Demonization (Is there an exorcist in the House? The Senate?)

Click here after you read this column. 

This is the first time I've included a link in a column. I'm violating policy because this is a very important link. The logic behind why I don't put limit the quantity of links in my columns can be found by clicking on the Read This First Please tab Just Who Is This Guy tab on my website, TheFlyoverlandCrank.com. (Many of my gentlereaders access my columns without visiting my website.)

The subject and title of a recent column was the Dizzinformation Age. I defined Dizzinformation syndrome (DS) as dizzy from too much information -- correct, incorrect, or, worst of all, contradictory. I failed to mention Dizzinformation Anxiety Syndrome (DAS), a closely related malady that often manifests concurrently with DS. DAS is the fear that you might miss/have missed/are missing a highly important bit of information.

Highly important is a relative phrase. For example, it could refer to the fact that you forgot to acknowledge your obnoxious aunt Eunice's birthday. This is important because she's sitting on a significant pile of dough. Although she's unlikely to bequeath a significant amount of the aforementioned significant pile to you (it's complicated), you figure that odds are you're going to get something if she ever finally dies. 

Alternatively, any information of quality about how H. sapiens actually function in the real world on a day to day basis, as opposed to how you wish they did/hope they do may be highly important to you also, for any number of valid reasons.

While the former would seem, generally speaking, less important than the latter, both are important, both can trigger DAS.

I recently discovered a book, that I haven't read yet (more on that in a sec') titled, "The Righteous Mind," by Jonathan Haidt that was published in 2013. The subtitle, "Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," embodies a passionate interest of mine and is easily conflatable with the desire to know how folks actually function in the real world mentioned above.

I've purchased the book and haven't read it yet because I'm mildly obsessed with the video that clicking on the link above will connect you to. Bill Moyers, well known progressive, interviews the author, a moral psychologist who claims his work has moved him from a moderate liberal stance to that of a moderate conservative. It's an excellent interview and while I'm sure there's additional insight in the book, the interview reveals the important stuff.

I'm obsessed with the video for two reasons -- the tone and the substance.

As to tone, the interview consists of 47 minutes and 9 seconds of two intelligent gentlepersons exploring a subject of interest to us all most people. All the while they both listen carefully to what the other guy is saying, or asking (it is an interview after all); at no point does the conversation devolve into shouting or talking over or interrupting or displays of self-righteous fury. Not very infotaining. Well, at least by the standards of the average cable news show.

As to substance, the fact that I, your DAT (dilettante about town) was unaware of the book or the interview triggered a dizzinformation anxiety attack. A well-spoken Ph.D., whose field is moral psychology (a subject I find endlessly fascinating), wrote a book and gave a great interview about a subject I'm obsessed with (see subtitle), and has compiled an impressive array of studies that seem to confirm most of my thoughts and opinions on the subject in question.

And I, a semi-humble DAT, with 39 certified college credits, missed it.

Of course, so did a lot of other people. The sales of the book in question were/are a tiny fraction of any given book of the Harry Potter series. I went poking around the web to try and make myself feel better and became deeply depressed when I discovered that it was once on the N.Y. Times bestseller list. However, I then discovered that discovering how many copies of given book have actually been sold is impossible; the veracity of the Times list is a matter of some controversy. I'm feeling much better now.

As I said, I haven't read it yet, but the interview absolutely drips with insight into our current mess and when I'm king...

[Marie-Louise rolls her eyes, my imaginary gentlereader scoffs. Dana. What's that? Dana, I'm tired of being called imaginary gentlereader, my name is Dana, OK? Yeah, sure, whatever you say, what prompted... Just move on, OK? Um, yeah, sure.]

Anyway, I can't recommend watching this interview enough. Ironically, Mr. Haidt did a TED talk that I vaguely remember watching, and enjoying, but it was quite awhile ago and doesn't delve into the subject with quite the same amount of insight or present nearly as many subtle details.

You really should watch the interview. Here's a summary of Mr. Haidt's thesis if you don't want to, or to help you decide if you wish to spend some of your valuable time. Honestly, however, I'm doing it mostly for me. Writing helps/forces me to clarify concisely and I want to burn his ideas into my head as I think they are that important.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republicrat, one of the first important ones, and he freed the slaves. Many folks in the South took umbrage at this and the South became a Depublican stronghold. Yes, those of you who are historically challenged, the Republicans (traditional but now inaccurate name) freed the slaves; the Democrats (traditional but equally inaccurate name) gave us Jim Crow and the KKK.

Ain't that ironical.

[For the record, I use the names I do because although the parties have lost the ability to compromise over the years in order to do what's best for the republic, they both agree, strongly, on the same principle, that obtaining and keeping power is job one. Beats having to get a real job.]

And then in the early sixties, Lyndon Johnson put together a bipartisan effort and destroyed the obscenity that was/is Jim Crow. A certain element in the South once again took umbrage and turned Republicrat, feeling abandoned and looking for revenge. Then the Baby Boomers began taking over from the Greatest Generation and began redefining the Depublican party. This was the beginning of (what I call) the Great Fragmentation. As Mr. Haidt puts it, both parties began moving towards logically extreme positions. Liberal Republicrats and conservative Depublicans began to disappear.

Mr. Haidt points out that it's perfectly normal, and advantageous for survival, for H. sapiens to belong to a tribe of some sort. Cooperation/competition being opposite sides of the same coin, this can be a good thing if a balance is maintained. We can cooperate by competing in everything from sports to business to politics, to pursue excellence but stay friends -- if we share common goals, share the same country, and avoid a culture that is defined by Us v. Them.

This was relatively easy for the Greatest Generation. They had to compete/cooperate to survive the Great Depression and then World War Two. The threat of economic collapse/starvation followed by the threat of death/enslavement by another culture served to unite a nation of rugged individualists. A general consensus as to what constituted a moral lifestyle -- though we must acknowledge there was, as there always is, much hypocrisy -- also helped.

Very long story short: The rise of the most pampered/indulged/prosperous generation in American history -- at least till the rise of the Millennials, and now the Snowflakes -- was upon us. The moral and cultural consensus was replaced, in an amazingly short time, by if it feels good do it we'll sort out the consequences later ethos.

Compromise was replaced by Us v. Them. Consensus, even geographical consensus, is vanishing. We've separated into, as Mr. Haidt says, lifestyle enclaves -- physical/emotional/political/moral -- from where we can comfortably throw rocks at the other tribes.

Manichaeism is back on the charts kids, with a bullet. Hey, buddy, you're not just wrong, you're evil, and you can't compromise with the devil. Please watch the interview, eye-opening stuff, I promise.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

Hall Boys

I've finally stumbled on a "reality show" that I like. I don't wish to cast any aspersions on the genre's fans, it just doesn't appeal to me. It's not snobbery of any sort. I don't understand the appeal of abstract art, opera or caviar either, but there's nay shortage of people that are smarter than I that do. Incidentally, when I become king I'm going to order that henceforth aspersions will cast at, not on, not even upon, someone or something. But that has nothing to do with the reality show I recently stumbled upon so I'm not going to get into it. Did you know that upon and on can be used interchangeably without having to worry about the jack booted thugs of the grammar police kicking in your door at 3 AM? I...

[Cough, cough. Marie-Louise, my muse, can exactly duplicate the dry, fake cough of Sister Mary Eunice made when she would appear out of nowhere when my fellow unworthy sinners and I were pitching pennies or discussing the definitions of bad words.]

Sorry. Oh, before I forget, I mentioned last week that the subject of this week's column would be demonization. Due to technical difficulties...etc, it's been moved to next week. Anyway, the reality show in question is called, "Manor House," and ran back in 2002. It would seem I'm running a bit behind. Amazon, or rather one of its algorithms, recommended it to me after I recently binge watched "Downton Abbey." I told you I was running a bit behind.

The premise of the show is that it's a depiction of what life would have been like for a bunch of folks living in a huge manor house, in Scotland, at the turn of the last century. The lives of the (newly rich) masters, a family of five, and their (newly minted) slaves servants (14 of them) are offered up for our entertainment via a typical unreality show format. You may have noticed, or at least heard, that alleged reality shows are somewhat different from, and strive to be much more entertaining than, actual reality. This particular show is no exception.

When I'm king (I'm feeling rather monarchical this week), I'm going to order that all high school students, grade year to be determined, will be required to participate in a series of ungraded seminars. For lack of a better term (I've just come up with this idea so I'm little light on details) let's call them the Reality Check Series. The point/purpose is to give the students a realistic grounding in how life actually works/worked to prevent snowflake syndrome going forward, coupled with an appreciation of how crappy life actually was for almost everyone nay very long ago.

The reason Manor House got me to thinking about this is because although it contains all the required unreality elements of reality shows, it still offers much in the way of useful reality checks.

What I mean by the elements of unreality are simply all the stories/rumours/innuendo/etc. surrounding any given reality show. Poke the bear production tricks that have leaked and/or are leaked and designed to manipulate the participants/masses.

Manipulate the participants into providing entertainment for the masses and manipulate the masses for the enrichment of the industry behind the cameras. A new millennial version of Depression-era dance marathons.

As to useful reality checks, an example if you please. Downton Abbey includes "hall boys," but just barely and the term is never defined. Manor House, on the other hand, features a hall boy that literally lives in the hall. Nay, really. In the Scottish manor house where Manor House takes place, the hall boy literally lives in a hall. There's a tiny Murphy bed that folds out of one of the halls walls, and that's where he sleeps. His room is a Murphy bed in a room that's not a room. Yikes!

There's nay a lot of information available about hall boys, even using my usual method for conducting in-depth research -- google a word or phrase and see what happens. The life of a DAT (dilettante about town) requires vigilant prioritising and a ruthless devotion to moving on.

[Manor House is full of Scottish accents, which is why I've become mildly, and hopefully only temporarily, obsessed with using nay, instead of no or not. I'm resisting rolling my r's, so far, but only because I'm nay vera gooud very good at it.]

However, I did manage to ferret out a few facts beyond the appalling one mentioned above. Hall boys, along with their female counterparts, scullery maids, occupied the lowest positions in a rigid hierarchy that began with the master of the house and ended with them.

One of their many duties was to serve as servants to servants that were further up the food chain than they were, and often they were literally boys. They got up first, went to bed last, often worked 16 hour days and couldn't count on a day off. Two words: chamber pots.

This was all considered perfectly normal for centuries and didn't start changing till about a hundred years ago. While a century may seem like a long time to some of you, particularly to those fortunate enough to be slightly younger than I (62.75 chronologically, 39 spiritually), consider the fact that my father was born in 1911, and it was only a couple of years ago that I was being terrorised by Sister Mary Eunice.

Back to reality checks. What have we learned Dorothies? While nay one should have to live/have lived like this, more did than didn't, and nay that long ago. Many still do. I refer not only to the lives of slaves/servants. Till roughly 1800, when The Great Enrichment took off (the subject of this column the week after next), almost everyone on the planet lived short, drudgery-filled lives, and always had.

Manor House is worth a watch for one other reason in my semi-humble opinion. I made reference to the clearly defined and rigidly enforced hierarchy of the household, which mirrored the English class system that had begun to crumble but was still very much in place.

The people of the current era that were assembled for this elaborate game of pretend start going native in the very first episode. It's fascinating to watch how easily they assume the mores of their forebears, mostly I suspect, without being aware of it.

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 

Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.    

Pain

Pain's inevitable, it's the nature of our reality.

I've come to this conclusion via 62.75 years of experience in the subject as well as well as by studying the thoughts, opinions, and conclusions of others. Particularly the thoughts, opinions, and conclusions of a gentle-man by the name of Thaddeus Golas who wrote a book entitled, "Love and Pain." He may be known to some of your for being the sorta/kinda famous author of a sorta/kinda famous book that was published in 1971. It's called, "The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment."

I don't recommend either book for most people, particularly those of you that are comfortable believers or non-believers, that are content with what you believe (or don't). Most members of both groups will find them to be "out there" and dismiss some of their wilder premises early on, probably regretting have spent the money and/or time to obtain a copy.

Also, the latter book contradicts the former. Or rather, corrects it. And, if you liked the first one you might find Love and Pain to be rather depressing.

However, since Mr. G's conclusions about pain happen to coincide with (and clarified) my own, and since he expresses them so elegantly, I have to acknowledge him. As it happens...

[For the love of a higher power that can be defined any which way you like, for whom am I to judge? (my imaginary gentle reader, or IGR, has been trending politically correct as of late) would you please get on with it! Marie-Louise gives him a dirty look while simultaneously gently smacking me on the back of my head. This significance of this is that though she may agree with him her first instinct is to defend me. She's a very good muse.]

Fine then. First, I must declare a personal (respectful and low-key) rejection of the notion that we're all being punished for an original sin of some sort. A sin that was committed by persons known or unknown that's resulted in everyone born since, that is, everyone, arriving here having been tried, convicted and sentenced -- before they existed. If this works for you, well, you might as well stop reading here. Have an OK day.

Next, to get it out of the way, I'll readily stipulate that pain serves as a very effective survival mechanism. "My hand seems to have caught on fire, that really, really hurts. I should put that out as quickly as possible."

[Oh, before I forget, as to "respectful and low-key," while I'm not a believer, at least in a traditional, conservative way, I'm very much a live and let live sort of dude. It's a cage match! Believers v. non-believers v. non-traditional believers -- or my personal favorite -- traditional v. different traditional. If everyone was to make a conscious effort to redirect the time and energy we use up demonizing (pun intended) each other we could all get our laundry caught up. (Another gentle smack from Marie-Louise.) Suffice it to say that the subject of next week's column is demonization.]

Now, the specific point that Mr. Golas brings up that I'd never thought of before, at least in quite the same way, is that pain is survival. Pleasure, in more than very limited doses, is disintegration and death.

No, I'm not saying that we should resurrect the philosophy and lifestyle of ancient Sparta. Yes, I acknowledge that all work, and no play, not only produces dull dudes/dudettes, it sucks sweaty socks.

BIG BUT.

If I get drunk every day after work, and/or while at work, and if I get and stay drunk the entire weekend, because I really, really like to get drunk, I will begin to disintegrate, I will eventually die. The best I can hope for till the fun turns to cirrhosis of the liver, is that I don't trash/damage/kill anyone else along the way. Please feel free to substitute the pleasure inducing substance/activity of your choice. Don't forget sugar, sugar.

[Stuff and nonsense! Sez my IGR. You're talking about abusing substances/activities that if used in moderation...]

...No, what I'm talking about is that the nature of life on Earth, assuming, as I suspect most folks do if they wish to survive for more than a minute, is that pleasure must be limited and controlled.

[Well sure, everyone knows that moderation in all things...]

That's only true if you define moderation as doing really fun stuff in severely limited and controlled doses. If moderation is the answer why do we spend so much of our time working, be it for a living or the 1,001 other dreary things that must get done to get through the day?

Moderation? My idea of moderation would be a world in which I spend as much time having fun as I do working. That lifestyle is only available to an infinitesimal percentage of people, and for a limited time. Pain finds everyone. Even love hurts.

I hear two questions begging.

If you had the wherewithal to design reality from scratch, or could reboot it any which way you want to, wouldn't you set it up so it was possible to exist in a state of bliss 24 x 7? I'm not even remotely as forgiving as God is supposed to be and that's what I'd do.

On a more practical note, if you concede the inevitability of pain, and don't want to pleasure yourself to death (GRIN, sorry, I can't help myself sometimes) how should you structure your life and personal philosophy?

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 

Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.    

The Dizzinformation Age

Dizzinformation. Perfect. It seems so obvious in retrospect. Like one of those commercials for a product someone thought up that instantly provokes a now why didn't I think of that? response.

See, I've been in search of this word for a while now, and I was stuck on disinformation, which just doesn't do it. We're told, and I agree, that this is the Information Age and that this is an RBFD (real big, um, freakin' deal). It's on par with the industrial revolution, the invention of the printing press, agriculture, that sort of thing. World-changing stuff.

As I've written before, the Information Age has a huge, honking downside -- information overload. So, for a couple of weeks now I've been trying to think of a word, or if necessary invent one, that captures that no matter how hard I try to swim to shore I never seem to be able to get out of the Information Ocean feeling.

Wouldn't it be nice to lay on the beach for awhile? Better yet, stretch out on a lounge chair of some sort, with a cupholder, sipping from a tall glass of certainty/purpose/direction.

Dizzinformation. See, disinformation doesn't work because to me at least, it means incorrect information, sometimes, no, often, deliberately incorrect and designed to deliberately confuse/manipulate/deceive. Also, information that was thought to be correct but turns out not to be, such as the fact that we will not necessarily die next week if we eat some eggs this week. Well, at least not until the results of a major/minor study by a reputable this, that, or the other sneaks up and taps us on the shoulder while we're multitasking our butts off.

I define dizzinformation syndrome as, simply, dizzy from too much information -- correct, incorrect, or, worst of all, contradictory. It's not primarily because there's so much of it, there's always been a lot of it. It's because it's so easily accessible, and because installing effective filters is hard.

Information (and entertainment) access is well on it's way to becoming ubiquitous. It's only taken about 30 years or so to go from access and environmentally controlled computer rooms, staffed with people in white jackets, to the smartphone in your pocket that can access more information than you could ever possibly consume in multiple lifetimes. And the Dizzinformation Age is still in its infancy.

There are two sorts of information filters, self-installed ones and those installed by someone else.

[Aside: As to those installed by someone else, I'm not talking the security of allegedly/hopefully secure networks that are under constant attack by black hat geeklings whose motivations range from ideological to pathological. The only thing I have to say about that subject is that I believe property rights are fundamental if you prefer living in a modern, prosperous, civilized society. Without them, there wouldn't be any computer networks to attack while sitting in a comfortable chair.

Without property rights, the black hat geeklings -- the idealists, terrorists, or something inbetweenists -- would have to get out of their chairs and go break into a given facility and either steal as many scrolls as they could carry or set the place on fire. Is there a torchesandpitchforks.com? Regardless, here's hoping they don't come after me.]

Now, self-installed filters, if you believe in personal liberty, are clearly to be preferred over those installed by others. But there are, often difficult, choices to be made. If you're not a believer in personal liberty, or a bully, or a bully's victim (willingly/passively/genuinely, e.g., Putin's Russia), your choices range from limited to non-existent.

Personally, I think the latter scenario sucks sweaty socks, but it does simplify things.

On the other hand, life for those of us who prefer, and/or are fortunate enough to enjoy, personal liberty, choosing a personal filter is made all the more complicated by the diminished power of the external ones installed by someone else.

I refer here to the externally installed filters of consensus and convention, many of which our culture has discarded, or at least dramatically weakened. In the about me box on the homepage of my website, I make reference to the Great Fragmentation. I've never directly defined the term or written a specific column about the subject but it's a theme easily discernible throughout my work. We have become, obviously and remarkably quickly, a culture of people that have split into wildly different, and often hostile, factions.

[Wait a minute! (my designated gentlereader interrupts) this is America, we disagree about everything! It's the nature of the beast.]

Yup. But a minute ago we were all, at the very least pretending to agree, that a child born out of wedlock, fornication, porn, sex workers, anything LGBTIQ, abortion, masturbation, profanity, smoking weed, atheism, agnosticism -- deep breath -- and no shortage of other things were generally unacceptable. And, that callowyutes should be instructed accordingly. And, that to spank your child, when appropriate, was to do them a favor. And...

[Wait a minute!...]

Shush. I'm not positing approval/disapproval, I'm merely pointing out that we no longer have such a consensus, and that we've not replaced it with a new one.

TI + CR + (BS x PC) = ?

The too much information age +

A communications revolution (Is that a cell phone in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?) +

(A hyperventilating, ratings and profit-hungry, us v. them, news/media/infotainment business x PC)

= (Welcome to) the Dizzinformation Age.

Have an OK day.
Please scroll down to react, comment, or share.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains. Just click on the Patreon button at the top or bottom of the page.

Your friendly neighborhood crank is not crazy about social media (I am a crank after all) but if you must, you can like me/follow me on Facebook. I post an announcement when I have a new column available as well as news articles/opinion pieces that reflect where I'm coming from or that I wish to call attention to.

©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

Venezuela

[Gentlereaders, you will no doubt notice this particular column is a bit shorter than average. This serves the dual purpose of demonstrating to potential syndicators/publishers that I can be less verbose if/when I need to be and will enable me to catch up on my spring cleaning.]

Venezuela, socialist paradise. Just one of the many socialist success stories slowly but steadily nudging the planet in the direction of utopia. Three relevant quotes, in chronological order, if you please.

"Joseph Stiglitz, in Caracas, Praises Venezuela's Economic Policies." (This is the headline of an article written by Kiraz Janicke for a website called venezuelanalysis.com, 10.11.2007.) "Nobel Prize winning economist and former vice-president of the World Bank, Joeseph Stiglitz...  who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001, argued that relatively high inflation isn't necessarily harmful to the economy," the article informs us.

"In 2015, Venezuela had the world's highest inflation rate with the rate surpassing 100% becoming the highest in the country's history." -Wikipedia

"Recently, a woman who works at a nearby beauty parlor decided to start her commute earlier than usual to join the line in hopes of finding milk. As per the government-mandated schedule, her turn to shop for basic goods is every Friday. She gave up on her weekly trips to the local supermarket, not only because she has to work on Fridays, but also because she is terrified of being held at gunpoint by the robbers who wait to pounce on shoppers if they emerge with anything inside their grocery bags. Her 8-month-old granddaughter hasn't had formula in months, she told me. She worries about the breast milk her mother feeds her, since she only has bread and noodle soup to eat." -- Emiliana Duarte. The quote if from an op-ed Ms. Duarte wrote for the New York Times of 5.21.16 entitled "In Venezuela, God Does Not Provide." 

Dr. Joeseph Stiglitz is not only a Nobel Prize winner, according to Wikipedia, "Stiglitz has received more than 40 honorary degrees, including from Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge Universities and been decorated by several governments... ." The article referenced above is about a visit he took to Venezuela in 2007. The author informs us that Dr. Stiglitz is a man of the left who thoroughly approved of the policies of socialist, and then  president (1999 -- 2013), Hugo Chavez, a now deceased BFF of Fidel Castro. While in town, Joe had a chance to sit down with his buddy Hugo and talk things over. 

To be fair, Dr. Stiglitz does not go around declaring himself to be a socialist, not even a "democratic" one. Personally, I think he perfectly embodies the position of the Depublicans, and their current leader the Hilliam, free market socialism, or, have your cake and eat it tooism. Dr. S. serves as an advisor to the Hilliam (Hillary and William Clinton). 

[Get rich quick idea: If baseball/football have baseball/football cards, why doesn't politics have political cards? If the content of the 24-hour news networks, as well as all the news media to a greater or lesser degree, is any indication, politics may be America's actual national pastime, at least every other year.

Proposed format: On the front of the card, of course, would be the politicians picture, name at the top. Along the bottom, a relevant blurb/slogan/quote. For example, Hugo Chavez -- Bolivarian (i.e. socialist) Revolution. 

On the back would be a micro-biography: Mr. Chavez began his political career by leading an unsuccessful coup against the folks that were running Venezuela in 1992. After getting out of jail two years later he founded a political party (the Fifth Republic Movement, fifth time's the charm?) and was elected president in 1998. In 1999, he oversaw the rewriting of Venezuela's constitution (their 26th), which guarantees free this/that/the other thing, to everyone. 

Mr. Chavez was wildly popular and reelected 3 times. Unfortunately, implementing his "Bolivarian Revolution" slowly but steadily trashed the nation. When global oil prices collapsed in 2014 (the nationalized oil industry had been paying for all the free stuff) so did the country, somewhat tainting his legacy. He died, from cancer, in 2013. "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher 

Where was I? Oh yeah, Dr. Joe visits the big V. and it's covered by venezuelanalysis.com. You'll be relieved to know that the website in question is still up and running, unlike the country. The name makes it sound like the website of a stuffy think tank, huh? Not exactly.

Wikipedia sez that the founder sez it's, "a left social movement perspective on the Bolivarian Revolution in the English language." Others, including The Gubmint, say it's pure propaganda, and who knows more about propaganda than The Gubmint? As uncomfortable as I am agreeing with The Gubmint, I'm forced to admit I think they're right. In fact, if you check it out, I think you will also, gentlereaders.

From Ms. Duarte's article: "In 2012, when inflation and poverty had already started showing through the seams of Bolivarian socialism, Mr. Chavez made a rare public acknowledgement of his governments flaws. He said it didn't matter if there was no electricity or water, as long as we had a fatherland."

Feel the Bern.

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016


If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 

Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.    





   
     

Bits & Pieces

Democratic Socialism in practice: Amtrak. Amtrak is an entity that was created out of thin air by The Gubmint in 1970. Amtrak has managed to lose money, every year, without exception, ever since. The tab so far? $16,000,000,000 billion bucks. Can you guess who's paying the tab?

According to Wikipedia, Amtrak is, "...a partially government-funded American passenger railroad service. It is operated and managed as a for-profit corporation... ," -- that has never turned a profit. Who built this Frankenstein? Well...

When Amtrak was created, the privately operated passenger rail business was in the process of going the way of the buggy whip industry. Why? The overwhelming success of The Gubmint subsidized interstate highway system and aviation industry. However, in 1967, the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) was created to try and prevent this from happening. They lobbied to create the partially government-funded (i.e. subsidized) for-profit railroad that's never turned a profit, mentioned above.

They succeeded. They're a non-profit, still around by the way, and happy to take your donations. Several of the firms that make and sell stuff to Amtrak, as well as the labor unions that staff it, are proud, apparently unembarrassed members.


I love my toaster. I love bread. I love toasted bread more than untoasted bread. This is a brief book review about a book I haven't read, and never will.

The book is entitled "The Toaster Project: Or A Heroic Attempt to Build a Simple Electric Appliance From Scratch." The author, Thomas Thwaites, spent nine months and $1,837.36 to accomplish this, and failed. He wound up with a device that looks like something recovered from Hiroshima and now is on display in a traveling exhibition entitled "Aftermath: The Bomb," which, according to the author, "... kind of toasts bread."

The idea was to not only make his own toaster but also to manufacture all of its components as well, even the plastic outer shell. When I first heard about the project and the resulting book I hoped that the point was that we shouldn't take for granted the 1,001 inexpensive, "simple" devices and innovations that exist in the background of our lives. Products and services that the 1% (and everyone else) would have regarded as jaw-dropping magic not all that long ago.

Nope, I was wrong again, as I am, unfortunately, with disturbing regularity. It took about two minutes to discover that multiple detours were taken around many insurmountable walls in this quest to make a homemade toaster, which I expected. However, apparently the last 25% or so of the book, what I would call the what have you learned Dorothy? section, is an environmentalist rant attacking the various industries and processes that result in a cheap toaster.

Mr. Thwaites, no doubt, would probably be displeased to discover that I've attacked his book without having actually read it. However, I would hope that as he sits in his cozy hut, eyes streaming and lungs wheezing, toasting homemade bread made of wheat he grew himself over an open fire, that he would find it in his heart to forgive me.

Economics: As I've written before, economics is one of the many subjects that I find interesting and that I study in a dilettantish, superficial sort of way...

[Marie-Louise just whispered in my ear that I shouldn't be so hard on myself. She says that I should explain to my gentlereaders that I'm just trying to be a big picture person in an age of specialists. That I try to serve them by surfing the ocean of information we're all trying to avoid drowning in while we try to make it back to the beach. That sounds kind of pompous though, so I'm not going to bring it up.]

But a couple of professional scholars (which I guess makes them the opposite of a dilettante like myself), Anthony Randazzo and Jonathan Haidt have done a study of professional scholars that specialize in economics, that is, economists. They concluded that these social "scientists" look at the facts they collect (the studies that they did, the source of the statistics they love to quote) then interpret them based on what they think is moral and ethical. Which ain't science.

Which is why when you hear the phrase, or some version of it, "Most economists agree...", if your bonkercockie detector doesn't immediately go off you should have it recalibrated.

The Donald v. the Billary: Yes, the Billary. You get two for the price of one. As you're no doubt aware, or can easily confirm if you're not, those two have been a beast with two backs for decades. Of course, it's a matter of speculation as to whether... nevermind. I don't support either the Donald or the Billary. Let me rephrase, I don't support the Donald or the Hilliam. Hilliam just popped into my head, and it sounds funnier I think.Yes, definitely, the Hilliam it is.

My lack of support is not based on their political positions, which seem to be quite flexible anyway. It's based on what kind of people they seem to be.

The Donald. The Donald is on his third trophy wife and while it's not for me to judge, him or anyone else, I personally find that creepy. I'm a dude, dude. I get it. All men are pigs, we're wired that way. I'm also an old dude, and though I risk being tossed out the Old Dudes club for being a traitor, trust me on this. While (in most cases) the raging forest fire of passion is now a relatively easily managed, well-maintained blaze in a nice fireplace, we're as aware of attractive, young women as we were when we were young. Perhaps even more so since for most of us they are out of reach. DNA never stops trying to replicate itself.

However, that doesn't mean you have to surrender to biology just because you can. Particularly when you'll be pooping on other people's lives, like your kids for example. As I say, I try not to judge. Marriage is hard, and complicated, and private. The wife might be as anxious to flee as the husband. But then you do it again? And the third wife is 24 years younger than you, and only seven years older than your oldest son? It could be love I guess, it's still creepy.

As to the Hilliam, well, books have been written about how they somehow keep just missing being dragged off to the guillotine, so I'll limit myself to the subject of Bill the documented horndog.

Ladies, suppose you had spent years helping to cover up for a man who thought nothing of cheating on you as you both clawed your way up the political ladder (if confused google the phrase, "bimbo eruptions"). Suppose you made it all the way to the White House anyway and he got caught, once again, and this time, everyone on Earth was aware of it, along with some of the gory details.

Suppose he went on TV and looked the world in the eye, and sincerely lied his ass off. Would you not only stick with him, would you tell the world it was all just a vast right wing conspiracy? Should someone who wants power that badly even be allowed to run the PTA?

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 

Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.    





         

King Crank Saves America

I don't know who will be the next president. I don't know if the Republicrats or the Depublicans or neither (I can dream can't I?) will be in control of congress come Wednesday 11.9.16. I do know two things, however. Everyone will agree as they do right now, and as they have for years, that our tax code is a bloated, complicated mess and that we need to decide what to do about our southern border problems.

I know one other thing as well. Odds are nothing will actually be done about either problem.

[Oh yeah smarty-pants, and what exactly would YOU do to fix...]

Forgive me for cutting you off imaginary gentlereader, but I know exactly what I'd do. And I will, when I become king.

First, the tax code. When I become king I will solve this with one simple decree. First, I'll abolish the current code and the IRS. This will create some unemployment in the Tax Compliance Industrial Complex sector but a king's gotta' do what a king's gotta' do, for his subjects as well as his realm. I would then reveal the exact percentage of my flat tax, a number that I would decide on based on a single, relatively brief meeting with my economic advisors after giving them a few days to fight among themselves.

There are no exemptions. Whatever you actually make will be multiplied by a given percentage, and that's what you will pay.

If, at the end of the first year of the new program (during which current programs will remain in force), if you have made less than an amount to be determined each year by my advisors and I that's determined by the state of the economy, you will get your money back, plus, a payment that will also be determined by me and my economic advisors. This lump sum will be just enough to meet certain minimal standards for getting by. You will have to budget so it lasts. If you get a raise, a better job, win the lottery, etc., in the course of the next year, good for you, it's still your money.

When you file your taxes the following year you won't be tossed off a cliff because you're doing better and hit an arbitrary number, your supplement will just be cut back accordingly. There will be a ceiling though, above which there is no more income supplementation. You'll be motivated to do as well as you can because you won't be able to live high on the hog via your supplement.

Big But...

How you spend money is up to you, but if you throw it away on recreational pharmaceuticals or ginormous televisions, that's your problem. WIC, food stamps, Section 8 housing, etc., all gone -- along with the gubmint or Gubmint employees that dole out the goodies if you kiss their butts and fill out all the right forms. You'll spend your dough, carefully, 'cause it's yours, in the free market. Nobody needs to know who's getting supplemented and who ain't. Everyone will know that no one that is will be living the high life, and will have to work just as hard as everyone else to get ahead.

The only further help available from your Gubmint will be an emergency plan that places you and yours in shelters run by a private, government-subsidized charities, or, will subsidize moving in with friends or family. If neither of these options sounds attractive, good, I'm sure you'll do all you can to get back on your feet as quickly as possible.

If you support kids you will receive a larger amount than a single person. However, your Gubmint will only help with up to two children per custodial parent. In other words, you can make all the babies you want -- if you're prepared to support them. However, you won't receive any additional money for having more kids than that. You will receive enough money to keep you and your kids fed, clothed and sheltered, but you won't get enough to live all that well. You had better give some thought to how you're going to support your kids before reproducing.

If you're born, or become, disabled, you will be taken care of, and we're going to redesign the safety net from scratch. If you're genuinely disabled (warning: subject to random verification) we will graciously provide a level of care that will be the envy of all those countries that also envy our unprecedented level of prosperity. We'll do all that we can to harness the power of the free market and the states will be encouraged to experiment to come up with what actually works without taking away people's dignity.

As to those of you that revel in your self-assigned role as a professional victim and/or those who make a living encouraging/creating such thinking -- Bonkercockie! This is America, we take care of our own, but we insist that everyone do what they can to take care of themselves, this is the price of freedom. And as your king, I would point out to those of you that don't think any of this is your problem, three things. You may be a sociopath. You may need help someday. Finally, one of these people you would ignore might someday jump out from behind a rock and gleefully cut your throat. Hunger makes people cranky.


As to our southern border, I'm going to order that Mexico be annexed to the USA. I hope our new citizens acquiesce willingly but I'm prepared to order an invasion if necessary. I know there would be casualties but who fights nicer, more politically correct wars than we do?

BAM! Just like that, most of our illegal immigrants, or undocumented aliens, or whatever we're calling them this week, turn out to just be people that were ahead of their time. Many of them for decades. Step two, round up the rest, a much more manageable task at this point, after we decide what we're going to do with them. Personally, I'd forgive anyone that did have a job and didn't have a criminal record, but I'll leave that up to the Congress. As I've mentioned in the past, I'll be a benevolent monarch. If Congress decides on mass deportations to satisfy the immigrationally righteous among us, so be it. I'm sure all of the innocent kids that will be affected by this will be fine, eventually.

Yes, I realize we also need to address our immigration policies as concerns the rest of the planet, and I'll get into that at a later date. Right now though, everyone's obsessed with the Mexican border particularly a certain follicly challenged Republicrat intent on building a magical 2,000-mile long wall that can't be tunneled under, flown over, or simply gone around via any number of routes.

While annexation is a somewhat radical step I stand by my past pledges to be a benevolent tyrant that interferes with my subjects lives and current political arrangements as little as possible. But I'm prepared to act whenever stalemates are holding us back and this is such a situation.

Rationalization: While Mexico had no shortage of problems before becoming America's dealer, it's our appetite for drugs that created and fuels this industry and has made things in the entire hemisphere dramatically worse. They've been around as long as us, right next door, but somehow managed to remain a sorta/kinda third world country anyway. Which was fine. But since our appetite for party drugs has created the cartels to supply our demand, we owe it to them to make them part of the good ol' USA. Right?

Even the eventual, inevitable legalization of weed is proving to be a lengthy, tedious and expensive undertaking and no shortage of folks still stand in opposition, so, let's annex Mexico in the meantime. Long run, we should go all the way to the Panama canal -- baby steps.

Think about it. Mexico's southern border is only 540 miles long. We can continue Prohibition, but save some money and perhaps a few lives, all without shutting down the Drug Enforcement Industrial Complex too quickly, which would be a hit to the economy.

They've got oil. They have great food. They have access to two oceans just like us. They have warm winters. Imagine the ever growing horde of American geezers and geezerettes descending on Mexico every winter; snowbirds have money or they wouldn't be snowbirds. They would help the Mexican economy catch up with the rest of New America by flooding the country the new states with cash. They would also serve as cultural integrators for both formerly separate countries.

The world in general, and Mexico in particular, would pitch a bitch -- at first. But think about it. Did we, as in the world, do much more than bluster when Vlad the Bully took a bite out of Ukraine? Or when he jumped-in in Syria? "Not to worry Bashar, your brother bully's got your back baby!"

Talking point: The new millennial Czar is the same as an old school Tsar. America, on the other hand, sets people free and turns them into consumers.

Win -- win, baby.

Oh, I almost forgot, the healthcare mess that the Depublicans made worse and that the Republicrats don't seem to have a clue how to fix. If you click on my Links tab you'll find a short YouTube video that explains how Singapore solved the problem and provides cheaper and better healthcare than we do.

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016


If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 
Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.