Political Correctness

Political Correctness

This term has never been one of any usefulness to me. Whether a viewpoint is correct or not has nothing to do with any political tag, or any particular religion, or culture, or race, or sexual act, or historic custom, or gender, or sexual orientation, and so on. Correctness begs no adjective before it. If something is correct then it must meet the test of fact, the test of logic, the test of universal human ethics, and if it is stated as the best belief, then it must meet the test of the most evidence available at the time. 

This musing arises solely because so many people state they are sick of political correctness. Well, in this respect, I too am sick of political correctness, religious sect correctness, cultural correctness, racial correctness, sexual correctness, historical custom correctness etc. Some things are factual—i.e. the earth is not flat. Some opinions are better than others based on the evidence available, and some matters are just postulations to solutions, but postulations yet to be proven. Most of my musings are postulations. 

The latest anger against political correctness seems to come from those who defend whatever a particular policeman feels like doing to blacks on the basis that blacks as a group, percentage-wise are more likely to murder, to engage in theft, to rape, to assault, etc. And that, they proudly point out, is a fact. Really?  Well, it is also a fact that blacks raised in affluent neighborhoods do not commit any more of the crimes above than anyone else living in that affluent neighborhood. So the only fact here is that people who are raised in poor neighborhoods are more likely to commit all kinds of crimes. The kind of communities that exist in any society is basically the collective responsibility of all citizens through their government. The children born in a ghetto are not responsible for their ghetto, not at age 5 and not at age 40 either. 

One adult recently said to me that “Trump may not be politically correct, but he tells it like it is.” What the hell is that supposed to mean? We all live in the present and pretty much know what life is like in our country at this point in time. We all see our current problems, but the questions posed for politics are just what are the solutions to solve our varied and serious problems? How do we get more citizens good jobs that pay a livable salary, have good pensions, good health care; and how do we give all children good schools with good teachers and provide as much money to spend to educate every child; and how do we create safe neighborhoods for all families, and so on. What the hell good is it to perceive how things are and have no specific programs to detail how things can be made better? I assume having such programs would be political correctness.  

It just seems that those who scream loudest against political correctness often are demanding some sort of right to demean or make life difficult for all kinds of diverse and often minority groups. I reckon, from a pure freedom of speech aspect, they certainly do have that right. Yet there are times when freedom of speech is limited (Hollering ‘fire’ when there is no fire). The rights of society often trump the rights of individuals. For a nation as diverse as the U.S., any progress to increase prosperity and safety and level the playing fields for everyone depends on the ability of diverse populations to work together for the common good of all. Given the recent power of small groups and even individuals, who now have the means to disrupt societies via ‘terroristic ways’, this country, as well as all countries, no longer can afford to mistreat minorities within their society. Find ways to work together or all perish together, is truer today than ever. 

Perhaps political correctness means that while we have the right to differ with, or even dislike certain others, we do not have the right, in public or social situations to disrespect, disparage, and bully the objects of our dislike. In this context political correctness is connected to social peace and prosperity for the maximum number of citizens in a diverse society. Recently I viewed an interview with three young men who were attending a political rally. Their main gripe was that they were sick of political correctness. “We have rights too” one of them pointed out. They were 3 white males clearly unhappy with their lives. Their anger was palpable—and pretty much directed at varied minority groups. Their assumption I gather, is that if they could just put varied minority groups in their place—the hispanics, the blacks, the gays, the wealthy, the highly educated, women, certain religious sects, and so on, that their road to happiness, prosperity, and contentment would be a clear shot for them. Wouldn’t it be interesting to take these 3 young white men, tired of political correctness and then take 3 young black men, tired of political correctness, and put them in a locked gym and give them their wish—that inside that gym no one had to be politically correct, they would be free to be as politically incorrect as they wished. My guess is that they would try to kill each other on the spot or hover, each group in a particular corner, too cowardly to be politically incorrect. It seems they only want to be politically incorrect when they can hurt the objects of their hatred, not if their own personage could be assaulted. 

In our urban, suburban, and rural ghettoes political incorrectness rules the streets. Others of a different bent stay inside with bars over the windows and doors. In the Middle East it is religious incorrectness which is not tolerated. Plenty enough of that in America too. Many of those who are angered about political correctness are really using that as code words for their own intolerance. 

Not surprisingly, both sides have merit to their feelings. One side has benefitted from level playing fields and want others of all ilk to have the same benefit—a sort of gracious gratitude for their own good luck. Others, usually of the majority population, see other groups getting some attention, some considerations, some empathy, some special efforts, and whatever—while they seem to be lost in the shuffle. This is exactly why any measures to help those under chronic stress of all sorts starts with measuring the blood level of stress hormones in all people. Black Lives Matter advocates see injustices on a racial basis but they haven’t used good sense with their slogan when it really should mean Black Lives Matter Too. Members of a majority who have their own unique problems essentially feel, “well, my life matters too.”. This is why only the Golden Rule is an all inclusive ethical principle. This is why ‘family values’ is ethical only if it operates under the umbrella of the Golden Rule. 

Everybody counts. Your own offspring especially during their formative years, and every child therein, and all adults thereafter. A good parent accepts the responsibility to their own children during their formative years; an ethical society accepts the responsibility for all it’s citizens. 

The Golden Rule dictates a certain degree of ‘correctness’ toward others. We are not free to treat anyone in a manner which we ourselves would not like to be treated. There is nothing very complicated by the Golden Rule. Political correctness, by definition is prejudice. Religious correctness, by definition is prejudice. Obviously we are all prejudiced by nature, but our actions should be dictated by the Golden Rule. Rigidity involving religion, politics, race, culture, sexual inclinations, gender, and so on is never helpful or ethical. This is why my favorite take on life is best represented by the following: 

 “There is a way of life, a way of thinking, of behaving towards other men and your fellow creatures, towards all living things, towards the whole earth and the sky and the sun that is based on love, on compassion, on respect, on cherishing everything there is around you because it is wonderful, unique, it’s natural and good and it evolved that way by itself, it’s got to be cherished and if we think like that, and live that kind of life, we can all have our freedom, we can all have our happiness, we can all feel the sun and smell the grass and smell the flowers and look upon each other with appreciation.” (Unknown) 

Reality is this: Misfortune, tragedy, bad luck, wrong place-wrong time, unfairness, lack of help from others, etc can happen to anyone in an ethical society. It is the responsibility of everyone to assist all those who suffer from correctable hurdles in life. There is no room for any tit for tat tally, pretending God really does favor genetic cabals, religious cabals, cultural cabals, political cabals, economic cabals, gender cabals, sexual cabals, ethnic cabals—more to the point, evolution is a process which follows only the laws created by God with zero consideration given to any of the aforementioned cabals. All these self serving cabals are human mind-created, and have been a perpetual nuisance during all of human history. 

Thus, we need forget political correctness and just follow the Golden Rule most of the time—like everyday, all day, till our brief strut on the stage of life ends, as it for sure will. 

Relevant Attestations which assisted in generating the above musing:

“No one can walk backward into the future.” Hoseph Hergesheimer (American writer)  (Don’t tell that to the religious right, which is neither)

“The death of dogma is the birth of reality.” Immanuel Kant (German philosopher) 

“New times demand new measures and new men;
The world advances, and in time outgrows
The laws which in our ‘fathers’ day were best.” James Russell Lowell (American Poet) 

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind (the basis for a possible Trump win), a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible.” Bertrand Russell (British mathematician, philosopher) 

“If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.” Ronald Reagan (Actor, American President) 

“I am arguing that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want---and therefore, what other people should do and should want in order to live the best lives possible.” Sam Harris (neuroscientist) (I use this as the basis for human ethics)

“An ignorant democracy leads directly to war.” Eilihu Root (American politician)  

“Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car. Laurence J. Peter.” (Educator, author of Peter Principle)  (Anyone who has ever studied a church congregation understands this)

“Strip away the clothes and polish, and many of today’s white collar outlaws are just as amoral and unrepentant as ‘wilding’ ghetto kids. Their business ethic is the legal principle ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Do whatever it takes to boost profits and make millions and protect your plunder, because, no matter how damnable your behavior, you’ve done nothing wrong until you’re caught and convicted. And then, of course, it’s not really your fault, it’s the fault of the ‘system’, it’s the fault of society, it’s the fault of the economy, it’s the fault of overzealous prosecutors, it’s the fault of loosely written laws and poorly policed regulations that made wrong-doing too tempting to resist. Art Carey (American editor and author) (Bernie Sanders would love this quote)

“We see and cherish diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives, and accomplishments. We don’t seek to live anyone’s life for him. We only seek to secure his rights, guarantee him opportunity to survive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed....for we Republicans define government’s role where needed at many, many levels----preferably, though the one closest to the people involved; our towns and our cities, then our counties, then our states, then our regional contracts and only then the national government.” Barry Goldwater (American Senator) 

“In political speculations ‘the tyranny of the majority’ is not generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.” John Stuart Mill (English political economist, philosopher) 

“Race hatred is the cheapest and basest of all national passions, and it is the nature of hatred, as it is the nature of love, to change us into the likeness of that which we contemplate. We grow nobly like what we adore, and ignobly like what we hate....All hatreds, long persisted, bring us to every baseness for which we hated others.” George Russell (Irish Poet, artist, essayist) 

“What do we live for, if it is not to make life less difficult to each other?” George Eliot (English novelist)

“Hard to dislike a chap who likes you, isn’t it? Well, there’s your peace plan.” Unknown 

“Treat everybody with politeness, even those who are rude to you. You show courtesy to others not because they are gentlemen, but because you are.” Unknown 

“The test of courage comes when we are in the minority; the test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.” Ralph W. Sockman (Church of Christ Minister) 

“The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.” Dean Acheson (United States Secretary of State) 

“The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us, and therefore in public life that man is the best representative of each of us who seeks to do good to each by doing good to all; in other words, whose endeavor it is not to represent any special class and promote merely that class’s selfish interests, but to represent all true and honest men of all sections and all classes and work for their interests by working for our common country.” Teddy Roosevelt. (American President) 

“We keep countless men from being good citizens by the conditions of life with which we surround them.” Teddy Roosevelt (American President) 

“Some of the worst men in the world are sincere and the more sincere they are the worse they are.” Lord Hailsham (British politician) 

“Our object in the construction of the state is the greatest happiness of the whole, and not that of any one class (or family).” Plato (Greek philosopher) 

“Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws. ‘You speak of-- ‘ said Egremont, hesitantly, ‘THE RICH AND THE POOR’.” Benjamin Disraeli (British statesman) 

“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” John F. Kennedy. (American President) 

“In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class instead of a government for the benefit  of the people as a whole.” Teddy Roosevelt (American President) 

“Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago.” Bernard Berenson (American art historian) 

“Civilizations should be measured by the degree of diversity attained and the degree of unity retained.” W.H. Auden (English/ American poet) 

“Human diversity makes tolerance more than a virtue; it makes it a requirement for survival.” Rene Dubos (American microbiologist) 

“If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life’s exciting variety, not something to fear.” Gene Roddenberry (American TV screen writer and producer) 

“What we have to do....is to find a way to celebrate our diversity and debate our differences without fracturing our communities.” Hillary Clinton (American Senator and Secretary of State) 

“Difference is of the essence of humanity. Difference is an accident of birth and it should therefore never be the source of hatred or conflict. The answer to difference is to respect it. Therein lies a most fundamental principle of peace: respect for diversity. John Hume (Irish politician) 

Achieving A More Perfect Society—Part 2

Achieving A More Perfect Society—Part 2

Parenting will always be one of the most challenging and risky adventures in life. There is no ‘best way’ to be ‘the best parent’ simply because a given parent and given child have their own peculiar genetics.  A method of parenting that works with one child may not work with another. Success is never guaranteed. While the goal is for all family members to be close and supportive till death do they part, this too is not guaranteed. What has changed in this proposed system is that financial support by parents stops after the formative years. Any assistance with medical or financial problems in the adult years comes from the collective support of all citizens via the Golden Rule. Mates will continue to support each other by any legal means possible till death or divorce ends the relationship. This is the way nature works and is part of the way to make an entire society more successful. 

I suppose if everyone is required to work based on their skill level, some will refuse for varied reasons (“I don’t want to drive a bus, I want to be a professional baseball player”). These dissidents will be required to work in special communities full time, at work commensurate with their skills, until they get a professional base ball contract or whatever their demanded job. What they will lose is their freedom. Of course everyone is entitled to pursue any career they wish, but need do so while working some job to support themselves as adults. It is important to society as a whole that every adult capable of supporting themselves does just that. In areas where financial assistance is needed that assistance is available to all adults. For example, if one needs financial aid to pursue a college degree then that aid is available to anyone who can qualify to be admitted to college. Well, it might be noted, then what about parents who can afford to send an offspring to college? No, the financial strings have been cut. The parents wealth will come back into their society upon their death. In the mean time, all young adults are expected to earn their own financial wealth. The goal is to put all young adults on a level playing field to the extent possible. Just like a parent can root for a child from the grandstands in a sport contest, but they cannot play the game for their offspring.  All citizens will be issued citizen identification cards, renewable every X number of years. Existing as an illegal immigrant would be far more difficult. 

Trade schools or education through college will be free although the nature of college will likely be drastically different.  Again, computers will supply most of the informational input. Many courses will be on line, not associated with a particular college but a particular Professor. There is something to be said for young college age students existing together on a campus, pursuing career education in a group environment with the associated activities such as sports, and other organized activities like band, debating, semesters abroad, etc. With most courses online the need for $50,000 plus tuitions will vanish.  Most instructors will be busy with research except those with exceptional ability to lecture, and these will compete for students on line nationwide. Students on a campus will still be able to work with Professors on research projects. So who pays for the research work and salaries of the research Professors?  The government.

With all adults and teenagers gainfully employed at livable wages (the teenagers part time), our ghettoes can begin to be dismantled or renovated. This too provides more employment opportunities. The  urban, rural, and suburban ghettoes have to go. They are the source of chronic high levels of stress hormones amongst the children trapped there. If we can conquer space, invade countries routinely, maintain military bases all over the world, and so on—then we can reduce expenditures in these areas and demolish our ghettoes. It is a matter of priorities. With few exceptions, nations, like parents, lead best by example of how they live their lives or run their own nations. It really is hard to force other nations to adopt a certain form of government or culture through military means. Even more important to understand is that if our nation can use force to make another country adopt a political system or religious system—than any group, wishing to make others be like them, has the same right to use force. It does little good to call our fighters ‘freedom fighters’ and opposition fighters ‘terrorists’. Oddly enough we always kill far more enemies than they do us, but it has been many decades since we have ever achieved any objectives via military invasions.

It seems obligatory to pause here and point out that no plan for a more perfect society can work if it doesn’t start with responsible reproduction and full employment for all adult citizens and teenagers. Nor will their ever be any fairness if the playing field for young adults is not independent of parental financing. The needs of society as a whole trumps individual genetic ties. Religious beliefs and parental bias to their own offspring is not bad, but natural. But this natural tendency is overridden by the evolutionary process and the welfare of society as a whole. The evolutionary process can survive most anything and has, but societies which do not generate level playing fields for all its citizens, implode in a relatively short period of time. When a couple reproduces they are not cloning themselves by a long shot.  This notion that reproducing produces little clones of ourselves is way overblown. It is one of the biggest illusionary mental concepts of our lives. We start with only half the genes of an offspring coming from our own genes, then add environment, chance, and how much help our offspring receive from others throughout their lives and well, we will most likely rarely even recognize our clone. Our parental skills and these other factors may well make our parenting an outstanding success but not much of a success in cloning ourselves. Parenting can be one of the most meaningful experiences of our lives, but not because we have cloned ourselves. We have not even come close unless one is talking about racial features like skin color or inherited religious beliefs, or cultural stuff. 

We attain, if lucky, a lot of pride and affection for our own offspring based on our efforts and the time consuming tasks of parenting, but we need simultaneously, via the Golden Rule, attain meaningful appreciation and intrigue for human diversity. To root for, and help, those different from ourselves is rewarding and necessary for us to maximize our level of contentment.  Put it this way: we develop really strong attachment to pets, not because they are remotely any clone of us, but because both pet and owner develop strong emotional ties despite little similarity in our genetics. Good teachers develop the ability to relate well to all sorts of students who have little in common genetically with the teacher’s own genetics. The strongest emotional attachment may well come from a spouse whose genetics are clearly outside our own genetic tree. Of course it is fine to say ‘my child’ or ‘my pet’ and declare it a most meaningful relationship, at least when it is. It is an entirely different matter when one supports policies which favor your children getting a better education than those living in less affluent neighborhoods. The needs of society as a whole trumps you own small family world. When the Golden Rule reigns it is just as important for other children to have good schools as it is for your own children to have good schools.

Many of the changes proposed in this musing will be dismissed as naive, changes which will never be able to happen, changes people of today will never accept.  This is the same reasoning that existed for many changes that eventually took place. How many people would have predicted the legalization of gay marriage ten years ago? When we talk about changing things we really need to put things in historical perspective. The Earth has been in existence about 4.6 billion years. Life has existed on earth for about 3.8 billion years.  Multicellular life has existed on earth for about 2.1 billion years. Our species has existed about .2 million years. This means  humans have been around a mere .004% of the Earth’s history. The history of the Earth has been divided into 19 time periods, all of which were created by climate changes produced for various reasons.  Some scientists now claim a new evolutionary time period is underway, one in which future climate change is being dictated by the activities of one species—our species. We are already in the midst of a 6th great species extinction period. It is not just climate change which is being affected by human activity.

When we talk about a system which will improve human societies it has nothing to do with what any electorate might vote for today. Majority votes or majority rule does not determine the best society. The laws which govern the evolutionary process determine what is ‘best fitted’ for the evolutionary time in question, and this time is not the minuscule time associated with human life spans. Many things which are best are considered not best at the time someone first advocates it. Slavery didn’t end, women didn’t get the vote, children didn’t get rights, etc the first time someone rationally proposed this would be the correct change needed. 

The major issues of the day involve responsible reproduction, livable minimum wages, full employment with job security, good health care for all, good schools for all, and limits as to how much of any nation’s wealth can be sequestered by a few. Democracy itself has become burdened with very complicated issues, not so much in theory, but in actual practice. The average voter would be hard put to come up with even a 5 or 15 minute intelligible discourse on economic issues, environmental issues, health care costs, full employment, and so on. Thus, by default, elections become professionally designed ploys to manipulate emotional issues like race, gay marriage, making the country ‘white again’, abortion, whether a person has an electable face to be President, the ever effective Hitler-istic “make our country great again”, pitting varied groups against each other to determine whose political base will pay off state or national debts, which groups are responsible for our problems, and the newest wrinkle—just vote for anyone who will blow up government and start over again with no clue as to what the ‘over again’ even means. 

In the end only the “Golden Rule” can bring fairness, justice, social harmony, economic prosperity for all, more level playing fields, protection and opportunity for all children and adults, and enable peace and contentment to maximally be achieved amongst all citizens. On top of all this, via various media gadgets, no nation anymore can be an island unto themselves. Everything discussed in the above musing has to be global. The idea of individual nations competing for dominance, or power, or wealth, is rapidly becoming obsolete. And of course the notion that genetic family cabals, have the right to sequester most of the wealth in their hands for generations, is also self destructive to any kind of society. Of course individuals can become wealthy via their own ethical, legal, and talented means, but when they die that wealth goes back into the society from which it was derived. 

When people talk about how important their children and grandchildren are to them, most of the time it is egregiously disingenuous.  The future generations are not best served by invading other countries on borrowed money, paying pensions on borrowed money, financing all sorts of major projects on borrowed money, permitting 43% of our



 citizens to make so little money that they don’t even qualify to pay federal income taxes, allowing 2-5% of citizens to own 90% of a nations wealth,  allow ever growing ghettoes to exist with ever-increasing unsafe environments, poor schools, poor teachers, 60-70% unemployment for young people, a continued Police and political War on Drugs centered in these communities, jailing so many young people that we now have 25% of global prisoners in our own jails, and so the list goes on. We, collectively, cannot permit any of the above and yet with stupid sincerity, claim we genuinely are determined to make sure our own kids and grandchildren will have a good life. The kind of politics which prevails today guarantees they will have no such thing.

This musing topic will end here because it is senseless to worry about any more particulars since little of the above is even beginning to be effectuated. Across the globe, with few exceptions, the main emotional feeling is to throw the current leaders out, well, just because enough is enough, and yet have no clear alternative changes of any substance. Bernie Sanders came the closest but he is a relic, much like myself.   

In the context of this toxic election year, where does this kind of musing fit in?  It is perhaps comforting to understand that this particular election does not determine, in any way, the course of the evolutionary process. Advancement, whether it be physical changes, or changes in behavior, or ethics in the case of humans, will proceed eventually in certain directions. The trouble is we view changes in human time, not evolutionary time. For example, slavery is a human unethical practice via the Golden Rule. For hundreds of years it was considered via culture and varied religious scripts to be an ethical practice. It was ended because it was not the best fit for any successful human culture. Lincoln may have engineered the end of slavery in the United States, but if he had failed, someone else would have ended it. It was a time dependent process not a particular person dependent process. Women getting the right to vote was the same sort of thing, opposed by the same cultural and religious scripts. Gay rights the same way. Children’s rights the same way. And on it goes. 

This presidential election will effect the timing of progress, not whether evolutionary progress will occur. In the long run (evolutionary time), all will end up in a progressive way with the best fit for life on earth, or at least somewhere. Neither political party is addressing responsible global reproduction, or global livable minimum wages, or everyone sacrificing anything to pay off huge national and local debts, or to monitor stress levels of children as the means to enabling the maximum number of people to develop into the best possible citizens. One party will speed up domestic implosion at home, the other party simply delay it a few more years or decades. One party at least attempts to maximize tolerance to diversity, the other party is led by this principle: whenever two people or two groups interact in a common endeavor, one side will get the short end of the stick. This mentality certainly worked for Trump. The objective is to make sure the other person or group always gets the short end of the stick, and the necessary laws are in place to ensure the favored group or groups, get(s) a rigged path to success. This is unethical and will not prevail in the long run. This is a nation of true diversity, measured by any category, and if diversity cannot be embraced and supported by our citizens then we will now become Baghdad West or Afghanistan West or Egypt West, etc. 

For us as individuals, the long run is is dependent on our age and whether this long run is decades, hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years away. It seems clear enough at this point that societal implosion will occur at any soon moment, and after that any time span for recovery is beyond human predictability. 

For those who have already lived a peaceful and prosperous life, there can be no logical gripe. For the younger people, this is a very dangerous time. No smart gadget, or app, or Facebook, and so on is going to effectuate needed changes for the environment in which they live. Most people today live such that their society is basically their daily contacts via gadgets. There is far less pressure to tolerate diversity, because their own world on their gadgets is not diverse. Before all the electronic gadgets their world was full of diversity. Is this bad or good?  Not relevant at all since evolution simply proceeds depending on the best fit for the environment at hand. 

Thus this musing ends with no firm grasp at all on the immediate future. Which is ok, it is never smart to worry about that which one cannot control. What kind of future will exist? Even The  Shadow doesn’t know, and given the way evolution works, maybe even the Creator doesn’t know. The only certainty, after billions of years, is that the evolutionary process continues, with many ups and downs, toward a more complex and better universe. This process has hardly taken note of me personally at all, and that, for sure, without a doubt, will be an irritant to me till death. Ok, not really since I can’t think of any good reason why the process should. 

If I had a picture of me chasing wind mills I would end with that picture. 

Why Trump Could Win The Election

Why Trump Could Win The Election

On paper it seems absurd that Trump could win. He has insulted and demeaned (his specialty) all minority groups—blacks, hispanics, gays, plus women. Then add all the investors, contractors, and workers he has legally ripped off via his numerous bankruptcy claims.  

The math here would seem impossible—after all, wealthy white males do not constitute a majority of our electorate. Non hispanic whites comprise only 61% of our population. More white women are for Hillary than Trump.

So why do many polls show it nip and tuck? It seems the answer might be found in the following:

For many decades now the affluent got more affluent and the very rich got even more rich—in fact their wealth rose in an exponential fashion. For this to happen, more affluent people had to fall into the economic poor bracket.  After all, the already poor have nothing left to give to make the rich even more rich. A sizable portion of the middle class saw their salaries stagnate, their pensions get eroded, job security become nonexistent, health care costs rise, and on it goes. The result is that now 43% of the adult population do not even make enough money to qualify to pay federal income taxes. Wow!!

We all kind of laugh when Trump tells, for example—blacks, that why not vote for him, things couldn’t get any worse. Many blacks probably won’t bolt on that basis, but a lot of other people—frustrated and stuck in financial hard times, might just decide to vote for Trump as a means to blow up the entire system and just see what replaces it.  A sort of ‘what the hell, what do I have to lose’? It is probably safe to say that the majority of Americans no longer feel our system works for them, and they oppose the politicians in Washington. Hillary is certainly an established politician.  

Democrats are clearly the only party attempting to help stop the wealthy from generating more and more poor people in this country, but democrats have not controlled Congress for many years so none of their bills to help the poor get passed, and the Republicans don’t even propose bills for the poor in our society. Their sole approach is to cut back on all the safety net programs. One prominent democrat, with limited brain power, little education himself—recently was infuriated that some Americans refuse jobs and choose to go on unemployment compensation. I have seen that happen with some of the guards here where I live. They make only slightly more than workman’s compensation, so why work 40-60 hrs per week to make a tad more than unemployment compensation? But Governor Dimwit sees nothing wrong with workers pay and benefits being reduced so he can give the still affluent more tax cuts. 

If Trump wins, this won’t be the first time a nation toppled a government non responsive to their needs and took a chance on what would follow. Invariably, after the government is toppled, various groups led by thugs take over and there is no stable government—just various groups of thugs who take turns controlling communities for variable lengths of time. And the result? 75 million displaced persons living in other countries in refugee camps. Trump of course—as usual, has an attractive solution. He would build nice little houses for them back in a secure area of their origin so that they have a place to live back in their own country.  This has the usual ethics and brilliance of most Trump ideas. We will not build houses for our own refugees (our ghettoes) but for the poor in other countries. I would imagine, after he builds nice little houses for the 75 million refugees, that he will provide the police power to ensure they get to actually live in these nice little houses. And, of course he will find living wage jobs for them so they can maintain these nice little houses. I wonder if Trump ever had any ideas which were not con jobs on hapless victims.?

At any rate, whether Trump succeeds in getting enough people to blow up our entire system is to be seen. But the situation he has created amongst our electorate kind of assures, win or lose, there will be economic insecurity and out in the open social unrest. Everyone is going to lose—those in peaceful neighborhoods, those with substantial financial portfolios, all those who think diverse groups need to work together, and so on, except of course Trump himself, who will go radio or TV with his own show, and like Rush Limbaugh, make millions of dollars stirring up the emotions of people he could care less about (which is about everyone) and laugh all the way to the bank. When the general public finally comprehends what he has duped them into, he may end up like Mussolini, who was brutally tortured and killed, then his body hung on display from a public pole. 

Obama brought us eight years of relative calm—at home and abroad, but he could not put a dent in curtailing the accumulation of wealth by the rich, and without Congress and a sympathetic Supreme Court, creating a more fair distribution of wealth was unattainable. 

It’ all good theatre, especially if you like tragedies.  I take little pride in pointing out that for like 15 years I have repeatedly noted that most major historical empires imploded from within based on two factors: First, a gross inequality of wealth at home, and second, a global empire way too expensive to maintain. Just because the poor of all ilk are now gated off, mostly out of sight from the daily living of the more affluent, doesn’t mean they can be contained that way by a superior police and military complex. We had the superior military by far, and killed more of the enemies, also by far, in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon, many South American countries, and even our own ghettoes, but we never have won our objectives, and warfare has changed from uniformed soldiers to non uniformed nondescript enemies and now to all sorts of terroristic attacks by an alarming number of individuals and minor groups. We are starting to have success with ISIS using drones to seek out and destroy terrorist leaders, but what happens when terroristic groups begin to have these drones?  

75 million refugees, living in refugee camps across the globe, have been displaced from their own countries by upheaval. That is almost three times the number of people living in the United States during the time of Lincoln. The basic cause of all this turmoil is human overpopulation. With more and more people needing to run to safety at home and abroad, there really is no place to run left. That is exactly what overpopulation means, too few resources for all to live a life that so many of us now do.

The kind of election we are now going through will have no winners, just losers. Angry losers, from those with huge financial portfolios, to those with little, all cultures, all religions, all races, the ethical, the unethical. The evolutionary process will survive, maybe take a hit for thousands or millions of years, but few, if any of us, will escape in human time. The reality is always this: Time stays, the evolutionary process survives, WE go. For those my age, almost 76, and having lived a good life, there is no sense quibbling over just how many more good years we get. We could, in our past, always afford to have some pretty stupid Presidents. Those times are past. 

We actually elected a pretty smart President who appreciated diversity and wanted all segments of our society to prosper. But he had mostly Republican Congresses who passed none of his attempts to adjust where the wealth of America resided, had a Supreme Court who blocked any effort to hamstring the ability of the  rich to get all sorts of loopholes so they could continue to monopolize the wealth of this country. No President anywhere can make real progress until responsible reproduction is a globally enforced actuality, until there are minimum livable wages globally, and until human activities are regulated to protect our environment. 

So everybody hang on to their hats, this is going to be a rough ride. We might, I suppose, postpone the inevitable a few more years, but the evolution of human ethics is, for now, not keeping up with our materialistic addictions. Not good.  

A Tale of Two Unique Athletes

A Tale of Two Unique Athletes: Iverson and Terrell Owens

It was 15 -20 years ago that I wrote a musing on Allen Iverson. Like T.O., Iverson was an intriguing sort of chap.  Both were raised in poor communities. Iverson attended Bethel High School in Hampton, Virginia, and was a dual-sport athlete. He earned the Associated Press High School Player of the Year award in both football and basketball, and won the Division AAA Virginia state championship in both sports.  Terrell Owens was born in Alexander City, Alabama.  Allen Iverson was a genetically gifted athlete and was a star athlete from junior high on. Terrell Owens was hardly a genetically gifted athlete and wasn’t even a starter in high school or most of college. He was drafted 82nd in the third round of the NFL draft.  Allen Iverson was really a product of his community in that his family was so poor and dysfunctional that he slept wherever someone would let him sleep for the night. Iverson kind of was raised by a ‘posse’, although he maintained close ties with his mom and lesser degree to his dad. Terrell Owens was raised mostly by his grandmother in her home and he was virtually a prisoner, allowed to leave the house only to go to school and football practice. He had no close friends. Allen Iverson had a ‘posse’ of friends all from the ‘other side of town’. After a brawl  in a bowling alley between white students from the affluent high school of the town and black students from the ghetto high school, Allen was sent to prison. An appeals court eventually threw out the prison sentence calling the trial the worst miscarriage of justice it had ever seen. The Governor of Virginia had to pardon Iverson to get him out of jail, but no college would recruit him anymore, although all had before his conviction. His mom had to beg the coach of Georgetown to give him a chance. He did and the rest is history. 

I am not a fan of basketball but watching ‘little’ Allen go toe to toe with athletes twice his size and hold his ground amused me. Allen physically was like Walter Payton, seemingly indestructible. Both Iverson and T.O. were hated by much of the media and many fans followed suit. Their personalities could not have been more different. T.O. was a loner, always has been, and still is today. Iverson was a social person and he always supported financially all those who had supported him in his early days. His loyalty to those in his early rough days was often fool hardy but clearly sincere. Iverson married his junior high school sweetheart and stuck with her through good and bad times. After basketball, when Iverson’s financial empire collapsed, they got divorced but maintained a close relationship. T.O. had virtually no close relationships with anyone outside his grandmother. He fathered a lot of kids outside of any marriage and ended up with huge child support payments. Iverson fathered a lot of kids too but with his wife and maintained close relationships with all of them. As one observer noted, his kids would squeal with delight whenever they spotted Allen coming home. 

Iverson hated the press for the way they dissed him, his background, and falsely concocted several incidents that took court cases to get dismissed. Allen’s close friends and social life continued to revolve about those he knew from his past. He never really forgave what a white affluent community did to him back in high school. Much of the media detested T.O. for his aloofness, his self centered focus on his own training and performance, and his self-serving one man band antics whenever he scored a touchdown. But unlike Iverson, and true to his essence, T.O. paid no attention to the media commentators who attacked him  They called him every name in the book and T.O never responded in kind, simply replying when pushed to respond in kind to them, that “there is nothing I can do about what they say. They are paid to do what they do and are good at it. I am a football player and that is where all my attention is directed.” As time passed, the media critics mostly let the past be the past with Iverson. After football T.O’s critics chomped at the bit waiting to derail his entrance into the Hall of Fame. Not surprisingly, T.O got broadsided by their efforts. With all his focus and willpower directed at football, T.O got blindsided a lot on matters outside of football. He was easy pickings.

Both Owens and Iverson let the millions they earned slip away. T.O. through poor planning and multiple child support cases, and Iverson through endless financial support to his life-long posse. Allen is clearly beloved by life long friends and he himself is sincerely grateful for those who supported him through out his long journey, and to the dozens of people who made him a better person. His Hall of Fame speech is nothing but endless praise for all these people who helped him along the way. He is clearly a good and faithful person who values his friendships more than his money. The money is gone, his friends and family are not. They clearly squealed with joy for him throughout the ceremony. 

T.O. remains a lone figure with many acquaintances along the way but seemingly no one any closer to him today than ever before. His performance stats are his pride and give him his sense of contentment—a commodity difficult to measure in his case. His media enemies want him to suffer for his personality. This is interesting too, in the sense there has never been such an accomplished athlete who got where he got virtually on his on. His genetic blessing was an amazing ability to put all of his focus and willpower on a singular goal throughout his entire football career. Who would T.O thank in any acceptance speech? In his world others were there to bring him down, just hurdles he would have to leap over, run around, or run through every day of his life.  These hurdles were people. Strangely enough these people are not his detractors. Almost all his head coaches, his teammates, his quarterbacks, most fans—are not the ones screaming to disrespect him. They too never really could get close to him or understand him, but they respected his training, his performance on the field, his focus, his durability on the field. “No one”, stated Steve Young, “can ever criticize T.O.’s performance on the field.”  Both T.O. and Allen Iverson gave it everything they had when the game started. This they have in common.

Unique, but good people, make good study. Both were good theatre, accomplished athletes, and far more towering figures than their critics will ever be. One was about genetic talent, loyalty, and gratitude. The other about sheer willpower and self focus. Both got to the top of the  mountain. 

URL of Allen’s Hall of Fame Acceptance Speech is below. No need to watch it to the end, but at least watch the first part to get a glimpse of his character. Plus the end about his wife is touching too—his junior high sweetheart.  

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/shaq-allen-iverson-stay-true-to-themselves-as-they-enter-hall-of-fame-150544577.html

Achieving A More Perfect Society: Part 1

Achieving A More Perfect Society: Part 1

We start this musing with the simple supposition that the best society is one which generates the maximum personal contentment for the greatest number of citizens. We then extend this premise to acknowledge that science now enables us to generate a better environment for young people in their formative years. We also accept that human ethics is a genetic trait subject to variation as other genetic traits, and a trait that can be best developed by certain applications of current scientific knowledge. Rejected is the notion of ethics via inherited scriptures written thousands of years ago by humans, decades after a prophet has died. While there are legitimate ethical principles in all religious scriptures, these principles are all mixed in with cultural attitudes of the time, scientific ignorance, and ethical absurdities.

Having set some parameters here, this musing can proceed, albeit with zero chance of getting all the specific details properly finalized. This, at  best, is the beginning of a correct path which, with finer tuning, can lead to it’s final destination: the greatest maximal personal contentment for the greatest number of citizens.

This process is applicable to all human groups—the poor, the wealthy, all races, all cultures, all gender identities, all sexual orientations, varied personalities, and varied genetic talents. This process recognizes that the laws which drive the evolutionary process depend on genetic diversity, the environment, chance, change, and time. This process accepts that whatever the nature of a ‘God’ Who created these laws, there is no evidence that this ‘God’, however perceived, ever nullifies any of these laws on behalf of any member of any species. This process does not eliminate beliefs, but sees the best beliefs as those with the most credible evidence. Over time credible beliefs, via science, can be elevated to fact.

We begin by admitting that all humans are not created equal at all, but all do deserve the best level playing fields a human society can construct. Importance is not a word applicable to any individual of any species. What is important to this created evolutionary process is progress, not in any steady line in terms of human time, but over evolutionary Time. We, all of us,— GO, TIME stays. Life is of value not via any individual importance gained, but via the degree of contentment achieved. 

A Healthy society cannot be gained overnight or in a few years. It takes decades for this proposed process to mature. The process starts with monitoring chronic stress levels of all citizens. Elevated chronic levels of specific stress hormones interferes with healthy human physiology. Left unattended, many body systems are negatively affected, especially during the formative years. There is plenty of evidence abounding which indicates that modernity, engulfed by  human overpopulation, extreme income disparity, unemployment, low wages for a population growing at an exponential rate, increased job insecurity, shrinking pensions, rising costs of medical care, millions of refugees driven from their homes via various sorts of civil and religious wars, decreasing tolerance for diversity, climate change, and so on——all these are generating increased levels of chronic stress hormones among a greater percentage of humans on our planet. This increased level of chronic stress hormones damages human physiological well-being, especially for those in their formative years, and it is especially damaging for those without the proper psychological defense mechanisms to help inhibit the damage produced by chronic high levels of stress hormones. 

We start with the  premise that all citizens need be gainfully employed. Gainfully means a reasonable living wage, and one which rises each year with the cost of living. In an age where machines and computers can do so much work, faster and better than human labor, there should be no need for humans to work so many hours per week. We have managed to pervert this into a situation where some work long hours or two jobs at low wages and at the same time a spouse works too. So we have ended up with many citizens working too many hours at low wages, and many not able to find a job at all.To top this off, those with specific talents of varied sorts make grotesquely high incomes. This is so bad now that 2-5% of Americans own 90% of the nation’s wealth.

Raw capitalism doesn’t work in today’s real world. We need to start with everyone working a job, let’s say for 30 hrs a week at a living wage or higher. Second jobs would not be permitted since the first priority is that everyone have a job. Will things be more expensive? Of course.  And thus, the question begs, just where does all the money come from to do this? Well, it is going to come from several sources and no doubt from more than mentioned here. Am I the best person to properly judge the feasibility of all this? No.  The mathematical wizards would have to modify, add, and manipulate a lot of parameters to get a workable model. 

A working job for everyone at a living wage does not not by any means mean equal pay for everyone. The market will continue to operate here. For a start, with everyone working a living wage job, welfare costs become minuscule. That’s a huge amount of money. When people are economically independent and productive members of society chronic stress is minimized. Self esteem goes up.

Loopholes for the affluent would get plugged up. No loopholes are needed for anyone. Taxes become simplified and progressive. Progressive rates are absolutely necessary so all the wealth cannot accumulate in the hands of a few. In the days of Eisenhower, there were plenty of wealthy people amongst us and the top tax rate was 90% with few loopholes. With financial income, as with most endeavors, there is an ‘enough is enough”. This would generate a huge increase in money for the government.

Inheritance taxes would be steep again, like they once were.  Here is another source of huge income to the government. The healthiest environment for any society is one in which every citizen earns their own wealth. Genetic cabals of wealth would be eliminated. If someone wants to be wealthy they need to earn that wealth themselves, not inherit it. Inherited wealth rarely generates personal contentment. If anyone thinks people like Donald Trump are contented souls they have a weird vision of contentment. The fairest way is for everyone to earn their own way.

Taxes would go up substantially for everyone. But this is simply a trade-off. All the basics we already get from taxes would remain plus now add good health care for everyone, good schools for everyone, good teachers for everyone, a job for everyone, a decent pension for everyone, adequate government help for all citizens with special needs, and if anyone’s offspring end up with special needs as adults, everyone pays to help them via our taxes. Yes, taxes would go up but the kind of things so many of us worry about today would not exist——a good job, good health, good schools, etc. Gone would be the days of so many living in poverty, or 43% of citizens not earning enough money to even qualify to pay federal income taxes.

I cannot say by what percent taxes would go up. Maybe the average person would only have 50% left to spend. But most of the things so many of us worry about would be taken care of. Ghettoes would disappear, accumulating obscene wealth would be stopped, and The Golden rule would be the safety net for the less fortunate. We would, as a nation, absorb the burden of all adults with needs, parental responsibility for that having expired at the end of the formative years. Of course the lucky families will retain special ties with family members and be released from competition for any family fortune or the burden of being unable to properly support adult family members with mental or physical needs. 

The capitalistic spirit would be alive and well as all adults are free to compete for their own financial good fortune, the big difference being the playing fields will be much more level from birth on. Regular testing for chronic high blood levels of stress hormones will be the cornerstone of medical attention for all members of society.

The educational system would be drastically changed. Computers would be the primary source of inputting facts of varied disciplines into our brains, not endless lectures, period after period, by teachers. Yet teachers will be even more important. Qualified ’teachers’ will be available to all children and adults with high chronic levels of stress hormones, especially all children. These new “teachers will be experts in detecting the source of the chronic stress and will work in teams to do two things: eliminate the source of the  stress, and build needed psychological defenses to help the person cope better with the identified stresses. Parental control over their children will remain sacred but a child’s right to receive the necessary help to deal with chronic stress will trump parental rights. It is unethical to let bad parenting increase the chances for children to become damaged adult citizens.

Willy nilly parenting will be trumped by responsible reproduction. Regardless of any inherited or adopted religion, global protection of quality human life requires limits on reproductive prowess. At birth parental skills will be addressed and assistance provided. Every child will have enough quality adult assistants dependent on their needs. When needed, volunteers will fill roles such as aunts, uncles, grandmothers, grandfathers, big brothers, big sisters or whatever whenever needed.  It may often require a ‘Village’ for many children to have a safe healthy stimulating and supportive environment during their formative years.

When a society has it’s priorities right, ample money and enough personal investment by all sorts of people, then life for all citizens will be more productive, prosperous (in a real sense of the term), and peaceful. Families will be stronger, more successful, and appreciation for diversity more widespread. To the extent possible groups will no longer be pitted against each other but will be serving together for the common good of their common society.

Not surprisingly, this topic requires presentation in parts, as otherwise the musing becomes too long. So this will be continued after I digest where I am at with so many interlocking changes at once. If nothing else this discourse is more thought provoking than any current political campaigns.