Those who Advocate For Wiping Out LGBTQ

One of the most compelling arguments against those who advocate for wiping out LGBTQ+ representation through media and enacting discriminatory laws is the importance of equality, human rights, and inclusivity as part and parcel of living in modern America. 

Now we have a POTUS-elect in convicted felon Donald Trump who is all in for disrupting much of what advances have been made (Trump on LGBTQ Rights: Rolling Back Protections and Criminalizing Gender Nonconformity). Has there been overreach by recent administrations on the side of "progressiveness"? A good word for humanitarians and those involved in societal advancements while decreasing abuses by the many upon the few, but a bad word to those on the right who just can't see that's a thing.

I agree there may have been some overreach but not to the degree being sold by the right. Part of their issue is not having been allowed to catch up, or some things feeling imposed upon them not only against their will, or awareness, but beliefs, culture, religion, and indeed, part of that is historical misperceptions, bigotry, and racism. Some of THAT is wrapped up in their history, culture, and politics.

There should have been more persuading, more educating, more awareness, and coaxing. But to be fair, many on the Right vehemently thwarted that, and some of that will never, ever work with some of those people and in those subcultures whose substance is built upon a rejection of certain lifestyles or ways of thinking. 

To some degree, that's fine. Except, this is America and they need to catch up to who we actually are, a country of acceptance even the Founding Fathers didn't fully realize the full impact of that. Some, they would go against many today on the right. Some could never come to terms with it because of the climate of the times they lived in. 

But it's up to us to realize how this is at odds with moving forward, and also how they, the Framers and many today stuck in their cemented anachronistic beliefs, need to either get with the program or be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.

Much of this is based in religion, the religious Right, Christian Nationalists, and others pushing what should remain private. Enjoy your beliefs, just leave others alone. We're not all theists or at your level of devotion. THAT's America!  So let's not be doing this and let's return to "your religion is private". Stop being so aggro. Got it? Okay, OK? 

Oklahoma attorney general says state schools superintendent cannot mandate students watch prayer video

This dovetails very well with my long-held overly reasonable belief that we need to stop with the "In God We Trust" nonsense everwhere, certainly as our American motto, and return to our original, "Out of Many, One" (E Pluribus Unum), for what is truly inclusive and doesn't lead to abuse of others. As we see today. As we see in these anti-"other people" movements by the Right. I don't want to get down against the religious. I want them to have their lives. Just as the rest of us want to.

Here are several key points one can make on these issues of being anti-LGBTQ+:

Diversity and Inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals and workers are an integral part of society, and their diverse perspectives, talents, and contributions enrich our communities. Media representation and legal protections enable LGBTQ+ individuals to be recognized, respected, and included, fostering a more inclusive and accepting society for everyone.

1. Human Rights: LGBTQ+ rights are human rights. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity, equality, and fairness, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. Discrimination and erasure based on these factors undermine the fundamental principles of human rights and deny LGBTQ+ individuals their inherent worth and value.
2. Mental Health and Well-being: LGBTQ+ individuals have historically faced higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidality, due to societal stigma and marginalization. Media representation and legal protections help reduce stigma and create a supportive environment, positively impacting the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals.
3. Authentic Representation: Media plays a powerful role in shaping public perception and attitudes. By portraying diverse LGBTQ+ characters and storylines, media can challenge stereotypes, dispel myths, and promote empathy and understanding. Authentic representation allows LGBTQ+ individuals to see themselves reflected positively and helps foster greater acceptance and support within society.
4. Freedom and Autonomy: Everyone has the right to live their lives authentically, free from societal pressure and discrimination. Restricting LGBTQ+ representation and rights infringes upon their freedom of expression, personal autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. Upholding these freedoms is crucial for a just and democratic society.
5. Social Progress: Over the years, societies worldwide have made significant progress in recognizing LGBTQ+ rights and equality. Rolling back these advancements would not only perpetuate injustice but also hinder societal progress as a whole. Inclusivity and acceptance lead to stronger and more vibrant communities where everyone can thrive.
6. Economic Benefits: Embracing diversity and inclusivity has economic benefits. Studies consistently demonstrate that LGBTQ+-friendly policies and environments attract and retain top talent, stimulate innovation, and contribute to economic growth. By embracing LGBTQ+ individuals, societies can harness their skills, talents, and purchasing power, resulting in a stronger and more prosperous nation.

It's essential to engage in respectful dialogue, providing well-reasoned arguments backed by evidence and personal stories to foster understanding and empathy in the face of opposition.

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Defund What? Who Is America Now?

Defund the police? Well, not really. BUT, it' makes the point and that's what was needed. A few things need to be defunded. Like the GOP. The NRA. But police?

Let me see if I can briefly break this down. 

Pres. Reagan first defunded social services and many of our mental health institutions to the point of breaking our nation, dumping all that and other services...and redistributing them elsewhere. Like on police, jails, and prisons. Overwhelming them to the point of dysfunction. 

Ensuing from that damage, death, social destruction lasting decades. 

To be fair, many of our mental institutions were broken since forever, in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. But in typical Republican conservative style austerity thinking, what Reagan did brought us to here, today. In having not just broken further, but entirely eliminating some very necessary resources. 

Rather than rebuilding them, rebuilding our mental health services, and too many other social services. All because they are what? Socialism? 

Give me a break. Yes, police need all the money they have and more. But also... their methodologies are old, tired, tried, tested, and bad. Many of their current, forced services desperately need to be broken down, replaced, redistributed to those departments in government who most need them. 

So they can actually be functional, and useful to American citizens. What this all means and needs IS a breaking down and rebuilding, reorienting, redistributing and reinventing in order to be functional. To actually and properly do the jobs they are mandated to do. 

To bring back services to those who can do them, who ARE well trained to do them. With new information from these past decades as we have learned so very much. Yet not simply reopen these services and yet again let ignorant lawmakers decide how they should function. But turn the power over to those who actually know what they are doing. 

As with healthcare where insurance companies, legislators try to manage, dictate a doctor's intimate knowledge of their client, with their medical services, when only the doctor can do that, with their client, whom we used to designate as "patient", we need to get back to being functional again. 

We have learned much these past decades about things the average American citizen, simply has not. And perhaps reasonably so. People are judging things now on very old information that has seeped into the mainstream. Or bad information they got from very stupid articles on the internet leading laypeople to think they know something. When surely they do not. 

America's' biggest problem? A lack of funding for necessary programs. And an end to Democrats trying to fix a system broken so very much by Republican actions. Some from very long ago. Why are we still trying to fix what isn't broken, but unnecessary? Or simply nonexistent?

All while most Republican legislators seem to have no idea what America really needs. We need to stop trying to fix what cannot be fixed. To rebuild what we truly need. Not by eliminating it! But by wisely and effectively rebuilding an infrastructure to protect, to SERVE all and not just some American citizens. 

Why can we not seem to fix our problems? 

Because we keep trying to fix what was purposely broken and long ago purposefully set on a destructive path. We need to see where this is the case, and then...dismantle it and rebuild it. We can do it!

Americans. How do we alter our path? Sometimes it can start with something very simple. Compassion, over anger. (see, How to change anyone's mind)

On another thread, we're really not all so different as studies have proven. We just seem to enjoy acting like children, and masturbating our minds to whatever strokes out fancy. 

500+ Person “America In One Room” Deliberative Polling Experiment Shows Dramatic Shifts Toward Centrist Policies Among Both Republican & Democratic Voters.

Representative Sampling of American Electorate Underwent Three Days of Briefings & Discussion on Immigration, Healthcare, Foreign Policy, Environment, & Economy; Just-Released Results Demonstrate Major Opinion Changes on Top 2020 Policies Like Medicare for All, Universal Basic Income, Immigration Restrictions, & More. Here's eve a video about it. 

Consider this as if nothing else, a thought experiment. From here forward whenever talking to others, especially Trump supporters, every single time you mention "Donald Trump", or worse, "Pres. Trump", whenever you mention that man's name, hang your head, sadly shake it "no", before lifting it with tears in your eyes.

Keep doing it until these delusional, once Republican. hopefully, still, American citizens, get the point and begin to see what they have blocked from both their eyes and minds so they will start to at least WANT to return to a social tract of reality, decency, and intelligence. 

Do NOT be afraid to use the word "social" so they can stop being so terrified of a single, simple word that only means them and us, together. 

Just as America was once not about a divided people under some confused beliefs in "God", rather a single America built of "E Pluribus Unum"...America..."Out of many, ONE"! Our real and ACTUAL American Motto. 

Because THAT is who we ARE, like it or NOT!

Enough of this idiocy. The criminal Republican profit over any or all or what it costs all others but them. The criminal Trump presidency, criminal Donald Trump, and his now criminal friends, a band growing day by day with him at the center. Enough of the GOP embracing fringe nut groups like QAnon. Enough already! ENOUGH!

America has had it! 

WE have ALL had ENOUGH!  

A Few Things About Liberalism

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving Day! And holiday weekend!

Update:

Irish and Thanksgiving

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program:

Yeah, apparently I'm writing a political blog now. I really don't want to be. I have other things to do, that I'm doing. But this current administration is bent. Started that way and got worse. So between being reticent to check the latest news, minute by excruciating minute, I'm still trying to get some work done.

Quick update, then down to business...I have finished a short horror film titled, The Rapping. I've submitted it to some film festivals around the world. I'm reviewing my screenplay, The Teenage Bodyguard for a script consultant meeting Tuesday (Jen Grisanti if you're curious). I have to quickly make up a trailer for, The Rapping this coming week. I need to start filming a new project with the notorious Dragon Boxer. Then some more audiobook production. Not feeling bored.

Okay. Now. Moving on....

Something for the conservative mind to digest...I've never much liked the term liberal. It gives the wrong impression and opponents something to incorrectly dig against.

And yes, there's some weird liberals out there. There are some weird ones out there in every group.

Conservatives love to claim their lineage to the 1776 declaration of the founding of American ideas and liberty, equality, fraternity as the French did in their 1789 revolution.

Modern American conservatism is a travesty of the original and has lost its way. Look it up sometime. it will surprise you.

I feel I'm a progressive because to be conservative is to go toward or desire what is backward.

Standing still takes you backward, maintaining a status quo, it takes you backward, not leaving you to remain in place. It's the biggest fallacy in modern American conservationism.

To move forward, to be progressive, to progress, is how one maintains a status quo which conservatives proclaim to want so badly. MAGA and all that nationalist crap is just that, crap.

But even then, it changes. So they are being delusional. Ignoring reality as they do so well.

There is no achievable status quo. To think otherwise is a delusion, much like time is.

"Liberal" comes from liberty. Not "in large or generous amounts. In a way that is not precise or strictly literal; loosely." It does NOT refer to loose, lazy, ignorant, as many conservatives mistakenly believe.

Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man).’ The original sense was ‘suitable for a free man,’ hence ‘suitable for a gentleman’ (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts . Another early sense, ‘generous’ (sense 4 of the adjective), gave rise to an obsolete meaning ‘free from restraint,’ leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).

Liberal Arts - liberal, as distinct from servile or mechanical (i.e., involving manual labor) and originally referring to arts and sciences considered “worthy of a free man”; later the word related to general intellectual development rather than vocational training.

"General intellectual development" and conservatives for some reason hate "liberals". Just confusion and needing someone to lay blame on.

Lack of enough citizens with a liberal arts education may be part of our American problem. And conservatives appear to hate education, love to defund it, avoid it, argue against it. We hear the term "college stupid" even from many conservatives for decades now.

That, is embarrassing. For America.

The main argument against that is, "Not everyone needs college. What's wrong with vocational school?" Nothing. That's a pivot to a non sequitur as usual. It's disingenuous. It's reacting to a person self-esteem issue for those who didn't get or want a higher education. And so want others to be, or feel to them, to be equal to them. In America, we should all be seen as equal but those same people, many of them, see others and less equal to them at the same time: minorities, ethnics, the poor, immigrants.

I've never had a problem with respect and acknowledging someone else is more than me. I don't argue about something I know less about than someone else whose job that is or has expertise in it. Unless, they are purposefully or ignorantly being disingenuous, or lying for their own benefit against that of others. A typical Republican party tactic anymore.

"The 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States founded the nascent republic on liberal principles without the encumbrance of hereditary aristocracy—the declaration stated that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness",[1] echoing John Locke's phrase "life, liberty, and property". A few years later, the French Revolution overthrew the hereditary aristocracy, with the slogan "liberty, equality, fraternity" and was the first state in history to grant universal male suffrage. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, first codified in 1789 in France, is a foundational document of both liberalism and human rights."

"But Democracy, this is a Republic!. The Democratic party is not American." Really. Thomas Jefferson started the Democratic-Republican party for a reason. Republicanism itself was an American reaction not to Liberals but monarchies.

Democratic-Republican Party, originally (1792–98) Republican Party, first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825. It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party.
During the two administrations of President George Washington (1789–97), many former Anti-Federalists—who had resisted adoption of the new federal Constitution (1787)—began to unite in opposition to the fiscal program of Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury. After Hamilton and other proponents of a strong central government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution formed the Federalist Party in 1791, those who favoured states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution rallied under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, who had served as Washington’s first secretary of state. Jefferson’s supporters, deeply influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution (1789), first adopted the name Republican to emphasize their antimonarchical views. The Republicans contended that the Federalists harboured aristocratic attitudes and that their policies placed too much power in the central government and tended to benefit the affluent at the expense of the common man. Although the Federalists soon branded Jefferson’s followers “Democratic-Republicans,” attempting to link them with the excesses of the French Revolution, the Republicans officially adopted the derisive label in 1798. The Republican coalition supported France in the European war that broke out in 1792, while the Federalists supported Britain (see French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars). The Republicans’ opposition to Britain unified the faction through the 1790s and inspired them to fight against the Federalist-sponsored Jay Treaty (1794) and the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798).

American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral absolutism, free markets and free trade, anti-communism, individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense ...

I could go on about how conservatism is a defective form of political thought. And this is not as mistakenly believed, a pure republic.

Traditions need change to survive. And they do. Many just do not realize that.

Judeo-Christian values...don't get me started on that. Moral absolutism is a childish form of morality, the rest of the definition just goes into things conservative give lip service to but really aren't concerned with.

Individualism? Why pro life then? American exceptions have led us to nationalism, not patriotism. On and on.

All the rest of the noise from the right, is just that.

Noise, and distraction.

Sanity in TV Shows

I love progressive shows like The West Wing (which may come back!). It makes you wonder why conservatives shows aren't popular. Or all that useful other than for conservative to feel all touchy feely kind of theistic goodness. Fine. But we live in a harsh world where we need to be feeling bad when we should, not feeling good and ignoring reality.

Being conservatives doesn't push us boldly prepared into the future. It walks us slowly sometimes backward, tentatively into a perceived frightening future instead. It's interesting to note what conservatives and liberals like to watch on TV. From the article:

Carlson said there wasn't much of an overlap when it came to liberal and conservative television preferences. There were only three shows that liberals and conservatives both seemed to enjoy equally: "Dancing with the Stars," "Star Trek: Discovery," and "The Orville."

Carlson pointed out that these shows "don't necessarily have a political flavor," and suggested that probably had a lot to do with why liberals and conservatives both enjoyed them.

"Dancing and space — these are the things that unite our country," Carlson said.

Pure Genius (originally, Bunker Hill) was another show proposing change in a new and positive way. Of course it didn't last long,

We need shows that no matter how ridiculous they seem to some, at least try to tell us, to show us, how we can do things better. Proposing change in positive directions, technologies we don't yet know about, considerations of a future not devoid of happiness that gives us hope. Even if only for an hour or a half hour at a time.

We need shows that rail against a broken status quo, delve into possibility, suggest new realities. This isn't about any one show, just about a type of show in general who offer us hope, and possibilities.

That being said, a new show, New Amsterdam is in just that vein and I look forward to it. Give us more. Its preview this week was perfect in that way, pleasantly cathartic. No matter how ridiculous it may be it raises one's hope.

Until... reality once again seeps too quickly back in as one to think again of our current world, our broken Congress, Supreme Court and presidency. As ongoing efforts from within and without continue to further cripple our government, our broken political parties, and ourselves.

Our new reality is the world at large staring back in shock at us with frightened curiosity for where our lost and supposed protectors will take us next in their dismantling our governmental protections,  befriending our enemies against us, all merely for their own profit, power and self benefit, all while trying to convince us it is all for our protection. But we're really not that stupid. Yes, some see disaster and conspiracy at every turn, but it has to be based in reality and information. Trust. Real Truth.

And now we have Murphy Brown back. A once top popular comedy from the 90s steeped in politics and reality, they are back at a time when we most need a severe and constant dose of reality, and some decent sense of humor. Maybe they will fail, but I hope not. Because we could really use some biting satire, some not always so gentle humor to help us plough through the day, much like Stephen Colbert does for me now on a nightly basis. Perhaps they should consult with Colbert or Jon Stewart?

Our broken status quo is only getting worse as confused and lost supporters of this feigned American conservative regime continues to dissemble and damage all they can before we take them out to the back forty and lose them there...hopefully forever.

After this week with the Judge Kavanaugh disastrous hearing (for Republicans) we could use a break. But Pres. Trump seldom lets up, trying to exhaust us so we will simply stop paying attention and let him do anything he wants.

Luckily, the US government legal system is not forgetting about Pres Trump,

And neither it would seem (finally) are progressive TV shows.

New White House Petition - GPO to Account for Financial Losses Due to Donald Trump's Mistakes

On April 4, 2018 a new petition was created on Petitions.WhiteHouse.gov.

First off, this isn't about the petition itself. But go, sign it. Tell your friends, get them to sigh this.
So if its not about the petition, why sign it? Because, it's about making noise. Calling Trump to account for his juvenile, unpresidential, and damaging actions.

If we got enough people to sign this petition, it would get into the news and that alone could affect some change. Sometimes the smallest of things, affect the biggest of changes. Trump is the type where you have to think outside the box he has boxed us into with our own good nature and decency.

That is how a conman works. We need to outplay him at his own, immature games.

The request was for the Government to account for all the mistakes that President Donald Trump makes and to monthly publicly account for that in numbers.

America cannot have a POTUS who makes that many mistakes and many are costly real people real money. He is costly America real money.

So Go. Sign the petition if you feel so inclined and at least you will know you asked something directly of the White House and Congress to do SOMETHING to curtail Donald Trump's ridiculous and ongoing statements.

It is NOT just embarrassing, it is hurting people. It is hurting us all. He needs to learn to keep his mouth shut until he is 100% sure of what he is saying.

THAT, is being presidential.

GAO to publicly account for how much pres. trump's incorrect tweets and comments cost the government each month.

Pres. Trump simply and obviously makes too many comments that are easily verified to be incorrect. We need to counter that with a reasonable and monthly GAO accounting of what it costs OUR country. This will give Congress a foundation and thereby recourse from which to curb and\or counter Mr. Trump's voluminously misspoken and disinformed statements and diatribes.


#POTUS #realDonaldTrump #GOP #Democrat #Congress #VPOTUS 

Why are we sometimes so stupid when we're just not?

Age and intelligence don't always bring better judgment; this does.

By Adam Grant Ph.D.

First off, this isn't perfect, it's not meant to be. It's meant to provoke thought, to give one a way to perceive a frustrating and confusing issue. To open us up on a topic beyond not ever really even thinking about it all that much. And so we go off....

This is the perceived standard definition of how we understand all the information we take in on a daily basis. This is essentially how people think things work. We take in Information, we understand it as we can in who we are through our Wisdom, and then we end up with Greater Knowledge.

  I + W = GK

But that doesn't quite cover how things actually are. There is a big difference between taking in information (the "I" in the formula) depending on if it is easy to understand, or not that much information. What we see happen all too frequently of late is this form:

  I > W = GK

Information that is more than we can handle, or too complicated, with filtered through, or understood by us using our personal forms of our wisdom, does not give us Greater Knowledge. Rather it gives us confusion, which we ameliorate by rationalizing that we understood enough to make an informed decision, to have an opinion that we can not only share with others, but in many cases, demand is what is really going on. At times, even against all good sense and information to the contrary. 

We watch the news or read something online and believe that we walk away with more than we had to begin with. Now being more informed and not less informed than before we took in the new information.

However, that is not always true. And why is that?

Understand, there are always outiars. But in general as a general rule, this seems to have a good deal of veracity. And the general perception after all, is similar but misconstrued. And that too bears weight on this.

Information that is in quality or quantity (typically both) less than or equal to one’s inherent (learned) wisdom, does usually lead to (or equals) gaining greater knowledge from the input of new information. Whenever we read or view new information, we tend to believe we will walk away more informed.

And yet in considering say, the 2016 US Presidential election, that does not seem to be the case. I've heard many reasons to explain why smart people would make a stupid choice in voting for Donald J. Trump. And they all fall short of explaining just what is happening. And it's happening in a lot of areas, all across the world. 

So what were they thinking? What is happening? What is the common denominator? 

Instant Media, for one thing. We are taking in vast amounts of information now a days and much of it is more complex than many of us realize. Not to mention much of this information is incorrect, unvetted or purposely put out to confuse and misinform. Aside from all that, exactly what is happening?

The issue is the original formula. It's not what is typically at play here. Information is not equal to or less than what we can understand. It is frequently more than we can understand, or just as important, information we have access to enough other relative or related information so that we can give it true context and understanding. 

This form makes it much more usable: 

  I < W = GCK + PF = GK/W

INFORMATION that is in quality (or quantity) less than or equal to one’s inherent WISDOM (or in challenging one’s non verifiable perceptions (i.e., religion)) leads to (or equals) GREATER (or enhanced) COHERENT KNOWLEDGE which is countered or enhanced by one’s PROPER FOUNDATION which equals one’s Wisdom in it also then being undercut or enhanced by the quality of one’s inherent (previously acquired) Wisdom.

And relax, a “proper” foundation does not relate to an Ivy League school or a progressive over conservative or religious education. Typically that IS true, but it just seems like what is going on. A proper foundation (or education) t is actually any one that trains and allows one to think clearly and accurately. 

Obviously an improper foundation is one that trains or allows one’s thinking to be unclear and inaccurate. And yes, that too is up for debate, and mostly incorrectly. But that's another blog entirely. 

What seems to be happening all too frequently and world wide, is this form:

  I > W = LCK + pF = S\W

Too much or too complex (i.e., greater) INFORMATION than one’s inherent WISDOM leads to LESSER COHESIVE KNOWLEDGE which, when added to one’s POOR FOUNDATION then leads to STUPIDITY depending on how one's inherent Wisdom then interprets all that.

You'd be surprised at just how much information we receive on a daily if not hourly, or minute by minute basis, is too much information or too complex information for us to make any sense of at all.

And yet, we think we do understand it and some people delusionally believe they fully understand it. I've talked to more conservatives on that matter, who believed they fully understand things over that of progressives who seem to have a better handle on just how much we do not really understand. 

Getting back to it, information that is less than or equal to one’s inherent Wisdom leads to (or equals) less (or defective) Coherent Knowledge which equals one’s Wisdom being undercut or enhanced by the quality of one’s inherent (or previously learned) wisdom. Not to mention, learning is misunderstood by many. Simple knowing information is not "knowing" knowledge" One has to also correctly and sufficiently understand it. 

If you take in more information than you can handle either due to quantity or complexity (quality), at some point it's simply too hard to understand. Mix that with a typical American (new millennium) or western consideration of what one should be able to do and understand, and this can lead to a perfect storm of misunderstanding.

Consider you are talking to a physicist and he is talking at the top of his understanding. Do you really think you know what he is talking about sufficiently to go out and explain it? Now consider a child explains to you how a tow works that they just made from scratch. Couldn't you normally go out and explain that sufficiently to others? Well that is the situation in a nutshell. 

Merriam-Webster defines stupidity as: 1 "The quality or state of lacking intelligence or quickness of mind." 2 "A stupid act or idea."

In 1976 a Professor at the University of California came up with a set of five rules about stupid people. Carlo M Cipolla.

Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

Cipolla called this one the Golden Law of stupidity. A stupid person, according to the economist, is one who causes problems for others without any clear benefit to himself.

The uncle unable to stop himself from posting fake news articles to Facebook? Stupid. The customer service representative who keeps you on the phone for an hour, hangs up on you twice, and somehow still manages to screw up your account? Stupid.

This law also introduces three other phenotypes that Cipolla says co-exist alongside stupidity. First there is the intelligent person, whose actions benefit both himself and others. Then there is the bandit, who benefits himself at others’ expense. And lastly there is the helpless person, whose actions enrich others at his own expense. Cipolla imagined the four types along a graph, like this:

Basically I have always argued that stupidity is a chosen or selected ignorance. We are all ignorant and I've said for very long that is a noble state of being. We all have ignorance. It's selecting to remain ignorant, especially against all good sense, when you have chosen to remain ignorant and therefore are stupid. We've all seen situations where someone knew better and did something anyway and suffered for it and they were told they were stupid. 

If one believes something one should always be ready to upgrade the quality of a belief. Whenever we are faced with a reason to change and refuse, we have then chosen stupidity over intelligence. Ignorance is then completely off the table, it's gone. Thus, stupidity is a chosen or selected ignorance.

IF however you are stupid by nature, if it is your make up, your DNA at issue, then you have a mental challenge and it is out of your control to make informed decisions. Labeling a person such as that as stupid then is just mean and inaccurate. 

In my view to be stupid requires a conscious decision.

So, what does all that mean? 

In the end it's actually kind of simple...choose not to be stupid. 

Calling for New American Party Mascots

I wonder sometimes if our political party's mascots have any relevance whatsoever to today's world. They are established, traditional, and let's face it, weird.
"In a cartoon that appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion's skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled “The Republican Vote.” That's all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party."

“The Third Term Panic: An ass, having put on the Lion’s skin, roamed about in the forest, and amused himself by frightening all the foolish Animals he met with in his wanderings.” Thomas Nast for Harpers, 1874.
I think we can all agree, the Democrat and Republican mascots have outlived their usefulness. While they may have at one time been effective, when the parties switched their political paths in the late 1800s, the mascots should really have switched with them.
"So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power." Natalie Wolchover - LiveScience.com 9/24/2012

The party of Lincoln, is no longer Lincoln's party. He simply wouldn't recognize it now.
So when Republicans say that, call them out. They're lying, or possibly more reasonably they're simply ignorant. The true mainstay of their party platform, Ignorance.
I'm proposing here however that we just kill them off. The mascots. We could have a big Republican sponsored game hunt. They should love that idea. Right?
My replacement suggestions are a slide for Republicans and a ladder for Democrats. Democrats are always trying to raise us up above the muck and Republicans are always trying to slip us back down into it, unless you have the money to save yourself. Which let's be honest, most of us don't have.
Republicans want things to be easy, not grey but black and white, good vs evil, as children view the world. They view things as simple when usually they are complex. Even if it kills people. Then they point the finger at their opponents, typically Democrats, liberals, progressives... or science.

When they do try to think in complex terms they tend to go in useless directions, spinning up obfuscations, improperly weighted situations, getting nowhere but wasting vast amounts of energy in looking like they are doing something, when they are just spinning their wheels and wasting as well, huge sums of OUR tax dollars with no apparent end in sight or purpose.

Other than self aggrandizement or extending their typically silly if not utterly destructive agendas. Ideologies based in make believe. Make believe frequently based in religion. Religion typically of a Judeo\Christian form. More of the three main defective revealed harsh desert religions from the Middle East.

Democrats however seem always to be trying to progress up to better things. While also sometimes using a slide for a short time...WHEN it just might be useful and helpful, overall it's hard and usually harder for them to do so.

And yet they keep on climbing, keep on trying, though usually too quietly.

While Republicans if they ever even try a ladder, only seem to make it up a step or two and then start in on any distraction they can think of. They don't want to do much, just appear to be doing much. Like a morbidly obese person trying to be distracted from doing exercise. Or in the case of extremist conservatives, to distract from any real thinking or analysis, or from doing any actual work and this is imperative...that they could be held accountable for.

So I give you our new modern political mascots: The Republican Slide and Democratic Ladder!

Now you just have to ask yourself. Which side of the platform do you want to be on?

Purpose of Government is Our Decision

It occurs to me that part of the political issue today between liberals and conservatives, or however people wish to categorize themselves, is that there is a fundemental undercurrent of misunderstanding about the purpose of government in the first place.

Bootie Cosgrove-Mather in an article titled The Purpose Of Government for CBS said:

"Call me old-fashioned, but I still hold with the ancient Greeks who said government has only one purpose, to improve the lives of citizens."

USHistory.org's article The  Purposes of Government says:

"Why do governments exist? One major reason is that they create rules. But what rules are necessary or desirable?"

Originally governments were started to protect the people. Once that is established and effective, government's purpose expands as a natural course of evolution. After having solidified its ability to protect it turns internal, taking on the actions of making the citizenry work more fluidly, enhancing and further protecting the citizens. Making the citizens more productive and enhancing the quality of their lives as a natural and necessary evolution of the purpose of government.

At some point part of the purpose of government is to maintain and protect, the government itself. Then comes a need for balance between the citizens and the government being protected. For the government to protect itself under the mistaken belief that it is more important than the citizens because IT appears to be the citizens, is a confused point of view that has led to entities such as the Soviet Union with it's leadership abuses, Communist China, North Korea, and so on.

It is not unlike the need in a company or corporation, for balance between security and business. Perfect security denies all business. Perfect business eliminates security. Too much of one destroys the other, just as too little of one can destroy the other. 

It is a balance. Just as our Founding Fathers understood and so built into the United States of America, appropriate checks and balances. In protecting the people from the government and the government branches from one another the society as a whole is protected from and within itself. 

When the initial elements of protecting the citizens and the government have been accomplished, and the basic elements involved in enhancing citizen's productivity and quality of life are in place, it is only natural that the government, as strong as it  should be by this point, would continue to strive to find more and better ways to enhancement society. Without getting in the way of the citizens needs and desires and to continue to find new ways to be more productive for the citizens in its attempt always to be considering enhancements to its purpose as time marches on.

That means that government needs to protect the citizens, the individual units from large collectives such as citizen groups and businesses and corporations. It means that rather than allowing itself to be propped up by big money, it recognizes that and takes steps to fix itself, continuing to protect its citizenry.

From time to time any entity needs to reflect, to reevaluate its original purpose, to review if that is truly what it is still doing. By that concept, people should not be working more hours for less, but less hours for more. They should be paying less for more and better healthcare.

If at some point the care by the government reaches the pinnacle of no one needing to work, because they have finally been freed up to do what they wish, it is not for others who think work is the only way to live, to judge and apply their beliefs onto others. If and when the government should be able to support that.

If the government is on that path and at some point it changes direction, someone needs to look to see why that is happening, who or what caused it, and how to get back on track. 

When people have reached a point that they no longer have to work, or even more so, no longer have to work in jobs they find despicable, it doesn't mean people will no longer need to work but that our orientation as a nation has morphed into allowing people to find what they enjoy doing and pursue that. Be it in the arts, sciences, labor force, or what have you.

My personal belief is that work enhances people's lives. If one is doing the right work for who they are.

Not however the kind of work many of us are currently being forced to do now a days. Not the stress and numbers of hours required per week for a family to be able to support themselves. Not the need of some families who have to have two jobs, three, four or five jobs when there was once a time when only one person needed to have a job to support their family. When they didn't have to work unreasonable days each week if not all, and too many hours per day.

We should not be working more than eight hours a day, more than five days a week and yet, many of us are. We have been hearing how we are slackers, lazy if we don't work twelve hour days five, days a week.

Yet we should be striving hard toward working less days and hours per week. We should be striving toward four day work weeks, six hour days. We should be working half days at full pay so two people could do the work of what one person is doing now. Those are directions, goals, we should be considering, working toward.

People may scoff at that contention. But they scoff because of how things are, not because of how things could be. The reason things cannot be that way now is because of how big money has brainwashed us all to think it's not possible. All while corporations and the very wealthy syphon off all the money so there is so very little left for the masses. 

We have to decide first, just what do we want the purpose of our government to be?

Then we can make that happen.