You may have missed the report today that 3 out of every 4 Americans are unhappy with the way we are being governed. 69% being at least somewhat angry. Now aside from the fact that between 40 and 60 percent of Americans can't be bothered to vote, or perhaps in addition to this, it shows we are not happy with our government. So why are Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders so popular?
When you don't trust government, you seek the outsiders. All three fit this, more or less. When you feel you aren't getting what you're entitled to, you seek out the extremists. All three, again, fit this, more or less. Sanders wants to create his version of a socialist utopia. Trump wants to "Make America great again" by creating a capitalist utopia. Carson apparently favors theocracy.
The only reason Sanders isn't leading on the left is the flagrant sabotage of his campaign by the DNC. This, one could assume, has something to do with the terribly, massively corrupt, foreign donation seeking, economic powerhouse, that is the Clinton foundation. Sanders has words, Clinton has cash. As the old saying goes: "Money talks, B@!!$#!T walks".
But the undeniable message that Washington should be hearing is that, on both sides, we're fed up, and don't trust them. It's not even tinfoil hat territory any longer; to claim there is only one party, the rich, and that the whole two party system is a farce. Tell me if this plot line sounds anything like the current system. (http://theinfosphere.org/Tastycrats). Americans of every political stripe are fed up with our "leaders" only representing their own interests, and the interests of big business.
Do I have a plan to fix this? No. I do have a plan to fix the system that encourages it, though. First, abolish the electoral college. We have the ability to quickly and accurately tabulate every person's vote and we have for most of a century. It's well past time. Next, make all primaries on the same day. Then no one state's votes count more than any others. One person, one vote, is violated by the current process. These two steps address this.
Also, a two term limit for each office. You can still be in politics a very long time, but a senator for only twelve years, a representative for four, and president for eight (technically ten, under the right conditions). After that, or before, you would work at the state level. Lastly, set the pay of each senator and representative equal to the median income of their district. (state for senators) Gerrymandering would all but disappear, and they would be motivated to actually represent the best interests of their constituency. The current system provides no incentive for elected officials to actually represent the interests of the governed. These two measures address this.
There may be a better way to accomplish this. I would hope so. I'm only one person with some half-baked ideas. But 75% of us are upset with how we are being governed, by people we elect. Something is terribly wrong here.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Racism is not necessarily hatred
I've been seeing a lot of posts about how racist certain things are. Things like, disagreeing with protesters. Or wanting to lock up all Muslims. While the latter certainly does not reflect enlightened thinking, it isn't racist. Muslim, isn't a race, therefore, while it is a bigoted statement, it is not racist.
But I'm speaking more of the first example. If a group of protesters at a college want to demonstrate, my agreement is not required. That's one of the things that makes this country great. But my disagreement doesn't make me racist, and it certainly doesn't mean I hate them. And to screen the media for agreement, before allowing them to cover a protest, as has recently occurred, and branding them racist if they don't agree, is foolishness. "Racist" isn't a mildly disparaging term to be applied to anyone you disagree with. If the label sticks, it can ruin careers. And if over-used, will lead to semantic satiation, and the word loses all meaning.
Racism, first off, should be defined by what it is, not what it isn't. Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race, or the inferiority of another. To the point of my title, hatred is entirely possible without racism, and racism can occur without hatred. You may have read Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee. If you haven't, you should. (Note: I know people who have experienced nausea by reading this book, due only to the nature of the frank conversations that occur in it. There is no gore depicted, nor even any violence.)
While it is a work of fiction, it depicts a very real scenario. A man who absolutely believes in the inferiority of those of African decent, while only bearing them good will. He, in fact, considers whites to be their stewards and feels pity for them. This is the type of well meaning racism present in many government programs. It is not to be confused with hatred. It is a much more insidious racism, that comes bearing gifts, instead of burning crosses.
We can all think of hundreds of examples of hatred occurring without the need of racism, so I don't feel any special need to cite examples. But we should begin to see that racism can occur without hatred. So beware the people hiding under white hoods, but be sure to keep an eye on the ones that treat races like species, and try to protect the endangered ones. They are just as racist; just less honest about it.
But I'm speaking more of the first example. If a group of protesters at a college want to demonstrate, my agreement is not required. That's one of the things that makes this country great. But my disagreement doesn't make me racist, and it certainly doesn't mean I hate them. And to screen the media for agreement, before allowing them to cover a protest, as has recently occurred, and branding them racist if they don't agree, is foolishness. "Racist" isn't a mildly disparaging term to be applied to anyone you disagree with. If the label sticks, it can ruin careers. And if over-used, will lead to semantic satiation, and the word loses all meaning.
Racism, first off, should be defined by what it is, not what it isn't. Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race, or the inferiority of another. To the point of my title, hatred is entirely possible without racism, and racism can occur without hatred. You may have read Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee. If you haven't, you should. (Note: I know people who have experienced nausea by reading this book, due only to the nature of the frank conversations that occur in it. There is no gore depicted, nor even any violence.)
While it is a work of fiction, it depicts a very real scenario. A man who absolutely believes in the inferiority of those of African decent, while only bearing them good will. He, in fact, considers whites to be their stewards and feels pity for them. This is the type of well meaning racism present in many government programs. It is not to be confused with hatred. It is a much more insidious racism, that comes bearing gifts, instead of burning crosses.
We can all think of hundreds of examples of hatred occurring without the need of racism, so I don't feel any special need to cite examples. But we should begin to see that racism can occur without hatred. So beware the people hiding under white hoods, but be sure to keep an eye on the ones that treat races like species, and try to protect the endangered ones. They are just as racist; just less honest about it.
The brewery bubble
Much is being made over the craft beer bubble. If it will burst, when it will burst, is it sustainable? While most are focused on the industry, as a whole, and comparing it to the cigar boom, this isn't an accurate comparison. The reason is distribution and availability. While whole dissertations could be written on the faults and merits of the three tier distribution system; it is a moot point, in terms of local brewery's being sustainable. Just to get the Bona Fides out of the way, I have an MBA from Columbia College of Missouri, so I'm not just some random internet guy spouting off. (Well, technically I am, but I'm a qualified, random, internet guy spouting off).
What I will do is compare the craft beer industry to Chinese take out, or other "perfect competition" businesses. The way it works is that, a Chinese takeout place, while each selling a unique version of a product, essentially sells the same things. You may have preferences, and make the drive to a "better" restaurant, because, to you, it's worth it. But in the end, you have a business with functionally identical products, (or at least the capacity to create them, with no change in costs), no barriers to entry, subject to market pricing, and an informed consumer.
Using this as an example, one thing becomes immediately clear, the craft beer boom will only be sustainable if we stop demanding our favorite breweries have national, or even regional, distribution. Requiring this will cause only the least offensive, most watered down versions to survive. I'm guessing your favorite Chinese restaurant isn't Panda Express. Using the same economic principles that apply to that perfect competition, we should not expect craft brewers to distribute at all.
My point is, fellow drinkers, if you want your favorite local brewery to prosper, don't pressure them to distribute package goods until they're ready. Do visit them frequently. And by all means, if you live in a state with its head up its ass about growlers (as do I, in Illinois), write your state representatives about it. But please, please, allow the little guys to be little. The market can only accommodate all of them if they operate like Chinese restaurants, or we'll end up with another beer version of McDonald's. (Not that I won't eat there under the right conditions, but it's not my first choice: like Miller or Bud)
What I will do is compare the craft beer industry to Chinese take out, or other "perfect competition" businesses. The way it works is that, a Chinese takeout place, while each selling a unique version of a product, essentially sells the same things. You may have preferences, and make the drive to a "better" restaurant, because, to you, it's worth it. But in the end, you have a business with functionally identical products, (or at least the capacity to create them, with no change in costs), no barriers to entry, subject to market pricing, and an informed consumer.
Using this as an example, one thing becomes immediately clear, the craft beer boom will only be sustainable if we stop demanding our favorite breweries have national, or even regional, distribution. Requiring this will cause only the least offensive, most watered down versions to survive. I'm guessing your favorite Chinese restaurant isn't Panda Express. Using the same economic principles that apply to that perfect competition, we should not expect craft brewers to distribute at all.
My point is, fellow drinkers, if you want your favorite local brewery to prosper, don't pressure them to distribute package goods until they're ready. Do visit them frequently. And by all means, if you live in a state with its head up its ass about growlers (as do I, in Illinois), write your state representatives about it. But please, please, allow the little guys to be little. The market can only accommodate all of them if they operate like Chinese restaurants, or we'll end up with another beer version of McDonald's. (Not that I won't eat there under the right conditions, but it's not my first choice: like Miller or Bud)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)