As I was on my morning walk through a local park, I pondered the question "What would have to be true in order for this to be the best day of my life?" and various thoughts popped in about tropical beaches, being with my family, etc. etc. and then it hit me. What would have to be true for *this* day to be the best day of my life, would be that I would need to be asking "What would have to be true in order for this to be the best day of my life?"! I thought about this for a few moments, and was hit by the epiphany. The fact that I am asking the question means that I have jumped onto a path, that if continuously followed, would cause every day to be the best possible day. I guess that I could start mincing words and ask what "best" really means, and there are days that can never be topped, like the day your kid is born and all that, but I guess what the properly worded version of the question would be is "What would have to be true in order for my actions on this day to be perfectly aligned with my values". Yeah, I think that is better - and it demands that you have already clarified your values and the obligations that you have to fulfill to be true to those values. If you value something, but you do not enjoy the obligations to support that value, then perhaps you need to question the value. For example, if I value having a beautiful home, but while I am cleaning, I am grumbling the whole time, then if I remember what I value, suddenly the cleaning becomes like a meditation. Everything is aligned. I value a clean house, therefore, I am performing exactly the action that is required in order to be true to my value. Ok, where was I...oh, best day of my life, yeah yeah - ok, so if you have clarified your values, then you can clarify the obligations you have to be true to those values. If you have clarified your obligations, then as long as you are engaging in those obligations, every day of your life will be as close as possible to the best day of your life. Now, here is something interesting that happens - when we start to write down what we value, we find that our values tend to be "good". ie: it is highly unlikely that you will write down "I value being drunk". Then, the next time you are drunk, you can look at your values and feel the cognitive dissonance between your values and your inability to fulfill the obligations to them due to your inebriated state. boy, I am far afield here. That's enough.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Is Sympathy Even The Right Approach?
There are some things in the physical world that we cannot wrap our heads around. We know that the universe is really, really large and we know that quantum mechanics deals with things that are really, really small. We know the double-slit experiment is mystifying. But the pain felt by a parent's loss of a child is so much more incomprehensible than anything. People close to someone going through this are completely ill-equipped to even know what needs to be provided, let alone having the ability to provide it. Recently a family member received the paralyzing phone call in wee hours of the morning that their 19 year old son had died in a car accident. I had witnessed this happening to a mother and father once before in my life, and the experience after the countless hours huddled in a hospital waiting room until the doctor finally "called it" is scorched into my memory as a feeling of complete entrapment and helplessness. You no longer exist in the world, you are enveloped by it. The amplitude and quantity of raw emotion produced by the realization of what has happened, even for a friend of the family requires every synapse and neuron in a body to process. Attempting to even describe this experience with words like Tsunami, Flood, Avalanche, or the like is not even approaching the feeling because it implies that there is still an earth to stand on underneath these events.
Although my wife and I sense that the only real power that we have is to "be there" and provide a spiritual energy field to capture pain waves emitted from the family, we also feel that we should send *something* physical across the country along with our daughter, whose boyfriend's brother has just died. This is where my adventure in the "Sympathy" section of the greeting card rack begins.
In the car on the way to the store, my wife reminded me about the type of card that I should be looking for, to which I responded "I think I can handle this one." then shot a testosterone ray at the dashboard, vaporizing the GPS and powered through to the store. I picked up the first card that looked, for whatever reason, like it might be the card that would provide the needed "Sympathy".
Although I held no criteria for judging which card would be the correct one, I had a jolting feeling of the supreme inadequacy that what I was holding in my hand would improve whatever thing I can't understand that I sensed they needed assistance improving. It was so painfully obvious that this was not working that I had to shake my head. There is no section in the card rack for "Loss of a Child" so I entirely blame myself for trying to use simple arithmetic to do string theory. However, I decided to press on.
"You need..."? What chutzpah this grand poo-bah of consolation, "The sympathy card" has to tell someone in mourning what they need! This is like sending Steve Balmer from Microsoft to barge through their front door. No. This will never do. I began to realize that there is only one criterion - the card with the fewest words. I was looking for a card that would draw their attention, but nothing else. It would not command, suggest, uplift, commiserate, or...sympathize.
Although my wife and I sense that the only real power that we have is to "be there" and provide a spiritual energy field to capture pain waves emitted from the family, we also feel that we should send *something* physical across the country along with our daughter, whose boyfriend's brother has just died. This is where my adventure in the "Sympathy" section of the greeting card rack begins.
In the car on the way to the store, my wife reminded me about the type of card that I should be looking for, to which I responded "I think I can handle this one." then shot a testosterone ray at the dashboard, vaporizing the GPS and powered through to the store. I picked up the first card that looked, for whatever reason, like it might be the card that would provide the needed "Sympathy".
I opened it.
Although I held no criteria for judging which card would be the correct one, I had a jolting feeling of the supreme inadequacy that what I was holding in my hand would improve whatever thing I can't understand that I sensed they needed assistance improving. It was so painfully obvious that this was not working that I had to shake my head. There is no section in the card rack for "Loss of a Child" so I entirely blame myself for trying to use simple arithmetic to do string theory. However, I decided to press on.
"You need..."? What chutzpah this grand poo-bah of consolation, "The sympathy card" has to tell someone in mourning what they need! This is like sending Steve Balmer from Microsoft to barge through their front door. No. This will never do. I began to realize that there is only one criterion - the card with the fewest words. I was looking for a card that would draw their attention, but nothing else. It would not command, suggest, uplift, commiserate, or...sympathize.
It most certainly would not provide an emotional forecast.
At about this time, my 7 year old son provided his choice for consolation.
Who am I to ignore an opportunity to enjoy my child's innocence considering the existential void that is being suffered by these parents? "Freeze this moment a little bit longer. Make each sensation a little bit stronger." - (Time Stand Still by Rush). May God bless you Neil Peart. Everything helps right now, especially from a father with...experience. I focused my attention back on the rack, and noticed that I was impregnating every attribute of each card with hope that it would provide some sort of positive indicator that it will provide...something positive. The typeface. The color. The texture. The image, embroidery, layout, content. Each became a metric in this impossible pursuit. Until I finally accepted that the impedance mismatch between the solution domain and the problem domain was irreconcilable. For the first time ever my wife was right, and I was wrong: I *couldn't* handle this. Meeting me at the card rack, ostensibly to figure out what was taking me so long, she reached in and plucked one out and walked to the register as if she already understood the meaninglessness of the content of any selected card. Something that I had been discovering for the past 15 minutes.
So, there it is. The least ineffective of them all.
Monday, March 18, 2013
How Temptations Are Taught
Today I watched a very good documentary on Netflix called "The Buddha". Feeling all free flowing and stuff, I walked into the kitchen to get some water. Staring at me from a bowl was a cornucopia of "Big Texas" danishes. In my relaxed and vulnerable state, I just let myself go with the flow, and grabbed one, ripped it open, and enjoyed it. As I was consuming the empty calories, I thought about how important environment is. If that danish was not there, I never would have desired it. When I noticed it, I could have resisted, but I don't like resisting things. That takes effort. Isn't it better to just not have the temptation there in the first place? I don't know...on the one hand, learning to resist temptation is an important discipline, because, well, it teaches us discipline which enables us to expend effort, which is the only method to acquire happiness. On the other hand, if you live in a world of constant temptation it has a coarsening effect on life. The resistance that you build up in order to protect yourself from constantly falling prey to temptation spills over into areas of life where resisting diminishes your enjoyment and ability to show true compassion. So as I wiped the sticky goodness from my fingers, I re-affirmed the importance of environment. The physical things we surround ourselves with need to be chosen very carefully, so that we can feel comfortable that some pop-tart is not going to be lurking around the corner waiting to tempt us.
Monday, January 14, 2013
President Obama engages in demagoguery
This morning, President Obama held a press conference, where he spoke about the need for republicans to enable the Government to pay it's bills, and also to enable the debt ceiling to be raised.
Near the end of the conference, he said the following:
"…but it seems as if…what's motivating and propelling at this point some of the house republicans is more than simply deficit reduction. They have a particular vision about what Government should and should not do. So, they are suspicious about Government's commitments, for example…uh, to make sure that seniors have decent healthcare as they get older. umm…they have suspicions about social security. They have suspicions about…uh, whether Government should make sure that…uh, kids in poverty…uh, are getting enough to eat or…whether we should be spending money on medical research. So they have a-a particular view of what government should do and, and should be. and…, ya know, that view was rejected by the American people…uh, when it was debated during the presidential campaign…"
Here is a deconstruction of this paragraph, to explain my charge that The President is utilizing demagoguery with the intent to make Republicans look like untrusting, heartless ideologues.
"…but it seems as if…what's motivating and propelling at this point some of the house republicans is more than simply deficit reduction. They have a particular vision about what Government should and should not do."
I am glad that The President got this point correct. However, The President is using this bit of truth in order to imply that democrats *don't* have a particular vision about what Government should and should not do. So the statement is either a negative statement toward democrats, or it is irrelevant. If it is true that democrats have no particular vision about what Government should and should not do, they should not be in charge of anything in government...right? I mean, think about it. That would be like saying "My company's CEO has no particular vision about what the company's management should and should not do." They would be fired by the board immediately. If, on the other hand, democrats do have a particular vision about what the Government should and should not do...well, then why is The President only implicating Republicans with that statement? It definitionally becomes irrelevant.
"So, they are suspicious about Government's commitments, for example…uh, to make sure that seniors have decent healthcare as they get older."
Here is the first example of demagoguery. The implication is "Republicans don't care about seniors having decent healthcare." However, note the careful use of language. He did not directly say what he implied, but rather wrapped the statement in words that gives him an exit, should anyone actually ask the question: "Mr. President, are you implying that Republicans don't care about seniors having decent healthcare?" Answer: "Look. What I said was that Republicans are suspicious about Government's commitments. So please don't put words in my mouth..." The President is excellent at protecting himself against having to clarify statements like this, yet ensuring that they provide the effect that he is hoping for. The casual listener will just shake their head and say "(sigh)...those kooky Republicans again..."
"umm…they have suspicions about social security. They have suspicions about…uh, whether Government should make sure that…uh, kids in poverty…uh, are getting enough to eat or…whether we should be spending money on medical research."
The zinger in this one is the implication that Republicans don't care whether kids in poverty are getting enough to eat. Hello? Is anyone getting this?...Even my most liberal friends would not say that Republicans don't care whether kids in poverty are getting enough to eat. This is almost the exact same statement that Howard Dean, then head of the DNC said years ago: "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans, is, we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." There is nothing new in the tactic that the left uses to discredit the right. I just want to showcase that it even is used by The President.
"So they have a-a particular view of what government should do and, and should be. and…, ya know, that view was rejected by the American people…uh, when it was debated during the presidential campaign…"
Monday, July 4, 2011
What Is A Conservative?
Within the past decade or so in America there has emerged a term that many formerly-known-as-Republicans identify with: Conservative. Those who do not identify themselves as such almost certainly have an incorrect definition of what a Conservative is. It's not their fault - most of the mainstream media are not merely non-Conservative, but anti-Conservative. One way to confirm this statement is to pick up the front page of the New York Time, L.A. Times or any other major newspaper and see which side of the issue the paper sides with regarding gun control, abortion, taxation, health care or virtually any other social issue that has a clear Conservative or Liberal position. I would be thrilled if the results were even 7 out of 10 times that the Liberal position were presented. It's far more skewed than that. When you go to a major news outlet other than the Wall Street Journal or Boston Herald, you are receiving only one perspective of social issues, and it's not the Conservative perspective. So what is the Conservative perspective?
One core Conservative belief is that the trend toward higher government control over decisions that used to be left to the individual undermines important American values. The California law that states that motorcycle riders must wear helmets is an example of this trend toward higher government control. This does not mean that Conservatives are anti-helmet. We just want society to have the choice back to make the decision. Why is this so important? The more laws that a society has, the less individual decisions there are for it's citizenry to make and therefore the greater the expectation that "the government will take care of it". The end result of this can be seen in France where in 2006 there were large protests against a bill entitled "Loi pour l'égalité des chances" ("Equal Opportunity Law") which would give employers the ability to fire workers under 26 within the first two years of employment without any judicially contestable reason. If you are American, you are probably thinking - Huh?...they can't fire workers who are under 26 within the first two years of employment now due to non-performance?! That's correct, and this is one of the reasons why in France the unemployment rate for those under 26 is 23% - if they can't be fired, they won't be hired. The Conservative position? laissez-faire. But even more important is whether the Conservative position on this issue actually fixed the problem. You can see from the chart an immediate, and dramatic decrease in unemployment in 2006 when the law was passed, up until the global recession kicked in in 2008.
Another core value of Conservatives is that the value system of an individual regulates behavior far more than their economic or racial make-up. The Liberal position is that poverty causes crime and that blacks are disenfranchised simply because of the color of their skin. The Conservative position is that bad values causes crime. If it were true that poverty causes crime, it would by definition also mean that affluence causes goodness. It actually is an insult to the vast majority of poor in the world who are not criminals to say that poverty causes crime. There are bad poor people and bad rich people. The person's value system is what Conservatives believe drive behavior. Descartes, the French Philosopher believed that culture and example influenced behavior more than any other factor. Conservatives believe this as well. Culture is not the same as race - culture is the embodiment of the behavioral characteristics of a group regardless of their race.
Regarding racial issues, Conservatives believe that it is the underlying cultural elements of a racial group not the genetic makeup of that group that influences their behavior. Conservatives believe that the major reason for the breakdown in the moral fabric of blacks in America has to do with young males abandoning their responsibilities to be fathers, not due to their economic circumstances. Fifty years ago, the nuclear family in black America was intact, and the crime rate among blacks was vastly lower than it is today, despite the fact that on a percentage basis, black families were far poorer than they are today. It's not the money - it's the values. Conservatives applauded President Obama when he noted that lack of fathers was a major driving factor in problems with black America. I can't think of a single instance of Liberals applauding George W. Bush for anything.
One core Conservative belief is that the trend toward higher government control over decisions that used to be left to the individual undermines important American values. The California law that states that motorcycle riders must wear helmets is an example of this trend toward higher government control. This does not mean that Conservatives are anti-helmet. We just want society to have the choice back to make the decision. Why is this so important? The more laws that a society has, the less individual decisions there are for it's citizenry to make and therefore the greater the expectation that "the government will take care of it". The end result of this can be seen in France where in 2006 there were large protests against a bill entitled "Loi pour l'égalité des chances" ("Equal Opportunity Law") which would give employers the ability to fire workers under 26 within the first two years of employment without any judicially contestable reason. If you are American, you are probably thinking - Huh?...they can't fire workers who are under 26 within the first two years of employment now due to non-performance?! That's correct, and this is one of the reasons why in France the unemployment rate for those under 26 is 23% - if they can't be fired, they won't be hired. The Conservative position? laissez-faire. But even more important is whether the Conservative position on this issue actually fixed the problem. You can see from the chart an immediate, and dramatic decrease in unemployment in 2006 when the law was passed, up until the global recession kicked in in 2008.
Another core value of Conservatives is that the value system of an individual regulates behavior far more than their economic or racial make-up. The Liberal position is that poverty causes crime and that blacks are disenfranchised simply because of the color of their skin. The Conservative position is that bad values causes crime. If it were true that poverty causes crime, it would by definition also mean that affluence causes goodness. It actually is an insult to the vast majority of poor in the world who are not criminals to say that poverty causes crime. There are bad poor people and bad rich people. The person's value system is what Conservatives believe drive behavior. Descartes, the French Philosopher believed that culture and example influenced behavior more than any other factor. Conservatives believe this as well. Culture is not the same as race - culture is the embodiment of the behavioral characteristics of a group regardless of their race.
Regarding racial issues, Conservatives believe that it is the underlying cultural elements of a racial group not the genetic makeup of that group that influences their behavior. Conservatives believe that the major reason for the breakdown in the moral fabric of blacks in America has to do with young males abandoning their responsibilities to be fathers, not due to their economic circumstances. Fifty years ago, the nuclear family in black America was intact, and the crime rate among blacks was vastly lower than it is today, despite the fact that on a percentage basis, black families were far poorer than they are today. It's not the money - it's the values. Conservatives applauded President Obama when he noted that lack of fathers was a major driving factor in problems with black America. I can't think of a single instance of Liberals applauding George W. Bush for anything.
Monday, November 29, 2010
How To Deal With Idiots At Work
If you have not worked with idiots, you are in the vast minority. We all have some people that we respect and admire at work, and others that we just can't stand. If you are a hard working person who loves your craft, you will be especially perturbed by people above you in rank and salary who do very little and cause strife for others. The challenge when dealing with people in this ilk, and other peers who just don't "get it" is learning how to re-focus your energy on your own work, and the positive elements at work rather than getting "sucked into" politics and drama that leeches like these people create.
Rule #1: Excel at your own job, even when others who get paid more don't.
You take pride in your work. You deeply care about the quality that you deliver, and the craftmanship that you have honed over the course of your career. If you didn't, you wouldn't be reading this blog, but instead would be busy making someone else's life miserable with your incompetence. The more you focus on the quality of of your own work, the less significant the leeches will become. It is very tempting to lower yourself to the level of less competent people, but when you do this, you will never be happy at work. Happiness comes partly from self-discipline, and you will do better for yourself to remain disciplined enough to completely ignore others who don't do anything useful. At the end of each day, you will look back and say "Wow. I improved a long-standing process that used to take 5 hours down to 1 hour." It is very important then to write down these accomplishments. Which leads to the next rule...
Rule #2: Sell your hard work.
Selling does not necessarily mean that you mention every improvement at every meeting. But when the opportunity arises, you need to be prepared to say: "Listen, do you remember when it used to take 5 hours to do that? The reason why it now takes only 1 hour is because I put a lot of careful thought into the process and worked with the right people to get it changed. If you can drop it from 1 hour to 30 minutes, great. But it sounds like what you are proposing is going backward, not forward. Can you tell the group how you intend to improve the process?" Leeches love to sit in meetings with lots of high-ranking people and yap about non-improvements that they have implemented. When they start to tread on your turf, you must have the courage to call them out, or you deserve to be stepped on. Yes it is tough, and yes life would be better for you if you did not have to muster up the courage and prepare tenaciously for addressing these people. But, you work at a company that has leeches. What else can I say? Protect what you have worked hard to create, and don't let anyone take it away from you. If you sit in enough of these meetings, and call the non-workers out to the floor enough, eventually those high-ranking people will take notice. Use these non-workers' tactics to your advantage. They want visibility so that they can yap a bunch of corporate-babble to higher-ups. Taking them to task in front of the big boss will instantly reveal what they really are. Incompetent idiots trying to take credit for work they did not do. And you will come out smelling like a rose.
Rule #3: Don't take the idiots home with you.
There is an old Japanese proverb that goes something like this: A monk and his young disciple were walking through the countryside when they came upon a stream with a woman standing on the other side, unable to cross. The monk walked through the stream and carried the woman across then the monk and the disciple continued on their way. The temple where the monk and the disciple worshiped strictly forbade the touching of a woman, so an hour or so later when the two reached the temple, the disciple could no longer contain himself. "Master, I have to know. Why did you carry the woman across the stream, when you know it is forbidden?". To which the master replied "I left the woman back at the stream. You carried her all the way back to the temple."
Leeches and incompetent people can easily draw in your attention, ruin a good mood, and sour a dinner time conversation. Don't give them that privilege. Leave them at work, so they cannot infect your family and friends with their stupidity and negativity.
Rule #1: Excel at your own job, even when others who get paid more don't.
You take pride in your work. You deeply care about the quality that you deliver, and the craftmanship that you have honed over the course of your career. If you didn't, you wouldn't be reading this blog, but instead would be busy making someone else's life miserable with your incompetence. The more you focus on the quality of of your own work, the less significant the leeches will become. It is very tempting to lower yourself to the level of less competent people, but when you do this, you will never be happy at work. Happiness comes partly from self-discipline, and you will do better for yourself to remain disciplined enough to completely ignore others who don't do anything useful. At the end of each day, you will look back and say "Wow. I improved a long-standing process that used to take 5 hours down to 1 hour." It is very important then to write down these accomplishments. Which leads to the next rule...
Rule #2: Sell your hard work.
Selling does not necessarily mean that you mention every improvement at every meeting. But when the opportunity arises, you need to be prepared to say: "Listen, do you remember when it used to take 5 hours to do that? The reason why it now takes only 1 hour is because I put a lot of careful thought into the process and worked with the right people to get it changed. If you can drop it from 1 hour to 30 minutes, great. But it sounds like what you are proposing is going backward, not forward. Can you tell the group how you intend to improve the process?" Leeches love to sit in meetings with lots of high-ranking people and yap about non-improvements that they have implemented. When they start to tread on your turf, you must have the courage to call them out, or you deserve to be stepped on. Yes it is tough, and yes life would be better for you if you did not have to muster up the courage and prepare tenaciously for addressing these people. But, you work at a company that has leeches. What else can I say? Protect what you have worked hard to create, and don't let anyone take it away from you. If you sit in enough of these meetings, and call the non-workers out to the floor enough, eventually those high-ranking people will take notice. Use these non-workers' tactics to your advantage. They want visibility so that they can yap a bunch of corporate-babble to higher-ups. Taking them to task in front of the big boss will instantly reveal what they really are. Incompetent idiots trying to take credit for work they did not do. And you will come out smelling like a rose.
Rule #3: Don't take the idiots home with you.
There is an old Japanese proverb that goes something like this: A monk and his young disciple were walking through the countryside when they came upon a stream with a woman standing on the other side, unable to cross. The monk walked through the stream and carried the woman across then the monk and the disciple continued on their way. The temple where the monk and the disciple worshiped strictly forbade the touching of a woman, so an hour or so later when the two reached the temple, the disciple could no longer contain himself. "Master, I have to know. Why did you carry the woman across the stream, when you know it is forbidden?". To which the master replied "I left the woman back at the stream. You carried her all the way back to the temple."
Leeches and incompetent people can easily draw in your attention, ruin a good mood, and sour a dinner time conversation. Don't give them that privilege. Leave them at work, so they cannot infect your family and friends with their stupidity and negativity.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
My President does not understand the Tea Party movement
In yesterday's mid-term elections, the Republican and Tea Party candidates obtained a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, many seats in the Senate, and many state Governor positions. In a news conference this morning, President Obama was asked on at least two occasions whether he believed that the sweeping gains by Republicans were a result of a rejection of his policies. His responses were remarkable. He did not think that this was the case, but rather it was the economy and his own failure to explain what he is doing and why. I say that this is remarkable because I don't recall any President in my lifetime that has ever done as much explaining as President Obama.
My President does not understand that the Tea Parties are energized by a desire to reduce the amount of government control upon the lives of the American people. This control is typically obtained by the left in two ways: legislation and increased spending. I need to explain why I believe my President does not understand the Tea Parties. Dennis Prager taught me that a major difference between the left and the right is our discrepancy in each side's beliefs about what motivates behavior - The left believes economics and group identification are major factors, and the right believes that values are the primary factor. To clarify my position, I believe that everyone sees the world through a lens that shapes how they perceive the world. Different people looking through the same lens breeds similar perceptions. I am not immune to this, and neither is anyone on the right or the left. But at least those on the right typically acknowledge that we see through a lens. The left, and President Obama in particular do not. President Obama has at least on one occasion said "I am not an idealogue" and has repeatedly chastised the right for choosing ideology over consensus. Any given lens defines the characteristics that motivate behavior. For those on the right, this lens usually puts moral standards and personal liberty at the top of the list of attributes to consider, even above equality. For the left, this lens usually places economic and equality factors at the top of the list, even above morality. For example, A leftist position is that the rich should pay a significantly higher percentage of tax than the middle class. This illustrates my point: The rich should not be allowed to keep the same percentage of their wages as the middle class, because that would be "less equal" than taxing the rich a higher percentage, even though there is no moral justification for taking a higher percentage of tax from those who earn more.
The fact that President Obama does not "get" the Tea Party movement is a problem for our country. The less he understands this movement, the clearer it will be to the American People in 2012 that they should refrain from voting Democrat because it will become clearer that President Obama is not aware that he perceives the world through a lens. Somehow he believes (as do most on the left) that their vantage point is pure, as if it is unfettered by ideology. As Dennis Prager has often pointed out, Marxism is not dead, it has just changed names.
My President does not understand that the Tea Parties are energized by a desire to reduce the amount of government control upon the lives of the American people. This control is typically obtained by the left in two ways: legislation and increased spending. I need to explain why I believe my President does not understand the Tea Parties. Dennis Prager taught me that a major difference between the left and the right is our discrepancy in each side's beliefs about what motivates behavior - The left believes economics and group identification are major factors, and the right believes that values are the primary factor. To clarify my position, I believe that everyone sees the world through a lens that shapes how they perceive the world. Different people looking through the same lens breeds similar perceptions. I am not immune to this, and neither is anyone on the right or the left. But at least those on the right typically acknowledge that we see through a lens. The left, and President Obama in particular do not. President Obama has at least on one occasion said "I am not an idealogue" and has repeatedly chastised the right for choosing ideology over consensus. Any given lens defines the characteristics that motivate behavior. For those on the right, this lens usually puts moral standards and personal liberty at the top of the list of attributes to consider, even above equality. For the left, this lens usually places economic and equality factors at the top of the list, even above morality. For example, A leftist position is that the rich should pay a significantly higher percentage of tax than the middle class. This illustrates my point: The rich should not be allowed to keep the same percentage of their wages as the middle class, because that would be "less equal" than taxing the rich a higher percentage, even though there is no moral justification for taking a higher percentage of tax from those who earn more.
The fact that President Obama does not "get" the Tea Party movement is a problem for our country. The less he understands this movement, the clearer it will be to the American People in 2012 that they should refrain from voting Democrat because it will become clearer that President Obama is not aware that he perceives the world through a lens. Somehow he believes (as do most on the left) that their vantage point is pure, as if it is unfettered by ideology. As Dennis Prager has often pointed out, Marxism is not dead, it has just changed names.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)