The Role Money Plays

You could call me a goody-two-shoes-wannabe-but failed: read on to find out why.

I was brought up to believe that materialism was bad.  This was because my folks were Christians, and they knew that you couldn't take it to heaven with you.  You had to leave it behind.

Anyway, you could not worship both God and Mammon (whoever the latter was), so to this day I try (and my wife tries, though she's just as much of an atheist as I am!) to abide by this principle.  Our house is full of junk, but not valuable junk, but just comfortable junk.  The older I get, I think, I should give some time to getting this junk out to whoever can use it, before I get too feeble to do the work of getting it ready.

For instance, I belonged to this Discussion Group (sort of like a bulletin board) where we used to discuss classical music.  Some decades ago, one of the members of that list declared he was giving away all his LPs, and moving over to digital music.  I volunteered to adopt many of his LPs, and I have them in boxes!  Of course this will not happen, but if I hauled several boxes up to the Pearly Gates someday, they would never pass customs.  ("We have all digital music here!  This is unnecessary.")

Now, I have been supporting Mark Kelly---not very much, but anyway---who is running for senator of Arizona.  Of course I want him in the senate; I would support, at this point, anyone running for senate who is as much for gun regulation as is Mark Kelly.  (Mark Kelly is the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot at in Tucson some years ago, and remains injured by the attack.)

Now, it appears, Mark Kelly's campaign is stalled at just tieing with that of his Republican opponent, and since I had supported them at one time (with an almost insignificant amount, perhaps $15), they automatically write to me for continued support.

I would love to make another contribution, but now another consideration comes up.  Is is reasonable and appropriate that Mark K. should be supported for essentially a position in which he represents the citizens of Arizona, with money from other states, e.g. Pennsylvania?

The big question is: why do these people need money anyway?  The answer is: people tend to vote for those whose advertisements appear on TV.  We are slaves to our TV.  I'm rather a weak-minded person, but, my goodness, I'm a mental giant compared with some of the loonies out there.  I am contemplating supporting Mark Kelly, who might just win Senator of Arizona because my $15 helped some mindless idiot recall his name at the polls, and vote him in, in November.

I have no doubt that, for six years, it will probably be a better world if Mark Kelly (and that gal in Kentucky, and that gal in Maine) were in the Senate of 2021.  But what kind of world is this, that we have to keep on supporting these people in their frantic efforts to come before the public, and indelibly impress them with their image and message, just to make life safer for this very same public for six years?  Arizona isn't my state, but if gun laws are changed, it certainly will make a difference in my state as well.

It used to be that money just enabled one to surround oneself with stuff.  Among other things, this stuff is LPs, which one never listens to anymore.  I also have books, e.g. Nonlinear Electrodynamics, which is two volumes that I have not read, will never read, and will never part with, because they were given to me when I interviewed for a job in 1990, which I did not take.  Hanging on to the book is my way of feeling guilty for taking the book under false pretenses, (not really, because I think I made it clear that I wasn't going to take the job).  There, now you know how confused I am.

Money no longer has a direct connection with materialism.  It is a symbol of the power an individual (or anything, really, e.g. a corporation) has.  I could help Mark Kelly get elected.  Now, Mike Bloomberg has thrown money at almost anybody whose policies include tighter gun control.  He would probably gladly throw money at Mark Kelly, but Kelly would probably balk at the support of billionaires.  Billionaires are in bad odor now, and will continue to be so for a while.  (Trump isn't one, but plays one on TV!  Not entirely kidding.)  So, do not lay up for yourselves riches on earth, because in Heaven, you can't buy representation for your favorite candidates.

American Politics is frustrating, because you don't know how to vote, or whom to vote for, until everybody else (who doesn't know whom to vote for either) votes.

Anyway, yesterday, Joe Biden won a whole lot of something or other in the S. Carolina primary.  Evidently, black voters in S. Carolina are more interested in unseating defeating Trump than going on to the job of changing the economic dynamics of the USA.

The center of Bernie Sanders's thinking is the following.

Democrats and Liberals in the US are notoriously lazy to go to the polls.  They also watch a lot of TV, hoping for bad news, which will justify not going to the polls.

The system in the US is screwed up.  Many services which ought to be provided by the state are not, because wealthy folks want the best for themselves, and can't be bothered to provide basic services for the poor.  Examples: health care, education.  Bernie has been fighting for these rights for a long time, and he figures that if such issues are on the ballot, the poor will go to the polls, and anyone who wants these things for the poor.  That is, probably, my readers and me.  This is the only way to get people to the voting booths, and incidentally defeat Trump.

Most ordinary citizens can't get their heads around this sort of indirect thinking.  They want to approach the problem head on, and want to select a "Moderate", who can get a lot of crossover votes.  But this does not address the problem of voter laziness!  So which is the bigger problem: the laziness of Democrat intellectuals, or the ambitiousness of the platform of the so-called radical candidates?

Talking heads (not just the experts on TV, but people who are trying to explain the thinking that has gone into this election) have taken a lot of time to make various approaches palatable to the voters.  One way they have explained the problem of the present candidacy for the Democrat nomination is: do not vote against Trump; vote for a better society, and better policies.

Another issue, as I pointed out a couple of days ago, is that whoever the nominee is, he or she has to hustle and march up and down the country, supporting all the Democrat candidates for State Houses, for Congress, and for the senate.  It is not that we need, or want, a landslide: landslides are usually not good for either party.  We need just enough of a strong showing to undo some of the dangerous actions of the GOP over the last several years, including gerrymandering, and packing the courts with conservative judges.  (Fortunately, trying to get conservative judges to toe the conservative line is a little like herding cats.  Still, some gains like Roe v. Wade, Marriage Equality, etc, are easily attacked at the level of the courts.)

OK, let's stop on that happy note.  We must leave some bad news to cheer us up the rest of the week...

Arch