Fun with words and words for fun

Category Archives: Politics

broken governmentOriginally posted 7/14/17

Somewhere in the neighborhood of seven thousand military personnel have been killed since 9/11 and the number of wounded is conservatively about thirty-three thousand. Some estimates are a lot higher. But the government-run VA is broken, its leaders corrupt, and the politicians capable of effecting change are inept and themselves more devoted to special interest groups than to the Vets. To think the VA can go on as it is and fix itself from within is insanity.

Even more insane is our having gone into Afghanistan. The Russians fought there for some nine years and we experienced the long, protracted Viet Nam war. Insanity to think we could have done better in Afghanistan.

Ditto education. Our education system is broken. We let special interest groups contribute vast sums of money to our legislators to maintain the status quo. In turn, we throw more and more money into a system that has continually shown it does not work as it is supposed to. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results: insanity.

Our inner cities are broken. From one to the next to the next, they are crime-ridden, drug-infested and steeped in poverty. If one states the facts as they are, one is branded a racist. The same Democratic leadership has run these cities the same way for more than fifty years and it keeps getting elected. Insanity.

Social Security funding was supposed to be tucked away and left only to fund Social Security. Nevertheless our leaders have dipped into those dedicated funds repeatedly. Any wonder the system is going broke? Insanity. Even if we refund it, would it be reasonable to expect our leaders not to break it again? Have our leaders ever shown themselves to be fiscally responsible? If we believe they suddenly will become so now, aren’t we being insane?

There’s no limit to the insanity which abounds today. You have to sign it to see what’s in it was a new height in crazy. Hug a terrorist, however, seems to give it a run for the top position. Yes, that’s what we should do. We should offer the terrorists who are hell-bent upon destroying our way of life hugs, money, jobs and counseling. Insanity.

Dare we talk about the bathroom laws? the identity laws?  the medical laws? A doctor is now expected to treat a patient in accordance with the gender s/he identifies with on the day of treatment as opposed to the biological status. Beyond insanity, honestly. Apparently those self-identification rules are all good except on April fifteenth when one wants to identify him/herself as being poor to avoid paying taxes. They break down there, when it comes to paying taxes. Even if you identify as poor you still have to pay up.

Ditto HHS. Ditto CPS, IRS, Medicare, Medicaid and on and on. These days, even the FBI is broken.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. One would like to think that the government really does want to take care of our veterans and that overall it has good intentions toward its citizens. But in today’s United States, that thought reflects a certain insanity. With the advent of career politicians and their overwhelming support of virtually unregulated super PACs and lobbyists, it is clear that our leaders’ goal is only reelection. Taking care of the country, even particular constituents, is merely a by-product, and more often lip service.

We are now locked into a government comprised of politicians whose only purpose is sustaining their position and maintaining their power. This is Social Darwinism (On Social Darwinism). And that has led us to insanity.

Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.

Coming Soon

Bill Wynn: The First Hundred

Advertisements

 

stupidityThis was originally posted on July 11, 2017.

How stupid are we?

Talking about America, there seems to be no limit to the depth of our stupidity, the depth of the pit of stupidity we have fallen into. It’s rather amazing actually. Think about it. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin wall came down, the United States was the only world power. In the thirty years since then we have allowed Russia to regain its world-power status and we have allowed China to become a world power. China’s economy has overtaken ours and just recently, for the first time ever, the dollar is no longer the world currency.

So how stupid are we? Well, how stupid can you be?

The war on poverty has been going on for fifty-two years, since 1965. We’ve poured  twenty-three billion dollars into it. That’s 23,000,000,000. For that money there has been no real noticeable change in the poverty rate and no real change in the demographics of the people in poverty. Yet we continue down the same road. Stupid?

As regards education, we spend more per capita than any other country and yet we rank a whopping twenty-seventh in the world in education. Now that’s a big bang for the buck. Furthermore, segregation was outlawed in 1954 and yet our schools are becoming more and more segregated. The rate at which segregation is occurring continues to increase.

Stupid?

It gets better. There are those who fought against segregation who now insist they have a right to their own spaces, or they insist that whites not be allowed into certain spaces. Well then…

Stupid? You bet

Just as stupid and actually most dangerous to our society is the disregard shown for logic and facts. Replacing logic and facts are feelings and subjectivity. The gender identity laws exemplify this. But that raises a controversial issue and God forbid that should happen. So let’s put it this way. Mr. X doesn’t have any cash and can’t buy that five-dollar super mochaccino he wants because he left his wallet in his Porsche. He feels poor. He identifies with poor people at that moment. In accordance with the gender identity rules, he is poor. He identifies himself as poor, ergo, by the new rules, he is poor. If that happened on April 15th, Mr. X should be eligible for not paying taxes and even getting an earned income credit.

Stupid? Beyond stupid. How stupid can we be?

Let’s see. Remember “you have to sign it to see what’s in it?” Stupid? Well, what’s even more stupid is that she’s still in office and the head of her party. She’s not stupid. She didn’t have to read it because she doesn’t have to deal with it. She and her cronies voted themselves an exception so they could stay on the government congressional plan. That’s the Cadillac of Cadillacs plan.

Stupid? Not them! Us. More than half of them are millionaires And they way their positions work, they don’t really have to pay for anything. Our tax dollars pay for everything. Or, they’re having a great, self-enriching time on our dime. So how stupid can we be?

Russia. Russia’s goal is to create chaos here in America. Well, look at what our media has been pushing for the last eight months or so. Look at what the party of opposition has done. How stupid are we as a people and as a nation? Haven’t we played right into Putin’s hands? Stupid.

Well, aren’t we stupid for allowing all this to go on? Aren’t we more stupid for continuing to fund it?

Finally, as the liberals push left toward the welfare state and socialism, history tells us that capitalism and the free market pay for the bulk of all charity work done throughout the world. It also tells us that no socialist government thus far has ever managed to succeed. Why would we push toward that which we know will fail?

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Really, how stupid are we? Pretty damn stupid.

Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.

Coming Soon

Bill Wynn: The First Hundred


Soup Company: Chicken Stock, Beef Stock and Laughing Stock,

We were the only remaining super power in the world in the late 1980s. Ronald Reagan did that, a Republican. Of course it wasn’t just him. It was economics as much as politics. The Soviet Union was going broke, yet another sign, even back then, that socialism didn’t work.

It’s thirty years later. We have let ourselves be surpassed economically by China and we have let Russia return to world power status. Really, how stupid are we? Like him or not, President Trump is right. The world is laughing at us. It should be. As a country, the United States is acting like an idiot. Our leaders say and do the stupidest stuff and then tell us how great they are. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

So let’s get a couple of things straight. The news and news media are no longer unbiased. A simple look at who owns what there and what their political leanings are demonstrates this. Any paper who hires twenty reporters to get dirt on President Trump clearly has an agenda.

Next, to listen to the Hollywood elite and believe those elites are looking out for anyone other than themselves is at best naive and more likely simply misguided. That’s putting it nicely. Those who know anything about socialism know it really sounds great on paper. But in reality there are only two classes: the rich (very few in number) and the poor (the vast majority who pay for everything and do all the work). Which ones are those Hollywood elites and what do they get from their positions? Easy for them to promote strict gun laws. They have armed bodyguards and live in gated communities. Easy for them to promote conservation and green energy since not only can they afford green energy, but they are exempt from their own preachings. It’s like Obamacare. Good for us, but not for Congress who snuck in their exemptions.

So we, the regular American people, are the laughing stock. Look at Al Gore’s carbon footprint. Look at DiCaprio’s. I’m really glad Geraldo’s family in Puerto Rico is okay, truly, but the regular people who don’t have that kind of support got decimated. Same hypocrisy. Did Whoopi leave yet? She’s worth about 80 million. She could afford to go. Why should we believe any of them? If we do, we’re worthy of being laughed at.

Capitalism and the United States pay for almost all the charitable and philanthropic work throughout the world. While we give, give, give, they laugh, laugh, laugh. Excuse me, but I haven’t heard the Clinton foundation doing anything for these latest disasters. You know, Obama and Clinton, those who would move us toward socialist ways: sixty million dollar book deal for Obama and more than 250K per speech to Wall Street, and Hillary’s book deal isn’t being disclosed, but she and Bill have earned 250 million in about ten years. Yeah, they were broke.

Iran deal? They’re laughing at us.

Paris Accord? UN? TPP? Obama’s trade deals? They’re laughing at us.

Our Congress? Schumer, Pelosi, Ryan, and McConnell, they’re all laughing stock. In fact, it would be funny if it weren’t funny. And we’re laughing stock because we keep them in power.

So look at   The Hunger Games  and   Resident Evil. That’s where we’re going unless we take our heads out of the sand. The world is laughing at us, and we keep acting stupid. We let Hitler take all of Europe before acting. Haven’t we learned that appeasement doesn’t work? We let China surpass us and Russia come back. We let North Korea and Iran get nuclear weapons and funded Iran so it could fund Radical Islamic Terrorism. We are the laughing stock of the world and we are truly stupid.

Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.

Coming Soon

Bill Wynn: The First Hundred


disfluency_logoSo an Orthodox Rabbi was asked how Orthodox Judaism had managed to survive all these years without changing any. The answer came amazingly quickly and was stunningly simple.

“If you don’t want anything to change, you don’t change anything,” he said.

Period.

In our society we have this discussion all the time. You can see it on the news every day. It’s generally a question of where you draw the line. In fact, in today’s world, one of the most dramatic examples of this involves free speech. If it’s okay for a leftist activist to speak at a university, how can it not be okay for a right-wing conservative to speak at the same university? Or, where do you draw the line?

Common sense says either you allow both to speak, or you allow neither one to speak. But if you don’t want the right to free speech to break down in America, you can’t pick a side according to an agenda.

Orthodox Judaism has made some adaptations. With the advent of electricity came non-stop elevators in high rise buildings so an Orthodox Jew can now live on the forty-fifth floor of an apartment building in New York and go out to synagogue on Sabbath since it is not considered riding (like riding in a car) and it isn’t considered work (since one doesn’t have to push a button to pick the floor to stop on). Similarly, slow cookers and crock pots allow food to stay warm all Sabbath long without one actually cooking.

Adaptation is okay. After all, it is how the human race (should we call it hu-people?) has come about and gotten to where we’ve gotten. But… when it starts to go against reasoning that’s a different matter.

English Language Learners (ELLs) have caused a dramatic breakdown in our language. More precisely, allowing multiple languages to be spoken by offering accommodations to people living in America such that they don’t have to learn the language is what has done so.  Again, reasonable adaptations to the language are expected, but out and out grammatical breakdowns and misinterpretations are not acceptable.

ELLs are not to blame, of course. But the global nature of things has magnified the effects of multi-languages being spoken in America on dysfluency. So, for example, when you call your credit card company and someone in India answers the phone to handle your customer service issue, you may not only not understand him/her due to his/her accent, but you may also be subjected to a host of incorrect English speaking, misunderstandings, non-understandings and even, perhaps, confusion. Sooner or later, the language breaks down. It breaks down much more rapidly under these conditions.

The internet is another way this happens, again because the person writing the text you are reading may have extremely limited English language skills and, after all, the work is being outsourced since it is less expensive. The company doing the text might be located anywhere in the world, but usually of course they are in countries where the labor rate is much lower than here. There’s no guarantee that the editor, if there is one, will pick up any errors.

The sum effect of this, over time, is a breakdown in the language. With errors occurring being overlooked, sooner or later an error occurs in an area where it actually affects meaning and/or interpretation of the wording.

Bingo! Then it depends upon what the definition of is is.

Once again, what is most germane in this discussion of the breakdown of language and reasoning is who benefits from it. If one can say nonsensical things and not be called out for them and one can put forth wholly illogical arguments without being shot down for them, language and reasoning go into a free-fall, which is kind of like where they are now.

You have to ask: who benefits from this?

Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.


disfluency_logoJudging people and things back then by today’s standards is only one disintegration of reasoning and language. There are many. Many!  There are many ways our language and reasoning have been and continue to be eroded.

A second major beginning of the breakdown of language and reasoning goes back to the eighties once again. That’s when, so far as generally accepted in the timeline, the gender issue in pronouns became an issue and when the language began shifting, moving into what became a most awkward period. The actual issue of gender consideration in language is much more longstanding. But the changing of the language, that is a serious matter whose effects must be understood in the context of what we end up doing as a people in our history.

Seat belts. When the first seat belt regulations came into play and the first seat belt laws came into effect, we were assured, even promised, that we wouldn’t be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. Now, some years later, we see that that promise was pure BS.

E-ZPass. The advent of E-ZPass was a great convenience and time saver. But we were afraid  electronic tracking would compromise our privacy. So we were assured that E-ZPass records would be kept private, that they would never be used in court. Then along came that first clever lawyer with the great idea of using those supposed-be-to private records to prove marital infidelity, and lo and behold E-ZPass caved to the subpoena. Now E-ZPass records are pretty non-private, or they are easily used in courts.

History shows that first and foremost money talks and BS walks, no credit for that saying taken here. It also shows that government can’t be trusted to stay to where its rightful place is, which is protecting its citizens. The two examples above show the progression of things when left in the hands of our leaders, all of them, but primarily those who adhere to and preach the progressive narratives.

Gender-Specific Pronouns! So in the eighties these became an issue. At first the linguists looked at them in terms of messiness and discomfort. The language no longer  had the wherewithal to suit our needs if we wanted to be gender-fair and considerate. Language is our tool, they thought. If it no longer met our needs in regard to gender-specific pronouns, it would fix itself to do so. They thought language would adjust to compensate for equalizing or neutralizing gender references.

But as with the two examples above, that wasn’t quite what happened.

What happened was, like with the seat belt and E-ZPass examples, legislation and regulation. The progression that was supposed to be toward gender equality or gender neutrality in language so as to match what was perceived as happening in our society turned toward control. Or, to be more precise, it turned to control for the purpose of extracting money in the form of fines. Today, in certain states one can be arrested, jailed, fined or all three for incorrect use of gender pronouns.

What has this breakdown in language and reasoning wrought upon us? Or, from what was supposed to have been a move to empower and equalize the genders (he and she), or at the very least to neutralize them within the language and thereby equalize them, what has the erosion of language brought us?

Those same people who have led us at every turn to being controlled through fear of prosecution, can now prosecute us for using an incorrect gender reference. And with some thirty-something genders now, another result of the breakdown of our language and reasoning skills,  how would one know if one’s gender-pronoun usage is correct?

We have been led to confusion and dis-empowerment because the aim behind the breakdown of language and reasoning as mostly articulated by the progressive narrative is control and domination.

Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.


disfluency_logoGo on. Just call me racist up front and get it over with. As was said in And the Winner Is, that word, the R word, is now applied so often and used so callously that its meaning is quickly dissipating. Like the Deplorable label, it becomes a badge of honor when one is called it for saying something true simply because one is speaking about a person or persons of color.

For example, merely saying that Al Sharpton didn’t pay taxes and helped publicly frame Steven Pagones in the Tawana Brawley case would make one a “racist” by today’s standards of the word even though there is no racial implication in the factual statement. That speaks to the breakdown of our language and our reasoning, both of which are different issues altogether though very essential ones and ones of course tied to the bundle of what’s going on with Obama being the big winner and what’s going on in America.

The argument goes like this: why are you picking on Al Sharpton? Lots of whites did a lot worse to blacks. Pick on them! Picking on Al Sharpton is racist. You are a racist.

Similarly, to say anything about Hillary Clinton causes one to be called a misogynist. The argument: Lots of men did a lot worse to women than anything Hillary has done altogether. Pick on them! Picking on Hillary makes you a misogynist. (And we all know that the reason she lost was because of misogyny and chauvinism.) You are a misogynist.

So, a little about the breakdown of our language and reasoning.

Way back in the eighties when studying literature in graduate school, we were taught that an author who wrote in the forties should not be called a racist in the eighties for referring to a black man as a Negro because that was the correct term of reference at the time the writer wrote. Or, forty years later, in the eighties, calling the author a racist or saying he/she was being derogatory back then is incorrect. It is logically flawed thinking. More important, however, doing so then was indicative of the beginnings of a breakdown in our reasoning and language that was being driven by a progressive narrative.

This type of breakdown in language and reasoning is evidenced all the time now and it leads to the revisionist history we are seeing today. It is the logical progression of that progressive narrative we are being force fed, and it is the danger within America. 

As an example, consider slave owners during legal slavery times. Being a slave owner did not necessarily make one a bad person or one who should be erased from our history due to being judged by today’s standards of morality and right or wrong, which in and of themselves are quite questionable.

History shows there were many slave owners back then who were anti-slavery and kept their slaves because they knew that if they freed them other slave owners would gobble them up and mistreat them horribly. These “good” slave owners (I know, by any sensibilities it sounds like a contradiction in terms) treated their slaves humanely. They utilized them as workers, allowed them a decent standard of living, did not abuse or molest them, allowed them marriage of their choice amongst themselves and to stay in the families they themselves created. They did not sell off their children for profits.

As messed up as it may seem today, this was in many circumstances the moral thing to do back then. Not only was it moral, but it was courageous, for those who did it were going against the social and economic norms of the times. If found out, they were ostracized and boycotted economically such that they lost their businesses.

Judging people and things back then by today’s standards is clearly a breakdown in reasoning and language skills, not to mention it being nonsensical. Doing so ignores the concepts of time, context and knowledge, not to mention the differences between the accepted morays of the society back then as compared to now. Furthermore it denies rational logic.

The absence of logic in today’s discourse and the general breakdown of our language and language skills is a true danger to America.

Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.


and the winner isFrom the start, Obama’s proclivity toward communism and his general disdain for the American way of life were inherent in his attitudes as president. While these proclivities could not be seen looking directly at him, they could be clearly seen in the group of people he brought with him to the White House. Every president does it, surrounds himself with people he trusts, with people whose views are simpatico and in line with his agenda. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with this. The electorate expects it then takes comfort in the fact that a president is limited to two terms, one of the built-in constitutional protections against a takeover.

In what was seemingly a normal, rational world, which we were at the time Obama became president, those who liked the new leader were happy. Those who didn’t, not all of course, but most, were at least respectful of the person and the office. They were generally tolerant of the changes, willing to give him a chance, and they were even hopeful that as the first African American president he would unify us as no other president before him had done.

Obama truly offered hope and change. The problem was that few people understood what he meant by that slogan. Those people who did understand it had taken the time to look into his origins,  his upbringing and his associates.  These people, of two kinds, were basically supporters or opposers. The opposers were quickly saddled with that racist label, branded almost immediately with the R word. The goal of the racist branding was to silence all opposition to the pro-communist, anti-American president of the United States.

So Obama was the big winner. He was the big winner because people were afraid to speak out against him for fear of being called a racist. He was the big winner because he carried the mainstream media in his pocket (and still does). He was the big winner because as a result of both of these trends he went unchecked and mostly free to do what he set out to do.

In the scope of things, overall, we don’t know yet if his direction was a good one. Whether or not where Obama led us in his eight years as president was to a good place would surely seem controversial. One thing that is not controversial is that he was the big winner.

So what was Obama really about? What was the purpose of what has come to be known as the apology tour? What was the purpose of decimating the military? Of growing the Federal Government’s bureaucracy to bloated, wasteful limits? Of willfully and purposefully dividing the American populace along racial and class lines? Of giving away the store to our enemies and alienating our allies? Of moving the Democratic party so far to the left that it would be unrecognizable to its greatest liberals of yesteryear?

This was his fundamental transformation and Obama was and is the big winner because he was able to partially achieve this transformation, a transformation we now know was the attempt to scale down the United States as a world power and world leader.

Unfortunately, the answers to what Obama was about are relatively simple but the issues are rather complex. In the end, the overriding answer to what Obama was about was power, pure and simple. The secondary answer is that he was about the taking down of what he was raised to believe was the evil capitalist empire that was so presumptuous as to dominate the world. Or, he was about the transformation of the United States into a non-power. He did not like the United States. Neither did his wife, his pastor or most of his friends and his associates.

Obama accomplished much of what he set out to do. And that makes him the big winner.

Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.