank goodness you had time to get some legal observations in....

Mr. Geisel commented around 1:10pm:
"Power to the people" which the profile owner, UNNAMED1, removed almost immediately.

UNNAMED1 at 1:12pm then responded to XXXX:
What's a vacation without legal observation? :)

Later that evening Mr. Geisel commented:
"censored for political views? :-(" UNNAMED1 similarly removed this observation from the page.

I then received the following e-mail:

Hi Theodore.

As you may or may not know, I do a lot of volunteering here in New York working for marriage equality and have many gay and lesbian friends who were absolutely devastated by the decision today. I took you comment "power to the people" to mean you were in support of Prop 8, but right now I have friends who are in loving, committed relationships, some with adopted children, who feel that the "people" (i.e., a small majority in California) took away their rights as a minority.

While I'm happy to debate you all day on my public page about differing views on economic policy, I just didn't want my friends, who were told today that their relationship is less valid than mine, to see any comments that would make them feel worse. I think that you can understand that it was a personal, not political, "censoring".

Best,
UNNAMED1
------------------------

After some deliberation, I decided that e-mail was a humongous pile of self righteous, holier-than-thou crap. That e-mail practically called me a callous jerk for making such an insensitive comment and insinuated I lacked empathy for homosexual "victims" and therefore had no right to be opposed to judicial activism on behalf of same sex marriage. I could not ignore it and penned the following response:

UNNAMED1.

I don't even remotely see it that way. By taking the issue into the political arena it is no longer "personal" but political. Therefore it is political and not personal censoring. More to the point, I understand exactly how it feels to have a minority use things like judicial activism to take away rights from myself and others. I also understand exactly how it feels to have a small majority of Americans vote for a President that is taking away the freedoms of my children and their children. You have probably had similar feelings, but it hasn't silenced you any more than I should be silenced.

The beauty of the Constitution is it allows states, and individual citizens living in those states, to make these decisions for themselves. I am grateful New Yorkers can do what they think best and Californians can do what they think best. While it is horrible that your friends in NY may feel offended by what took place in CA, I and many of my friends are just as personally offended by actions to legalize homosexual marriage in many other states. We believe those actions diminish the sanctity of what we feel is an institution that builds up and strengthens society.

Regarding economic debate. First, in addition to social consequences, decisions legalizing homosexual marriage DO have ECONOMIC consequences as well. Second, I agree social/moral issues probably shouldn't be the focus of political debate because I believe such issues, like religion, should not be dictated by government. They should not be politicized. Unfortunately, the milk has already been spilled and the law of entropy won't allow us to put it back in the bottle.

Allow me to illustrate point two. I hate that my tax money supports something as abhorrent and morally vacuous as abortion for non life-threatening purposes, but there is nothing I can do about it. Judicial activism has ensured that choice is taken from me and I am now obligated to obey the law of the land. I do find it extremely interesting how the same idiotic small activist group (the Supreme Court) and faulty reasoning not only declared that blacks were not people and therefore had no protected rights (Dred Scott v. Sandford) but that fetuses too are not people and are similarly devoid of rights (Roe v. Wade). How can logic so obviously wrong before be so obviously right now? (rhetorical question).

I see your activism and follow your links all the time as they come along Facebook. It often seems like gloating from your side of the bleachers. I'm ecstatic to be able to now cheer from my side. I hope you can understand that.

Best Regards, Theodore Geisel

-------------------------

I think the above interaction illustrates beautifully just how closed-minded the secular progressive mentality really is. Only one valid point of view exists; the victim's point of view. If a person isn't either one of the victims or sympathetic to the victims' perceived plight, that person must be an oppressor and will quickly find themselves relegated to the moral low ground in the secular progressive's mind. Any argument a morally defunct oppressor could possibly make against the victim's viewpoint is either insensitive or invalid by virtue of coming from an oppressor. Either way, there is no need to listen any longer. Simply marginalize the oppressor's argument and move on.

Speaking of moving on, it's time for interaction two. I beg the reader to allow me some license here because I will have to do my best to paraphrase. I no longer have access to the verbatim conversation, but the conversation itself really isn't the point. The point is I no longer have access to the conversation. Interaction two occurred something like this:

UNNAMED2--is so glad his home state NH shares his views on gay marriage. if only NY would get with the times!

XXXX commented something about how proud he/she was of UNNAMED2 for courageously voicing his opinion on such a controversial topic on Facebook.

UNNAMED2--stop it. you'll make me blush. if only something as obvious as equal rights could be solved by simply posting something about it on my Facebook page.

Mr. Geisel commented: "where is the dislike button?"

For those readers who are not familiar with Facebook, when someone posts something on Facebook, all of their friends can either comment on the post or click a button to "like" the post. Well what if I don't like or agree with the post? I, and for that matter, the person who posted, may not want to launch into a big discussion about it. Worse yet, silence could be misconstrued as support for the post. I just want to click on "dislike" and move on. Facebook should be heaven for secular progressives.

The point I wish to make is that my desire to "dislike" gay marriage apparently proved to be too much for secular progressive UNNAMED2. I arrived at this conclusion when within thirty minutes or so after commenting, I had one less friend on Facebook. Rather than take a chance on hearing from someone who didn't parrot his opinions back at him, UNNAMED2 chose to close his mind and further insulate himself in his group think world. New York hasn't learned to share his views on gay marriage and he obviously hasn't learned about New York cynicism. He'd rather suck down some ice cold kool-aid served up by one of his sycophants. Hey! What's that weird aftertaste?

Moralless Airs of Moral Superiority

According to Wikipedia, "progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating progress, changes, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are." What a beautifully elegant representation of a bunch of hogwash. This definition implies that things must constantly be in flux in order for "progress, changes, improvement or reform" to take place and that the status quo is inherently flawed simply because it is the status quo. Progressivism also implies that all other political and social ideologies wish to simply "maintain things as they are." Therein lies the beginning of a belief in moral superiority.

I find a couple problems with progressivism that just don't allow me to accept it as a viable political or social model. The first is that it is rooted in a tautological concept. A logical tautology is a non clarification where all instances are true such as defining a color, red is red, or where a statement covers both the false and the true condition and therefore cannot be proven to be either false or true. For example, he will either win or not win. Thank you Mr. Obvious. The progressive movement, like eugenics, is rooted in evolution and natural selection. All change, whether good or bad for the individual, propels the group towards a better condition because the current condition is flawed. All changes to a flawed political/social system, whether good or bad for individuals, propel society towards a better condition because the current system is flawed. Natural selection is a tautology and therefore can never be proven or disproven. Why didn't they survive? They weren't the fittest. If they were the fittest, they would have survived. They will either survive or not survive. Again, thank you Mr. Obvious. The only real philosophical difference between evolution and progressivism is that evolution leaves survival decisions up to "chance" while progressives decide for themselves who should be the fittest. They apparently either know better than everyone else because they are "enlightened" or they have experienced life in a way that somehow uniquely entitles them to politically engage more than those who haven't had their same experiences. Should the poor or the rich survive? How about the white male v. any other gender or minority? We, the progressives, will decide based on our empathetic, enlightened world view.

The second problem for me is the lack of absolutes. Specifically, the lack of MORAL absolutes in a political/social sense. If one believes that change is inevitable and the status quo is flawed there can never be an absolute end, goal or moral with the exception of change itself. I find this reasoning faulty. Allow me to illustrate. A person is either pregnant or not pregnant, dead or not dead. These are absolutes. There just aren't degrees of pregnancy or death. Webster's defines moral as, "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principle or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong." I find that progressivism accepts the first half about conduct, eg. political correctness, but not the latter half about right and wrong, eg. abortion.
What is a moderate stance on abortion? Does a fetus have rights or not? Lines must be drawn and absolutes established if a law is to be applied fairly.

Superiority is, "the quality or condition of being superior." When I put "moral" and "superiority" together, along with their definitions, I understand moral superiority to mean having a better understanding of right conduct and distinctions between right and wrong than others who just aren't as smart. Maybe 'arrogance' and/or 'intellectualism' could sum it up. Progressive superiority stems from empathy, "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another." Progressives attempt to frame most debates in terms of empathy. We should all feel sorry for (insert predetermined "fittest" group here) and if you don't, then you are a (insert pejorative, ad hominem term here). This is the essence of a progressive air of moral superiority. The irony is that aside from advocating that the status quo is always flawed, change is always a desirable goal and their point of view is the only qualified, legitimate one in any debate, they have no moral absolutes. A moralless absolute air of moral superiority and I'm not going to let that oxymoron shut me up.

Regarding Term Limits

From 1990 to 1994 I struggled to pay for my higher education through a series of unfortunate and unpleasant job choices. One of the first was doing telephone surveys during the 1990 midterm elections. I believe desperation drives people to do things they would normally avoid and only desperation could have driven me to apply for that job. I also suppose desperation led that company to hire just about anybody; including me. However, the fact that I accepted that job offer incontrovertibly proves a person can be possessed by the devil, an alien or some other being from another dimension.

Only two good things came from that experience. First, I paid for my tuition. Second, I learned that most people aren't logical; they are misinformed, uninformed, disengaged or just plain emotional. It didn't matter what state I surveyed, almost everyone I talked to thought the country was, "headed in the wrong direction," and, "disapproved of," or, "strongly disapproved of," the job Congress currently did. The odd thing was most of them thought their incumbent Representative or Senator did an outstanding job! That makes no sense at all and I doubt that outcome has changed one bit in 2008. The only way I can explain it is by choosing one of the non-logical descriptions I mentioned earlier.

In my opinion, what happens is Congress pleases most of their local constituents so they can get reelected and completely misses the bigger national picture. For example, a simple emergency measure becomes a 500 page behemoth full of earmarks. Congressman A tells Congresswoman B that the only way he'll vote for a bill to help people in her state X who are suffering from natural disaster Y is if he can get some money to build a bridge with his name on it back in his state Z. The obvious solution, of course, is term limits. However, that poses a problem.

During the 1990s, 23 states put measures on their ballots to limit terms in Congress. They all overwhelmingly passed. Unfortunately, in 1995 the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, ruled that states could not impose term limits on their Representatives or Senators. The only way term limits will ever become a reality, is if Congress passes legislation to limit their own terms. While Congress readily legislates themselves raises, I'm pretty certain they aren't going to limit the length of their own careers. Regardless, they still have to get reelected every two to six years and that's where the Tea Party comes in. If we remove incumbents, we limit terms. There is nothing Congress or the Supreme Court can do to stop that. This has to be a populist, grassroots initiative and that requires everyone to tell everyone else about the Tea Party. We may be too late for the 2008 election, but there WILL be another election in 2010.