insanity

i normally don't bother with engaging what i see as insanity.  but, as i am reminded again and again, it is my responsibility to confront foolishness and untruth wherever i meet it--and also i'm waiting for my fantasy football waivers to process.  erin posted a link to a blog entry that has spurred me to add my voice (such as it is) to those already defending the truth.

so, obama and socialism.  ARE. YOU. FUCKING. KIDDING. ME?  are you?  really, are you?  typically, i can find the patience and maturity not to yell at people that don't agree with me.  but, i've finally lost my shit.  i don't even know where to begin the debunking effort.  i mean, do i start with how obviously wrong you are to call any policy of any american politician socialist?  i don't mean wrong in a "don't be mean or throw mud" kind of way.  i mean wrong in a "who did you sleep with in order to get your college degree" kind of way.  or, do i start with how unbelievably desperate someone of john mccain's stature must be in order to resort to something incredulous as this.  or, do i talk about how dumb you must be in order to buy any of this shit? or, do i talk about the utter and crippling hypocrisy mccain must be dealing with in order to say things like this on national television?  fuck me, the possibilities are endless.

let us begin with the general academics.  i think in american politics people (willfully, i believe) confound the welfare state with socialism.  at it's most basic level (in terms of economics), socialism is about who owns the means of production--in broader terms, who owns the means to generate wealth and how are those decisions made.  the welfare state has a high rate of taxation that is used to fund a variety of public programs that everyone uses.  those are the basic, like, eighth grade differences.  can you see how disparate the two are?  if you can see how different these two things are then you have to ask yourself, "well, hell.  then why did they say it?"  because there are a shitload of people in this country that are so intellectually lazy that they won't fucking use wikipedia, maybe?  i mean...there are a lot of reasons, but they all follow that line of reasoning, so i won't bother going through them all.

and, right on the heels of being thunderstruck at how dumb and gullible people can be about language and pigeon-holing, is utter hypocrisy of this whole thing.  i mean...did we or did we not just give the investment banking industry 700B dollars?  that capital B stands for BILLION.  as in almost a trillion dollars.   did we or did we not just buy a majority share in the investment banking industry in one fell swoop?  that represents a redistribution of wealth on an unprecedented scale.  or, the fact that sarah palin is the governor of a state that issues a portion of the profit that private corporations make using the commonly held resources of the state.

but, no, america you're right.  obama says, "...spread the wealth," and it makes sense to go into full blown tail spin tizzy (i just made that phrase up.  ha.)  are you honestly telling yourself that you don't want to vote for him because you think he's a socialist?  you know, i think that i would have a lot more respect for you if you just said, "i don't want to vote for him because he's black and his name scares me."  just say it.  you'll feel better, i'll still think you're stupid, but at least i'll know you're honest.

Obama and Me (and Palin, too)

this entry is part of an ongoing discussion that i'm having on a message board.  the original question was about people voting for candidates for what appear to be superficial reasons...particularly race and gender.

if that's the case, i suppose that we have to ask the question...is that such a bad thing?  i mean, when you get right down to brass tacks, Obama and mccain are two sides of the _same_ coin.  all of their ideas, thoughts, beliefs and whatnot can be understood within the framework of free market capitalism.  neither of them are shaking the foundations of western civilization.  as such, the differences between the two are often inflated.  take health care for instance...i know that i'm paraphrasing both positions here, but it's for a good cause...

obama wants to reduce the overall cost of and entrance barriers to (pre-existing conditions) health care.  he wants to do that through legislative efforts and changing the regulatory environment of the insurance system.  for those that still cannot afford to do so, he wants to offer them the opportunity to purchase the insurance--probably on some sort of sliding scale--that federal employees and elected officials use.  failing that he'll probably want to extend medicare/medicaid to cover those who fall through the cracks but since very few providers will accept medicare/medicaid they'll end up going to emergency rooms with non-emergency conditions.

mccain wants to reduce the overall cost of and entrance barriers (pre-existing conditions) to health care.  he'll do so through legislative efforts and changing the regulatory environment of the insurance system.  for those that still cannot afford to do so, he wants to offer them a tax credit--probably on some sort of sliding scale--that will allow them to purchase insurance on the market.  failing that he'll probably want to extend medicare/medicaid to cover minors and everyone else can continue to do what they have been doing--going to emergency rooms with non-emergency conditions.

what's the net difference?  i mean really the plans come down to this...obama will use government revenue to purchase or offset the cost of insurance.  mccain will give government revenue back to you to help you purchase or offset the cost of insurance.

(though i suppose at a primordial level one distinction is whether or not they trust corporations)

so long as we have a two party system which springs from mainstream western political philosophy, we'll generally have two candidates that are saying pretty much the same thing with various degrees of nuance and a couple of defining issues.  so, we're left with our original question.  how do we determine who is best for the country when they are both making a mad dash for the center?  i know that i've personally railed against this notion, but is it such a bad thing that people vote for the candidate with whom they identify?

i think that in the wake of bush II, we have an inflated notion of the power of the president to create domestic policy.  bush II was lucky.  he hit the office at a moment in time when his party enjoyed a virtually unassailable majority in BOTH the house AND the senate.  that. has. never. happened.  a much more realistic view of the power of the presidency with respect to domestic affairs would probably be bill Clinton.  there was more compromise and give and take there.  at least, i'd like to think so.  i don' think that bill clinton came into office thinking, "hey, i'm going to institute Defense of Marriage or don't ask/don't tell."  so, really, the ability of either of these candidates to do what they say they are going to do will be quite limited.  ultimately, i don't think that it's so bad that people vote for the person with whom they identify.  i think perhaps the true crime is why we still can't 'see' one another irrespective of race and gender.