Roland Martin is defending President Obama because he used the word "lazy" in context of discussing American work and employees. I have no problem because it is the truth even if it is politically incorrect.
For the past 35 years or so, we have been accepting the 800 lb pink elephant in the room because no one wanted to move his fat butt. So if we now find ourselves disgusted with his foul smell, unfortunate waste, and rude stares from others, it's clearly our fault.
Stop promoting unlearned students, stop hiring/keeping people that aren't good at their jobs, stop giving bonuses to executives simply because their employees are good, and stop with the political correctness - use our English language to be perfectly clear!
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, November 19, 2011
It May Hurt But It's The Truth
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Irreconcilable Differences
The past year has been pretty much one long heated debate about....well, everything. The US is at a crossroads of the same epic proportions as other historical debates: taxation without representation, separate but equal, minority rights, globalization, and yes, health care reform.
The fact is that our culture is evolving but there are decisively opposing segments of the population; they are in direct conflict with each other. It's time to take a look at the real issues - and it's not health care.
The fundamental issue is how we view access to basic needs and the role of government in relationship to those needs. Rousseau's (Jean-Jacques not the crazy jungle woman from LOST)Social Contract Theory says that humans originally lived freely in nature alone until the population grew enough that old ways of satisfying needs had to change; people began to live in communities where divisions of labor developed which freed up people's time for leisure and of course they began to make comparisons between themselves.
But Rousseau focused on the invention of private property and the development of social classes, an institution that eventually bred greed and inequality. Therefore, he argued, government was invented to protect people's private interests from those who may choose to violate or confiscate, i.e. a social contract, providing equal protection of all. But Rousseau's reasoning pointed to a darker motivation: "the contract, which claims to be in the interests of everyone equally, is really in the interests of the few who have become stronger and richer as a result of the developments of private property. This is the naturalized social contract, which Rousseau views as responsible for the conflict and competition from which modern society suffers" (see Internet Encyclopedia from University of Tennessee).
So in theory government is really an invention of the strong to maintain their power even though they originally gained power by joining a community to satisfy basic needs. In the American "experiment" of government of, for, and by the people, we have embarked on a series of movements to balance the power between the powerful and the weak; Thomas Jefferson warned of the wrathful "power of the majority".
Every major sociopolitical act has been bred through grassroots movement of someone disaffected, someone without, someone in direct conflict with someone else in power. And although the reasons for someone to be disaffected is for another post, the end result is the same: we are all trying to satisfy our hierarchy of needs that Abraham Maslow discussed. And as our society evolves, we will focus on better ways to efficiently, collectively satisfy those needs.
So the fundamental issue is how to satisfy basic needs and the role of government in that process. The current debate really stems from the fact that our society, and increasingly the world, functions with commodities to be exchanged - but the base of exchange sits in the seat of power with the ones who can exchange, not those who can not exchange. Our irreconcilable differences are because there are segments of the population who view health care as a luxury commodity, not as a basic need. Maslow argued that health and safety are second only to food and shelter!
The role of American government has faced the lack of representation and equal rights of citizens, and developed safety nets for disadvantaged in terms of basic needs, such as food stamps, subsidized housing, and safety within our societal borders, yet there is severe riling up over opening access to another basic need.
The issue is not whether government should be equalizing power to access need satisfaction because clearly government was created to protect and balance power among all members of a community when surviving alone was no longer feasible. The issue is whether the community has evolved enough to realize that; only then can we move on.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Online Comments
I love reading the comments section of online news stories, particularly from local news sources. Granted I feel slightly dumber after reading them than I did before, but they are entertaining nonetheless. Part of me is proud to see so many individuals taking the time to practice literacy and debate, two cornerstones of a thriving democracy with free press, but there are times when I seriously doubt the level of literacy ability and whether debate is merely a means of soapboxing.
I have come to the conclusion that the "participants" of my state are a mostly embarassing self-selected group. I am still amazed that Indiana swung to the blue side almost a year ago, not that you could ever tell by the comments posted on any given news story. It seems quite often that the comments are spewed hatred of President Obama, illegal immigrants, welfare recipients, Congress, China/India/Iraq/North Korea/Mexico/etc, any multi-million/billion dollar business and other such "destroyers of the American way". Now mind you these topics often have very little to do with the actual story but commentors connect them regardless, usually in some argument contrived on a conspiracy theory to stick it to the little guy. Needless to say, sarcasm abounds....as well as blatant disregard for proper English language usage.
Occasionally I contribute my two cents (but only if I can do so anonymously - I have no patience to be setting up user accounts willy-nilly) in some thoughtful fashion to stir debate but I do realize in the end nothing is throughtfully debated.
But I feel better afterwards, soapbox or not, and perhaps that is the ultimate purpose of such a "section".
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Is fashion a new Presidential requirement?
Perhaps I missed the presidential oath that swears to uphold the latest fashion standards on that cold January afternoon six months ago. Perhaps I wrongly assumed "mom jeans" were for...moms. And perhaps I missed the band wagon for the skinny jean rage (for the record I adamantly oppose such fabric!).
Seriously, give the man a break.
He inherited the world's richest country (only it's not so rich anymore), right-wing conspiracy theorists are out to get him, and he's only worked at his job for six months. Why shouldn't his jeans be a little loose?
But let's not go crazy and call them "mom jeans" - those are reserved for a very unspecial design of stretchy spandex demin fabric with a waistline sitting 4 inches above the navel and tapered leg that ungratuitously hugs every crevice within the vicinity.
Obama's jeans are loose fit, straight leg denim, albeit slightly grey. Their only disappointment is they are grey and every fashionista knows dismal denim colors are skanky; but Obama isn't a fashionista, he's the president - and male at that. Of course men don't like to shop and we should all be thankful that given our nation's plunging circumstances, the President has not found time to shop.
Though Presidential shopping could be the next economic policy. Take notes, Bernake.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92832
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
A Humorous Take on Biased Media
There's much debate about whether a clear bias exists in the American media, particularly those of major news corporations. Upon an equally contingent debate over President Obama's first 100 days in the White House, "The Daily Show" presents what it does best: poking fun at the uber-seriousness of explicit bias in the media.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Obama 101 | ||||
| ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
