From The Pilot
By Andrew Soboeiro - Wednesday, August 11, 2010
"Read my lips: No new taxes!" the first George Bush proclaimed to an ecstatic Republican National Convention.
Conservative Republicans, galvanized by their candidate's commitment to small government, voted their candidate into the White House, where he proceeded to sign one of the largest tax hikes in history. Bush is now remembered as a hypocrite, a failure and a traitor to the conservative movement.
Yet Bush's hypocrisy was by no means anomalous. Bush followed in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, a man who lauded the virtues of a free market that he wouldn't allow to exist. Reagan massively increased military spending while failing to cut social spending, creating a massive deficit, the beginning of our modern debt crisis.
Intent on protecting American industry from foreign competition, Reagan raised tariff rates and set import quotas. Free-market economist Sheldon Richman called him "the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover." And, contrary to legend, Reagan did not cut taxes; he shifted them, lowering one tax as he raised another, so that tax revenues as a percentage of national income remained largely unchanged from 1980 to 1989.
So why do capitalists remember Reagan so fondly and Bush so terribly, if both presidents hypocritically expanded government? Because the economy performed well under Reagan and poorly under Bush. After sustaining a severe recession from 1981-1982, the American economy recovered dramatically, and the '80s became a period of prosperity.
Shortly after Bush entered office, however, financial chaos connected to the savings-and-loan crisis contributed to a global economic slowdown. Reagan did not cause the prosperity of the '80s (most of the credit goes to the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker, a Democrat), and Bush cannot be blamed for the contractions of a global economy. But Reagan is still associated with prosperity, and Bush with poverty.
By emphasizing Reagan's free-market rhetoric and downplaying his big-government policy, capitalists can associate laissez-faire with prosperity in the public mind. By emphasizing Bush's policies and downplaying his rhetoric, capitalists can associate big government with destitution.
Capitalists, incidentally, have no objections to big government. Government has been an active player in the growth of corporations since the industrial revolution, and our economy is built on government subsidy and regulation.
So if government is so essential to our economy, why all the laissez-faire rhetoric? Corporations can use free-market rhetoric as a weapon against social spending. Government intervention is fine when it means corporate subsidies and protections. But if the government wants to give welfare to the poor, pass environmental laws, or provide universal health care, it has stepped out of line.
Afraid of competing with a public option, the executives of Blue Cross and Blue Shield preach that "the government that governs best governs least." But when the executives want to send their kids to public schools, drive on public roads, retire and collect Social Security, they somehow manage to forget the virtues of limited government.
Capitalists have used this double standard to shape the modern conservative movement. The tea party movement is an excellent example of capitalist philosophy in action.
Tea partiers have impugned President Obama as a "Nazi-communist" because of his health care reform, stimulus package and bailouts. Yet polls show that tea partiers hold a favorable view of George W. Bush, who expanded government more than any of his predecessors, and of Sarah Palin, who would like to massively expand the military-industrial complex through war with Iran.
Tea partiers' views on specific issues are even more telling: They vehemently oppose big government, except when that big government is necessary to invade Iran, occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, pay for Medicare and Social Security, provide public education, build and maintain public roads, actively deport illegal immigrants and execute criminals.
There is a viable alternative to big government: anarchism. Anarchists call for the abolition of the state, envisioning a society run by direct democracy and cooperative economics.
Anarchist theories are actually quite viable; cooperatives have been very successful within our society, and could very well function on a large scale. But anarchism also requires abolishing capitalism, corporations and private property. Conservatives, enamored with their ideals of entrepreneurship and the profit motive, are loathe to consider such a society.
But unless conservatives can embrace the principles of common ownership and cooperation, the conservative movement will remain as it is: committed always to big government for the rich and apathy for the poor.
Andrew Soboeiro is a rising senior at Pinecrest High School.
Moore Progressive
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Chicken Little and the Socialists
From The Pilot
By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, August 8, 2010
An old fable, updated: One day, Chicken Little was out for his walk when an acorn fell from a tree and hit him on the head. Chicken Little was a very silly chicken, so he immediately thought the worst.
"The sky is falling!" he screamed. "I have to go tell someone!"
So Chicken Little ran and ran until he came upon Foxy Loxy.
"Where are you going so fast, Chicken Little?" said Foxy Loxy.
"The sky is falling!" Chicken Little said. "I have to go tell someone!"
"Why don't you go on my television network?" said Foxy Loxy. "You can tell everyone that the sky is falling. And get your friend Henny Penny to go on the radio, and your friend Goosey Lucy to start a blog. Tell the people that the sky is falling, and that it's all the president's fault. He and all his socialist buddies."
"What's a socialist?" Chicken Little asked.
"Who cares?" Foxy Loxy said. "It sounds bad, and people are afraid of it."
"Well..."
"How about if I pay you a lot of money?" Foxy Loxy said.
"Why didn't you say so before?" said Chicken Little.
So Chicken Little called Henny Penny and Goosey Lucy, and they all started going around on TV and radio and the Internet, insisting that, not only was the sky falling, but that it was all the fault of the President and the socialists.
Chicken Little often broke down in tears on camera because, he said, he was so afraid for the country. People were badly frightened, but they kept tuning in. They often sent the things they heard to everyone they knew via e-mail, so the fear continued to spread.
One day, Chicken Little went to visit Foxy Loxy.
"Some people are beginning to say that the sky isn't falling after all," he complained.
"Looks like someone's drunk the Kool-Aid." Foxy Loxy laughed.
"What?" Chicken Little said.
"It's just a meaningless expression," Foxy Loxy explained. "You say it when anyone says the sky's not really falling."
"Some people are saying I was just hit on the head by an acorn."
"That's part of the liberal media conspiracy," Foxy Loxy said. "You can't believe anything they say."
"But if the sky is falling," Chicken Little asked. "Why aren't we all dead?"
"Chicken Little," Foxy Loxy said, "Do you like getting your paycheck?"
"Sure," Chicken Little answered.
"Do you really think there's any money in telling people the sky is NOT falling?"
"I guess you're right," Chicken Little said. "But aren't there other things we can scare people with?"
Foxy Loxy looked suspicious. "Like what?"
"Like I heard that there are people who are making big messes and poisoning the water and the air. And some other big companies are cheating people of their money."
"Chicken Little," Foxy Loxy said patiently, "Those people are big advertisers on my TV network. If you make people afraid of them, they might demand that the government do something about it. If the government does that, they'll make less money. If they make less money...."
"We'll make less money?" Chicken Little said.
"Exactly. And only a socialist would want something like that to happen. You're not a socialist, are you?"
"Heck, no!" Chicken Little said. "I don't even know what that is!"
"Very good," Foxy Loxy said. "So what do we tell the people?"
"The sky is falling. And it's the president's fault. Him and the socialists."
"That's my boy," said Foxy Loxy. "Now get out there and spread that fear."
So they all got back to work telling everyone that the socialists and the president were all part of a big conspiracy that was making the sky fall. Anyone who tried to say different was told they were Kool-Aid drinking socialists. And they all got rich and lived happily ever after.
Well, Chicken Little and his friends did, at least. Everyone who listened to them spent all their time being scared and angry and mistrustful, afraid that the sky was falling.
But, of course, it never did.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.
By Dusty Rhoades - Sunday, August 8, 2010
An old fable, updated: One day, Chicken Little was out for his walk when an acorn fell from a tree and hit him on the head. Chicken Little was a very silly chicken, so he immediately thought the worst.
"The sky is falling!" he screamed. "I have to go tell someone!"
So Chicken Little ran and ran until he came upon Foxy Loxy.
"Where are you going so fast, Chicken Little?" said Foxy Loxy.
"The sky is falling!" Chicken Little said. "I have to go tell someone!"
"Why don't you go on my television network?" said Foxy Loxy. "You can tell everyone that the sky is falling. And get your friend Henny Penny to go on the radio, and your friend Goosey Lucy to start a blog. Tell the people that the sky is falling, and that it's all the president's fault. He and all his socialist buddies."
"What's a socialist?" Chicken Little asked.
"Who cares?" Foxy Loxy said. "It sounds bad, and people are afraid of it."
"Well..."
"How about if I pay you a lot of money?" Foxy Loxy said.
"Why didn't you say so before?" said Chicken Little.
So Chicken Little called Henny Penny and Goosey Lucy, and they all started going around on TV and radio and the Internet, insisting that, not only was the sky falling, but that it was all the fault of the President and the socialists.
Chicken Little often broke down in tears on camera because, he said, he was so afraid for the country. People were badly frightened, but they kept tuning in. They often sent the things they heard to everyone they knew via e-mail, so the fear continued to spread.
One day, Chicken Little went to visit Foxy Loxy.
"Some people are beginning to say that the sky isn't falling after all," he complained.
"Looks like someone's drunk the Kool-Aid." Foxy Loxy laughed.
"What?" Chicken Little said.
"It's just a meaningless expression," Foxy Loxy explained. "You say it when anyone says the sky's not really falling."
"Some people are saying I was just hit on the head by an acorn."
"That's part of the liberal media conspiracy," Foxy Loxy said. "You can't believe anything they say."
"But if the sky is falling," Chicken Little asked. "Why aren't we all dead?"
"Chicken Little," Foxy Loxy said, "Do you like getting your paycheck?"
"Sure," Chicken Little answered.
"Do you really think there's any money in telling people the sky is NOT falling?"
"I guess you're right," Chicken Little said. "But aren't there other things we can scare people with?"
Foxy Loxy looked suspicious. "Like what?"
"Like I heard that there are people who are making big messes and poisoning the water and the air. And some other big companies are cheating people of their money."
"Chicken Little," Foxy Loxy said patiently, "Those people are big advertisers on my TV network. If you make people afraid of them, they might demand that the government do something about it. If the government does that, they'll make less money. If they make less money...."
"We'll make less money?" Chicken Little said.
"Exactly. And only a socialist would want something like that to happen. You're not a socialist, are you?"
"Heck, no!" Chicken Little said. "I don't even know what that is!"
"Very good," Foxy Loxy said. "So what do we tell the people?"
"The sky is falling. And it's the president's fault. Him and the socialists."
"That's my boy," said Foxy Loxy. "Now get out there and spread that fear."
So they all got back to work telling everyone that the socialists and the president were all part of a big conspiracy that was making the sky fall. Anyone who tried to say different was told they were Kool-Aid drinking socialists. And they all got rich and lived happily ever after.
Well, Chicken Little and his friends did, at least. Everyone who listened to them spent all their time being scared and angry and mistrustful, afraid that the sky was falling.
But, of course, it never did.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.
Lots of Misinformation on the Stimulus
From The Pilot
By Kevin Smith - Sunday, August 8, 2010
Tuesday, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma held a press conference to introduce their list of the 100 biggest boondoggles of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The report, titled "Summertime Blues," is intended to expose the federal stimulus as just another example of irresponsible government spending. Republi-cans refer to the ARRA as "the $800 billion stimulus that didn't stimulate anything." The word "bailout" spits out like an obscenity from people who regard any interaction between government and business as unsavory.
We are so conditioned to be wary of the perils of anti-recessionary government spending that it's easy to miss the benefits that are all around us - a local auto dealership that can stay open and keep its brand, a teacher who was laid off and then rehired before missing a day of school or a homeowner who is able to avoid foreclosure.
The fact is that the Recovery Act has had a significant effect on jobs in North Carolina. According to Edwin McLenaghan, a policy analyst at the N.C. Budget and Tax Center, 90,000 jobs were saved or created in North Carolina because of the ARRA.
"The more than $2 billion in aid from the federal government was critical for keeping our teachers, police officers, firefighters and health-care workers on the job in our communities," McLenaghan said. "It has also kept the state from cutting millions of dollars in contracts with hard-hit private companies that may otherwise have laid off thousands of additional workers."
Richard Burr denounced the stimulus on Fox News, declaring, "This isn't a stimulus package, it's a spending package." More recently, however, our senior senator was able to overcome his disdain for the spending package long enough to deliver $2,008,515 of ARRA funds to the fire department in Bethlehem, N.C., for a new fire station.
Coburn was more gracious in allowing, "There is no question that this stimulus bill has had a positive effect on the economy to a certain degree."
In fact, a study published by former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder estimates that "there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation."
That's a considerable "degree."
Coburn continued, "What our criticism is, it could have had far greater effect." Coburn claims that his study exposes some 300 programs amounting to about $15 billion of wasteful spending money. If all their claims were valid, it would amount to slightly less than two tenths of a percent of the stimulus.
All their claims are not valid.
Already No. 2 on their list, a UNC Charlotte project to develop a choreography software program had to be removed when CNN discovered the report had its facts wrong. Similarly a Wake Forest University "study of cocaine-addicted monkeys" sounds outlandish - way more so than studying how cocaine and alcohol affect a key transmitter in the brain, called glutamate, in order to determine how those substances change a brain.
Studying the effect of yoga on menopausal women seems frivolous - unless you consider that for millions of women, including three million breast cancer survivors, traditional hormone therapy is not an option for treating hot flashes. The boondoggles attributed to our state dissappear in the light of day.
It is a useful thing to expose and eliminate waste, but there's less to the Summertime Blues report than meets the eye. Much of the report will be discredited, but the report has already achieved the headlines it intended.
If McCain and Coburn supported the ARRA, they'd be crowing about the incredible efficiency of a federal program with less than .2 percent waste. Instead, their report fosters the impression that the stimulus glass is three quarters empty - even when it's 99.8 percent full.
Kevin Smith lives in Aberdeen. Contact him at kevinasmith@gmx.com.
By Kevin Smith - Sunday, August 8, 2010
Tuesday, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma held a press conference to introduce their list of the 100 biggest boondoggles of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The report, titled "Summertime Blues," is intended to expose the federal stimulus as just another example of irresponsible government spending. Republi-cans refer to the ARRA as "the $800 billion stimulus that didn't stimulate anything." The word "bailout" spits out like an obscenity from people who regard any interaction between government and business as unsavory.
We are so conditioned to be wary of the perils of anti-recessionary government spending that it's easy to miss the benefits that are all around us - a local auto dealership that can stay open and keep its brand, a teacher who was laid off and then rehired before missing a day of school or a homeowner who is able to avoid foreclosure.
The fact is that the Recovery Act has had a significant effect on jobs in North Carolina. According to Edwin McLenaghan, a policy analyst at the N.C. Budget and Tax Center, 90,000 jobs were saved or created in North Carolina because of the ARRA.
"The more than $2 billion in aid from the federal government was critical for keeping our teachers, police officers, firefighters and health-care workers on the job in our communities," McLenaghan said. "It has also kept the state from cutting millions of dollars in contracts with hard-hit private companies that may otherwise have laid off thousands of additional workers."
Richard Burr denounced the stimulus on Fox News, declaring, "This isn't a stimulus package, it's a spending package." More recently, however, our senior senator was able to overcome his disdain for the spending package long enough to deliver $2,008,515 of ARRA funds to the fire department in Bethlehem, N.C., for a new fire station.
Coburn was more gracious in allowing, "There is no question that this stimulus bill has had a positive effect on the economy to a certain degree."
In fact, a study published by former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder estimates that "there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation."
That's a considerable "degree."
Coburn continued, "What our criticism is, it could have had far greater effect." Coburn claims that his study exposes some 300 programs amounting to about $15 billion of wasteful spending money. If all their claims were valid, it would amount to slightly less than two tenths of a percent of the stimulus.
All their claims are not valid.
Already No. 2 on their list, a UNC Charlotte project to develop a choreography software program had to be removed when CNN discovered the report had its facts wrong. Similarly a Wake Forest University "study of cocaine-addicted monkeys" sounds outlandish - way more so than studying how cocaine and alcohol affect a key transmitter in the brain, called glutamate, in order to determine how those substances change a brain.
Studying the effect of yoga on menopausal women seems frivolous - unless you consider that for millions of women, including three million breast cancer survivors, traditional hormone therapy is not an option for treating hot flashes. The boondoggles attributed to our state dissappear in the light of day.
It is a useful thing to expose and eliminate waste, but there's less to the Summertime Blues report than meets the eye. Much of the report will be discredited, but the report has already achieved the headlines it intended.
If McCain and Coburn supported the ARRA, they'd be crowing about the incredible efficiency of a federal program with less than .2 percent waste. Instead, their report fosters the impression that the stimulus glass is three quarters empty - even when it's 99.8 percent full.
Kevin Smith lives in Aberdeen. Contact him at kevinasmith@gmx.com.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Conservatives Unveil a New Secret Weapon
From The Pilot
HOST: Good evening, and welcome to “Amazing Inventions.” I’m your host, Lana Lagniappe. Our guest tonight is is Dr. Dietrich Telefunken, and he’ll be explaining his latest creation.
TELEFUNKEN: Thank you, Lana. As you may know, the media is overrun with liberal terrorist-loving scum who hate America.
HOST: I’m not sure I know anything of the kind...
TELEFUNKEN: Since true conservative patriots are always outnumbered by the evil liberals trying to silence them, I have developed something to offset the numerical imbalance. I present to you, the Wingbot 5000.
HOST: It looks like some sort of robot.
WINGBOT 5000: I am not a robot. Liberals are the real robots.
HOST: It talks!
TELEFUNKEN: It does more than talk! Thanks to its advanced conservative programming, it is a match for any liberal in any debate.
HOST: How does it work?
TELEFUNKEN: It responds to certain keywords with arguments from the best conservative thinkers. Try it. Give it an issue.
HOST: OK. How about taxes?
WINGBOT 5000: Americans are being taxed into the poorhouse.
HOST: But isn’t it true that the majority of Americans have gotten a tax cut in the last couple of years?
WINGBOT 5000: I refudiate that.
HOST: Did you say “refudiate”?
WINGBOT 5000: Yes.
HOST: I don’t think that’s a word. It’s not in the dictionary.
WINGBOT 5000: The dictionary has a liberal bias. Sarah Palin used the word, and that’s good enough for real non-elite Americans.
HOST: Heh. It sounds like she’s channeling George Bush.
WINGBOT 5000: When is Barack Obama going to stop blaming the previous administration and take the blame for anything?
TELEFUNKEN: That’s fine, Wingbot. Try another issue, Ms. Lagniappe.
HOST: OK. How about racism?
WINGBOT 5000: I’m not racist. It’s you liberal elites who are racist. Why don’t you talk about how racist the NAACP is? The Sherrod case proves it.
HOST: How? They were so sensitive to charges of racism that they denounced Sherrod immediately. They were wrong about her, and they had to apologize, but how does that make them racist?
WINGBOT 5000: Bzzzz.... Blurp....
HOST: It never answers my questions!
TELEFUNKEN: Try another issue.
HOST: Well ... OK. How about global climate change?
WINGBOT 5000: Al Gore said he invented the Internet. Ha. Ha. Ha.
HOST: That story’s not even true.
WINGBOT 5000: How dare you say I’m lying. You’re trying to repress my First Amendment rights. This is another example of why you liberals are the real fascists.
HOST: This is getting ridiculous.
WINGBOT 5000: It’s liberals like you who are ridiculous. Why can you not make a point without name-calling?
HOST: Are you kidding? You’ve done nothing but call people names!
TELEFUNKEN: So?
HOST: So you said it could argue! It doesn’t put forth any arguments! All it does is throw out random insults.
WINGBOT 5000: It’s liberals who are really the ones who throw out random insults.
HOST: It’s doing it again! Turn it off.
WINGBOT 5000: Repression! Fascism! Second Amendment remedies! Jeremiah Wright! Where’s the birth certificate? Tony Rezko! Muslim! Muslim! Media elite! Refudiate! Refudiate!
HOST: Make it stop! It’s gone crazy!
TELEFUNKEN: You can’t stop it. In fact, we’re thinking of running it for Congress. We’ve even done some polling.
HOST: Don’t tell me.
TELEFUNKEN: It was the clear front-runner.
HOST: Sigh. Of course. For “Amazing Inventions,” I’m Lana Lagniappe. Good night, and God help us all.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.
TELEFUNKEN: Thank you, Lana. As you may know, the media is overrun with liberal terrorist-loving scum who hate America.
HOST: I’m not sure I know anything of the kind...
TELEFUNKEN: Since true conservative patriots are always outnumbered by the evil liberals trying to silence them, I have developed something to offset the numerical imbalance. I present to you, the Wingbot 5000.
HOST: It looks like some sort of robot.
WINGBOT 5000: I am not a robot. Liberals are the real robots.
HOST: It talks!
TELEFUNKEN: It does more than talk! Thanks to its advanced conservative programming, it is a match for any liberal in any debate.
HOST: How does it work?
TELEFUNKEN: It responds to certain keywords with arguments from the best conservative thinkers. Try it. Give it an issue.
HOST: OK. How about taxes?
WINGBOT 5000: Americans are being taxed into the poorhouse.
HOST: But isn’t it true that the majority of Americans have gotten a tax cut in the last couple of years?
WINGBOT 5000: I refudiate that.
HOST: Did you say “refudiate”?
WINGBOT 5000: Yes.
HOST: I don’t think that’s a word. It’s not in the dictionary.
WINGBOT 5000: The dictionary has a liberal bias. Sarah Palin used the word, and that’s good enough for real non-elite Americans.
HOST: Heh. It sounds like she’s channeling George Bush.
WINGBOT 5000: When is Barack Obama going to stop blaming the previous administration and take the blame for anything?
TELEFUNKEN: That’s fine, Wingbot. Try another issue, Ms. Lagniappe.
HOST: OK. How about racism?
WINGBOT 5000: I’m not racist. It’s you liberal elites who are racist. Why don’t you talk about how racist the NAACP is? The Sherrod case proves it.
HOST: How? They were so sensitive to charges of racism that they denounced Sherrod immediately. They were wrong about her, and they had to apologize, but how does that make them racist?
WINGBOT 5000: Bzzzz.... Blurp....
HOST: It never answers my questions!
TELEFUNKEN: Try another issue.
HOST: Well ... OK. How about global climate change?
WINGBOT 5000: Al Gore said he invented the Internet. Ha. Ha. Ha.
HOST: That story’s not even true.
WINGBOT 5000: How dare you say I’m lying. You’re trying to repress my First Amendment rights. This is another example of why you liberals are the real fascists.
HOST: This is getting ridiculous.
WINGBOT 5000: It’s liberals like you who are ridiculous. Why can you not make a point without name-calling?
HOST: Are you kidding? You’ve done nothing but call people names!
TELEFUNKEN: So?
HOST: So you said it could argue! It doesn’t put forth any arguments! All it does is throw out random insults.
WINGBOT 5000: It’s liberals who are really the ones who throw out random insults.
HOST: It’s doing it again! Turn it off.
WINGBOT 5000: Repression! Fascism! Second Amendment remedies! Jeremiah Wright! Where’s the birth certificate? Tony Rezko! Muslim! Muslim! Media elite! Refudiate! Refudiate!
HOST: Make it stop! It’s gone crazy!
TELEFUNKEN: You can’t stop it. In fact, we’re thinking of running it for Congress. We’ve even done some polling.
HOST: Don’t tell me.
TELEFUNKEN: It was the clear front-runner.
HOST: Sigh. Of course. For “Amazing Inventions,” I’m Lana Lagniappe. Good night, and God help us all.
Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.
Images from The North Carolina Democratic Party Convention
 |
| (Soon to be) Senator Elaine Marshall |
 |
| Our Friend Cal Cunningham |
 |
| Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx |
 |
| Congressman Bob Etheridge |
 |
| Moore County Delegation |
Intolerance Threatens to Tear American Society Apart
From The Pilot
By J. Thomas Tidd - Sunday, August 1, 2010
At its conclusion, this commentary is about tolerance. The paragraphs between here and there are intended to provide a perspective on the human condition that will, hopefully, be found to be relevant.
Carl Sagan was the first, to my knowledge, to reduce cosmic events to an earth year in order to dramatize how minuscule has been the piece of cosmic time shared by humanity. Using his earth-year scale, the “Big Bang” from which the universe is believed to have arisen occurred at midnight on Jan. 1.
Not until the end of his cosmic year, 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 31, did the first humans appear; not until 17 seconds before midnight did humans learn to use stone tools; and in only the last 10 seconds was the first alphabet invented. Jesus was born just four seconds ago, and it was only one second ago that Columbus set sail for America. On the cosmic time scale, we have yet to turn the first page of the book of recorded history.
Time can be defined in one way as the measurement of change. As the earth rotates around its own axis and around the sun, we measure days and years; and, in the cycle by which all plants and animals are born and die, we measure life. These are objective or impersonal measures of time.
For us humans, time also has a subjective dimension. Virtually every item in our storehouse of memories has a temporal connection. Our childhood years seem endless; our declining years pass all too quickly. World War II is ancient history to the child but only yesterday to its veterans.
Time is also inextricably linked to what we call perspective — assigning relative importance to the issue or event being considered and assessing it in a temporal context. There is a tension between the ease of judgments based on the emotions of the moment and the difficulty of those that take account of the broad flow of human history.
More often than not, mankind opts for the former. Matters of current self-interest are equated with enduring righteousness; we make absolutes out of what eventually prove to be transitory political, economic, social or religious mores. That predilection is the root cause of most of the intolerance which, to date, has characterized human existence.
On the other hand, a civilized society cannot ignore the evils of the day on the ground that, in the long run, they will fade in significance. Some balance must be struck between viewing current events either in the passions of the moment or the calm of history.
Perhaps it comes to no more than this — we live in the present and have to make decisions based on present circumstances; but, recognizing that need, we should also recognize the need to be cautious of actions based on dogmatic assertions as to what constitute eternal virtues. If history can teach us anything, it is that more human misery has sprung from the possessors of rigid ideologies than from any other source.
This brings us around to the subject: intolerance.
It is a subject brought to mind by a recent essay by Errol Morris in The New York Times entitled, “The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Some-thing’s Wrong But You Will Never Know What It Is.” The author defines the tongue-twisting “anosognosic” as one who suffers from a disability but is unaware of or denies the existence of that disability.
He states that, in the context of decision-making, it means one’s incompetence masks the ability to recognize that incompetence; or one’s stupidity protects one from an awareness of that stupidity.
While Morris cites a variety of psychological tests supporting the concept, its validity for the subject at hand is suggested by the increasingly hyper partisanship gripping this country — a partisanship that grows in direct proportion to the number and complexity of issues confronting us.
Whether from the right, left or center, the trend is to assert certainty where the matter at issue is inherently uncertain. Certainty springs from bias and, while none of us can escape that most universal of human traits, we are capable of confronting it — and to confront is to admit the possibility of error. Where intolerance exists, only from that admission can tolerance arise.
If we were to try very hard, perhaps we could bring ourselves to grant as much tolerance as we seek — and temper our own dogmatism to the degree we deplore that of others. Perhaps then, despite Morris’ theory, living with anosognosia need not be our fate —and, better still, we would then never need learn how to pronounce it!
J. Thomas Tidd is a retired attorney living in Pinehurst.
By J. Thomas Tidd - Sunday, August 1, 2010
At its conclusion, this commentary is about tolerance. The paragraphs between here and there are intended to provide a perspective on the human condition that will, hopefully, be found to be relevant.
Carl Sagan was the first, to my knowledge, to reduce cosmic events to an earth year in order to dramatize how minuscule has been the piece of cosmic time shared by humanity. Using his earth-year scale, the “Big Bang” from which the universe is believed to have arisen occurred at midnight on Jan. 1.
Not until the end of his cosmic year, 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 31, did the first humans appear; not until 17 seconds before midnight did humans learn to use stone tools; and in only the last 10 seconds was the first alphabet invented. Jesus was born just four seconds ago, and it was only one second ago that Columbus set sail for America. On the cosmic time scale, we have yet to turn the first page of the book of recorded history.
Time can be defined in one way as the measurement of change. As the earth rotates around its own axis and around the sun, we measure days and years; and, in the cycle by which all plants and animals are born and die, we measure life. These are objective or impersonal measures of time.
For us humans, time also has a subjective dimension. Virtually every item in our storehouse of memories has a temporal connection. Our childhood years seem endless; our declining years pass all too quickly. World War II is ancient history to the child but only yesterday to its veterans.
Time is also inextricably linked to what we call perspective — assigning relative importance to the issue or event being considered and assessing it in a temporal context. There is a tension between the ease of judgments based on the emotions of the moment and the difficulty of those that take account of the broad flow of human history.
More often than not, mankind opts for the former. Matters of current self-interest are equated with enduring righteousness; we make absolutes out of what eventually prove to be transitory political, economic, social or religious mores. That predilection is the root cause of most of the intolerance which, to date, has characterized human existence.
On the other hand, a civilized society cannot ignore the evils of the day on the ground that, in the long run, they will fade in significance. Some balance must be struck between viewing current events either in the passions of the moment or the calm of history.
Perhaps it comes to no more than this — we live in the present and have to make decisions based on present circumstances; but, recognizing that need, we should also recognize the need to be cautious of actions based on dogmatic assertions as to what constitute eternal virtues. If history can teach us anything, it is that more human misery has sprung from the possessors of rigid ideologies than from any other source.
This brings us around to the subject: intolerance.
It is a subject brought to mind by a recent essay by Errol Morris in The New York Times entitled, “The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Some-thing’s Wrong But You Will Never Know What It Is.” The author defines the tongue-twisting “anosognosic” as one who suffers from a disability but is unaware of or denies the existence of that disability.
He states that, in the context of decision-making, it means one’s incompetence masks the ability to recognize that incompetence; or one’s stupidity protects one from an awareness of that stupidity.
While Morris cites a variety of psychological tests supporting the concept, its validity for the subject at hand is suggested by the increasingly hyper partisanship gripping this country — a partisanship that grows in direct proportion to the number and complexity of issues confronting us.
Whether from the right, left or center, the trend is to assert certainty where the matter at issue is inherently uncertain. Certainty springs from bias and, while none of us can escape that most universal of human traits, we are capable of confronting it — and to confront is to admit the possibility of error. Where intolerance exists, only from that admission can tolerance arise.
If we were to try very hard, perhaps we could bring ourselves to grant as much tolerance as we seek — and temper our own dogmatism to the degree we deplore that of others. Perhaps then, despite Morris’ theory, living with anosognosia need not be our fate —and, better still, we would then never need learn how to pronounce it!
J. Thomas Tidd is a retired attorney living in Pinehurst.
A Little Celebrating on the Auto Front
From The Pilot
Sunday, August 1, 2010
On Friday in Detroit, much hoopla surrounded President Obama’s visit to GM and Chrysler plants celebrating the fact that they’re still alive and kicking.
Earlier in Southern Pines, the mood was a bit more restrained, but equally positive.
“When we got word, there were a few high-fives and some pats on the back,” said John Beaver, general manager of the local Chevrolet-Buick-GMC dealership. “And then everybody went back to work.”
The reason for the subdued handshakes: The local agency, which earlier had been placed on the list to vanish into thin air, had just learned that it had just been handed a whole new six-year lease on life. And 35 employees are no longer looking at unemployment.
Despite the contrast and the geographic distance between them, the two scenes had much in common and sprang from the same cause: last year’s auto bailout legislation — which, though far from universally popular, undeniably accomplished much of what it was designed to do.
En route to his second stop of the day, at GM’s Hamtramck Assembly Plant, Obama had to pass a depressing sight: row after row of shuttered warehouses and mothballed plants characterizing Rust Belt Michigan. But at least there’s still a GM, and there’s still a Chrysler Corp. And both, stripped down — and, in the case of Chrysler, coerced into a marriage with Italy’s Fiat — are doing better than anyone had a right to expect a couple of years ago.
That all has to be considered good news, even if the final verdict on the success of the bailout is still out, and even if we all hope never again to have to see our government take such an unprecedentedly radical plunge into the workings of the free market.
The new, leaner and meaner GM appears to be doing more than hanging on. It is selling cars, getting good consumer reviews on many of them, reporting profits and venturing into unexplored technological ground. Not only is the local dealership staying open, but one of these days it will no doubt be displaying, right here in River City, an early model of the Chevrolet Volt, first in a cutting-edge new line of plug-in electric hybrids.
By then, the agency may be in the process of moving away from its present location on U.S. 1 and into a spanking-new home on busy U.S. 15-501. This planned relocation and expansion will provide visible evidence of a newfound viability — something in which all Moore Countians, regardless of what brand of wheels they prefer, can only rejoice.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
On Friday in Detroit, much hoopla surrounded President Obama’s visit to GM and Chrysler plants celebrating the fact that they’re still alive and kicking.
Earlier in Southern Pines, the mood was a bit more restrained, but equally positive.
“When we got word, there were a few high-fives and some pats on the back,” said John Beaver, general manager of the local Chevrolet-Buick-GMC dealership. “And then everybody went back to work.”
The reason for the subdued handshakes: The local agency, which earlier had been placed on the list to vanish into thin air, had just learned that it had just been handed a whole new six-year lease on life. And 35 employees are no longer looking at unemployment.
Despite the contrast and the geographic distance between them, the two scenes had much in common and sprang from the same cause: last year’s auto bailout legislation — which, though far from universally popular, undeniably accomplished much of what it was designed to do.
En route to his second stop of the day, at GM’s Hamtramck Assembly Plant, Obama had to pass a depressing sight: row after row of shuttered warehouses and mothballed plants characterizing Rust Belt Michigan. But at least there’s still a GM, and there’s still a Chrysler Corp. And both, stripped down — and, in the case of Chrysler, coerced into a marriage with Italy’s Fiat — are doing better than anyone had a right to expect a couple of years ago.
That all has to be considered good news, even if the final verdict on the success of the bailout is still out, and even if we all hope never again to have to see our government take such an unprecedentedly radical plunge into the workings of the free market.
The new, leaner and meaner GM appears to be doing more than hanging on. It is selling cars, getting good consumer reviews on many of them, reporting profits and venturing into unexplored technological ground. Not only is the local dealership staying open, but one of these days it will no doubt be displaying, right here in River City, an early model of the Chevrolet Volt, first in a cutting-edge new line of plug-in electric hybrids.
By then, the agency may be in the process of moving away from its present location on U.S. 1 and into a spanking-new home on busy U.S. 15-501. This planned relocation and expansion will provide visible evidence of a newfound viability — something in which all Moore Countians, regardless of what brand of wheels they prefer, can only rejoice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)