Another Winter of Our Discontent (Actually, it's Fall)

This material might not float your boat; don't let this post sour you on our Blog :)

I have been observing what college kids do.

It used to be the case that college was where most young Americans began to relate to those who were not all white and middle-class.  You met blacks, and then Europeans, and then Latinos, and kids from working-class families, and for the most part, you learned that they were not as different as you may have imagined: just regular folks.  A very few kids, usually from somewhat more sheltered backgrounds, stuck to certain cliques, and that was how they survived: by creating for themselves what we nowadays call a bubble.  They paid a price; if their future occupations needed them to be comfortable with minorities, immigrants and people of a poorer stratum of society, they had to work hard to acquire that comfort, or they had to pretend a comfort they did not feel.

These days, I'm noticing that kids seek out their bubbles very quickly.  It could be a fraternity or a sorority, which only admitted a few selected upper-class people.  It isn't just viciousness; it is seeking a level of comfort.  Colleges are admitting increasing numbers of foreign students, and some kids just can't handle that, especially if they come from the suburbs and their parents never allowed them to mix with poor kids while in school.  This was, to some extent, always the case.  But it is getting more extreme.

A lot of people notice other things happening.  For instance, you might go to a favorite store, and look for your favorite store clerk, and she or he is gone, and there is some foreign person working in their place.  This could make some people unhappy and uncomfortable.

It has to do with middle-class Americans gradually fading from view; the people with whom the middle-class is comfortable are either leaving jobs, such as sales or service jobs in the cities or suburbs, or going back to school, or moving to other areas where the cost of living is cheaper.  Businesses are cutting down on workers and worker hours.  They usually claim that it is higher taxes, but it is probably higher rents in the malls (because store landlords just can't tolerate reduced incomes, or even the same income!), and they cut down overtime, and pretty soon you have an immigrant taking the place of someone you've known all your life, because typically an immigrant or minority is happy with smaller wages.  (This is why we build cars in Mexico, so that the car manufacturer can make a bigger profit.)  It appears that this is precisely what prompts some conservatives to deplore what has been called the browning of America.

Let's look at what people say is the cause of all this.  Conservatives will immediately say that it is higher taxes (and more expensive benefits; it so happens that I agree about the benefits being a needless burden on employers).  But, according to my reasoning, higher taxes get paid to somewhere: either Federal or State employees, or construction companies, or poor people on Social Welfare, or whatever.  In turn, that money gets spent again, and it can get sucked in by various businesses hungry for profits.  If nobody has money to buy anything, of course businesses will feel it.

In contrast, if taxes are lowered, each person sits on his income, especially the most wealthy.  It stays in the bank, a great comfort to the individual, but of course it is no help to other businesses who would like this wealthy individual to come shopping.  But the wealthy notoriously never go shopping.  If they ever do, you can trace where the money goes: usually to another super wealthy individual, or abroad.

Lowering taxes keeps money out of circulation.  Fiscal conservatives will contest this statement, based on tradition and ignorance.  But there is no doubt that raising taxes puts money back in circulation.

Pretty soon I'm going to expand on a plan whereby you could lower taxes, but a lot of people won't like it.  I'll give you an example: you notice that highways get crapped-up every winter.  Well, there are these enormous trucks that barrel along them, and there just so much trucking traffic--and traffic, generally--that weak spots on a highway can take, before it starts needing attention.  But we all use stuff brought to town by trucks; someone has to pay for it,right?  But why should a poor person who subsists on a diet of baked beans for every meal have to pay the same taxes to support highways as a commercial farm, that is constantly sending out products by truck, getting farm machinery by truck, buying fertilizer by the truck-full, and so on?  Shouldn't the supplier, who gets a profit from the can of baked beans pay more than the poor consumer?  (No, the consumer usually pays; it's a tradition.)  If we think about it, we should be able to make only those who benefit from the highways pay for their upkeep.  Similarly, we can convert community swimming-pools into paid-admission swimming pools: $15 a day, to pay for the equipment, the wages, the materials, and maintenance.  (Or $14, if you can manage on that income level.)

Think about it.  The citizens with higher incomes will love this idea, since they probably have their own pools anyway, and can certain afford $15.  But can we all support this sort of idea?  Of course it won't work for hospitals, because a sick person is hardly likely to bring his piggy bank to the Emergency Room.  I believe in subsidized health care for all, but then you probably think I'm a communist.

Arch

All-Or-Nothing Rhetoric, and Why I Dislike It

PC enthusiasts are a danger to society.  Let me explain.

As we have all seen, Homosexuals and Bisexuals fought long and hard to earn a few important rights for decades, and won those rights, which we call LGB rights.

Soon, the media and minority rights proponents insisted that those same rights should be extended to Transsexuals, Queers, and other members of the alphabet soup, and today, LGB has been replaced by LGBTQI....  This tendency to piggyback these issues on top of issues that were decided favorably is something I deplore.  This is not the time to examine the cases for extending whatever rights were given to LGB individuals to Transsexuals; I personally feel that the jury is yet out on those questions.  But there's no doubt that there is a tendency to go from zero to 100% in these matters, which unscrupulous politicians and lobbyists exploit, to their detriment. 

Consider the current uproar over the lack of condemnation of NAZIs from the White House.  What I'm hearing in the media seems to carry the subtext that the NAZIs are guilty whatever they're accused of.  Those of us who are reasonable know that this is not the case.  But the rhetoric certainly seems to suggest that.

What do we mean when we call someone a NAZI?  Obviously, if they call themselves NAZIs, we're allowed to do the same.  To be definite, they may want to eradicate all non-whites from a particular geographic region.  They may want to destroy all non-whites from a region.  They may want to deport all non-whites from a region.  They may want to incarcerate all non-whites.  They may want to reduce all non-whites to a second-class citizen status.

Unfortunately we seem to have given over all our important thinking to a few uneducated morons, who will conveniently lump all those groups into one.  "You know what?  Anyone who wants to reduce non-whites to second-class status is a Nazi!"  Clearly, though, while certain sectors of the population, such as the KKK and other bloodthirsty murderers may want to purify the nation by any means necessary, others merely deplore the erosion of the privileges they enjoyed when whites were the absolute majority, and all others were here on sufferance.  I mean, there are those who even resent women being permitted the vote.  It is misleading to call these people NAZIS.  It is propaganda.

Painting everyone by the same brush, though convenient, is wrong.  Just as we should not grant all privileges to everyone thoughtlessly, so must we not condemn everyone who does not want illegal immigrants to have all rights that citizens have.  This is why there is so much resentment against liberals among the members of the population whom the Alt-Right seeks to provide leadership for: Liberals have for decades run headlong into sociological china shops.

Someday, I am sure, all this LGBTQIJZ nonsense will become irrelevant, just as genetically modified corn will be accepted.  But that day is not today; there are issues that need to be ironed out.  Similarly, it is by no means obvious that illegal immigrants deserve all rights that citizens deserve--anyone who asserts this is not thinking clearly, and may not actually mean what they say--but we can agree on some aspects of that extreme position: for instance, we could agree that immigrant children, have many more rights than adult immigrants.  The case of immigrants is strengthened by the fact that American industries enjoy the lower wages paid in Mexico, which is what drives Mexicans across the border in the first place.  We can't have it both ways.  We cannot exploit the depressed economy of Mexico, and at the same time morally impose draconian measures against illegal immigrants.

Having said all that, I suspect that Trump may have set out to appease die-hard white chauvinists with a few anti-immigrant sops.  He has quickly found out that being president is not as easy as declaring a casino bankrupt.  He probably doesn't quite understand the seriousness of his position, but he certainly knows that it is humiliating.  Unfortunately, the humiliation initiative is overshadowing serious steps that need to be taken to halt the chaos that is slowly overtaking the nation.  Liberals and Democrats are too easily satisfied with ridiculing the president.  Ridiculing Trump is no great achievement.

Let me finish with a plea for (1) careful use of language, (2) careful adherence to law and logic, and (3) a focused, responsible, patient approach to politics and leadership.  The Democratic party was on autopilot this last election, and now it's time for actual thinking.

Arch