Learning to Understand the Language of Politics

Frank Lutz is a major strategist for the Republicans, and he recently met with supporters to discuss the dangers of the occupy wall street movement. To quote Frank "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death." It warms my heart, I have to admit. The point of his statement was that conservatives need to alter the language they use in order to neutralize the effects of OWS, which are, and I quote again, "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism." Apparently it is not that popular anymore.

So in the coming weeks people should pay particular attention to how Republicans are speaking, which words they are avoiding and which they are using instead. Here are some specific ones to watch out for. Such a fun game!

1) Capitalism is out. Economic Freedom is in!

2) The middle class are now hardworking taxpayers.

3) Few people want jobs. Most people want CAREERS.

4) Government spending = waste (though I assume this does not include the military)

5) Real men don't compromise. They cooperate.

6) We no longer have innovators or entrepeneurs. We have small businesses and job creators.

7) Forget taxing the rich, everyone is for that. Government is taking from the rich. Ah, it's a longshot.

8) And if approached by an occupier, say "I get it." That will shut them up.

That ends this lesson on Orwellian Doublespeak. Until next time.

Extremism is Taking Over

No matter where I go it seems I am assaulted by extremism. Just the other day I was at the grocery store, and when I went to get some hamburger buns, the only choices I had were Mega-Burgers or Sliders. I went to get some basic, standard Cheerios, but all I could choose from were Chocolate Cheerios or Apple & Cinnamon Cheerios. I tried to find a standard crust pizza, but all they had to offer were Deep Dish or Thin Crust. There were plenty of different types of thin crust and deep dish, just no regular pizza. No regular Cheerios. No regular hamburger buns.

What has happened to the world? Like it or not we are getting fewer and fewer choices to pick from, though the opposite appears to be true. In the past I could pick from about four or five flavours of pizza, but only in the regular crust option. Today I can pick from over a dozen flavours in either thin crust or deep dish, but the regular crust seems to have vanished. The choice is still binary, though it has been disguised as versions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc... Moderation is being squeezed out so that we can all feel like we are actually choosing.

The problem is that moderates are moderate, and it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. In the United States it is the Tea Party that seems to get the most media attention, even though they only represent a relatively small percentage of the American people. The art of compromise is dead, and we are all being pressured to take a side, side A or side B...and that is it! I think it is time we all saw through the false dichotemy and stopped falling for the two choice fallacy.

I say take the third path. The one you can barely see, but just feels right.

Toadying to the Rich Caused Obama to Drop the Ball

Either the realities are more complex than I realize, or the people in charge of the government and big business are there because of nepotism and not merit. At the time that it was happening I railed against the idea of giving the banks money, no strings attached but hoping they would start lending again. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars (well, new debt actually) given at 0% interest to the banks, the same banks that are charging most credit card holders near 30% interest. Or perhaps it is the American people who are the stupid ones to put up with this criminal behaviour.

I think the government should have skipped the middle man entirely. The government should have opened up loan offices, charging somewhere around 5% interest. People would flock to pay such low interest, and the big banks would have to lower their rates or lose business. Clearly none of these banks were in any serious danger of going out of business if they are all declaring record profits a year later. Those that do and will fail probably should fail.

So what we have is hundreds of billions of dollars lent to the banks at 0%, which they then refused to lend to people. My solution would have made the taxpayers 5%, opened up credit, and forced the big banks to also lower their rates (or lose business). It seems pretty simple to me, but of course the biggest difference in the two scenarios is WHO benefits. In the current system the big banks got free money to do what they wanted with, to be paid back at some point in the uncertain future, and the American people got deeper in debt as a nation (12 million is the current tally...imagine how much those interest payments are, and how they could be better spent on THE PEOPLE). In my scenario the American people make money and liquidity opens up.

Obama is part of the problem, because he is a much better talker than a doer. He compromises too much and too soon. He telegraphs how the opposition can manipulate his priorities until there is only a muddied mess. But a bigger problem than Obama is clearly the Senate. The very nature of the Senate is conservative in nature. It takes 60% to get legislation passed. That is a very conservative requirement. On top of that the nature of the Senate is disproportionate, so that smaller states have a greater say than their population would warrant. An analysis of the smaller states in the Union shows that they are, generally speaking, conservative in nature.

My conclusion is that progressives have no place in the United States. The system is designed to slow down all efforts at change to the point where the system in place is generations behind where the people are at. Personally, I'd scrap the system, but I am Canadian so it is not my place to do so.

Big Bonuses for "The Best"

One of the many ridiculous things that the American people are supposed to swallow these days is that, if the likes of Goldman-Sachs and the other financial terrorists that have helped destroy the middle class are not paid huge bonuses (enough to finance entire communities), then the "best and brightest" will go elsewhere and the recovery will not happen. This is STUPID on so many levels it is difficult to know just where to start.

One, these losers are the ones that screwed the pooch to begin with. They over-leveraged their companies (it is hard to call them banks anymore, that is just one element of what they do) in order to make greater short-term profits. As a result the odds finally fell against them, as they would over time, and the house of cards is crashing down. How are these people the best and brightest? They clearly know how to play the system, and the nation along with it, but best and brightest? Hardly the best, and I do not even believe they are particularly bright. Excellent at the limited facet of humanity that they have chosen to corrupt, absolutely! Brilliant? Perhaps some, but only a few of the many I have personally met. Frat boy seems a more appropriate term for the majority of them.

Two, where are these best and brightest going to go? People who want to restrict the huge bonuses (not the least of which, the investors, from whose pocket these bonuses come) are not saying that a single investment company should be regulated, but that all of them should. So where are they going to run to? Do they think that foreign companies really want to hire them? These losers are to finance what Arthur Anderson came to represent in accounting...failure. A relative handful of people orchestrated this economic meltdown, and now they expect to be enriched to help fix the mess that they caused. I think they should be held accountable, and forced to work for minmum wage until the economy is back on track. You want big bucks for good work, then except crap money for the shoddy work you have been turning out.

Three, what makes anyone believe that these losers are even capable of fixing the problems? They weren't bright enough to prevent this from happening, and they were the ones closest to the levers of control. They had to have seen this coming long before the majority, or at least they should have, but they seemed just as surprised as many people. Harvard University, the people who produce the "finest business minds in the country" lost BILLIONS of dollars in the past year. I think these people are wresting on laurels earned generations ago. These people do NOT know what they are doing...at least I pray that they do not. If they do, then this entire economic meltdown was planned. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, and it is probably nothing more than that. But the options are A) these people do not know what they are doing, or B) they do, and this was their goal, or at least a step towards their goal, all along.

Which answer makes you more comfortable?

Are You Sick Yet?

Run for the hills, the Pandemic of SARS-Avian-West Nile-Swine Flu is coming and NOTHING can stop it! Didn't you hear, almost four thousand people have died from it. Of course nine times as many people have died from normal seasonal flu, but this is a PANDEMIC people. I know, I heard it on TV. I'm not exactly sure how bad a pandemic is, but it sounds an awful lot like epidemic, and I KNOW that is not good.

I think it is time we all turned off our TVs, throw away that rag called a newspaper, turn the dial from Rush to white noise, and get some distance from the insanity that has taken over the media, and apparently, the government and medical community. Every year it is a new disease that is coming to wipe us out. I suppose this is merely an extension of the "Fear Everything" society that developed post-911, but I am bored of it.

I am sorry but Swine flu lacks the sex appeal that something like an Ebola or Flesh-Eating disease. If the contaminated do not bleed out of their eyes or become rabid psychopaths, how am I supposed to get all worked up about it? What is the death rate on this thing? 1 in 100 000 or something so abstract I find it hard to take seriously. I am sure that those affected by this do not agree with me, but that does not change anything. Somewhere along the line people lost any rational link to risk management. Long odds are played as the apocolypse while very real and dire problems are downplayed.

This would make an interesting book were it not true.

A Supermajority of Wimps

Despite controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of government, the Democrats are incapable of doing what they promised. The blame can be spread around, but it is clear that there is a problem in the Democrat party.

President Obama can, and should, be blamed for engaging in the Health Reform campaign in an ass-backwards fashion. He should have started with an information campaign, to educate the populace on how wasteful the current system is, and how much more expensive it is projected to get in the near and long term. Educate people on the myriad examples of people who were denied coverage because of the most inane reasons. Those stories are coming out now, but they should have been part of the information campaign. It would have made it much more difficult for the Republicans to use the line "Do you want government bureaucrats making your healthcare decisions for you?", which they have been able to effectively do so far. The worst thing Obama did was to start the negotiations from a position of moderation. You start with everything you want under the sun, knowing that you will not get most of it. If you start with the bare minimum you are willing to accept you are guaranteed to get next to nothing.

The real culprits, though, are clearly the Democrat Senators and Representatives who will not vote for this much-needed (and popular) reform if it is anything close to real reform. These Senators and Representatives need to be singled out and the spotlight shone upon them. Come the next election the Democrat party should put large resources towards removing these people in the Primaries. Hurt them in the only way that makes sense; politically. Find good people who will run against them, and then provide huge funds from the party coffers (or whatever mechanism is legal), and have popular Democrats campaign for the challengers. Democrats like Joe Lieberman have proven that they are really Republicans in Democrat clothing. It is time to chase the conservatives out of the party, because they are creating a situation where a large percentage of the population has no voice at all, and the big-mouthed minority seems to get their way whether they win or lose an election.

Is it time for a third party?

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that a third party does not make much sense in the American electoral system. At least, this is true by conventional wisdom. The logic is simple, a third party would take votes away from the party most closely aligned (politically speaking), and ensure that the party that is least aligned with the new party would win. Therefore the worst possible scenario is created if a third party enters the picture. Ross Perot did it, and to a lesser degree, Ralph Nader did it. It is difficult to even argue against this, but I will attempt to do so here.

The problem that a lot of people have with the Republican party is the meddling in social policy. I think most people under the age of 60 are pretty liberal minded, on the social level. Each successive generation is more liberal than the previous one, so clearly society is moving in that direction, at least in the near future. It has been moving in this direction for some time.

Now when it comes to fiscal policy, most people would prefer a small government that focused on a few key issues, and handled them efficiently. Common sense regulation is called for, but no undue interference in the economy. The reaction to the bailout of banks, insurance companies, and car makers, is evidence that people do not want the government getting involved in these areas, and rightly so.

It is time for a third party to emerge, one that has a fiscally conservative nature, but is also socially liberal. I think the Libertarian party comes closest to the mark on this, and I hope to see a serious influx of cash going into the Libertarian coffers, as well as some legitimate candidates running under that banner. I can think of no time better than now for a legitimate and viable third party to emerge as a serious contender, but that party would need to be well organized.

People are tired of the Elephants and Jackasses that are the current choices out there.