2919: Spew
I've written all this, and y'all will just breeze on past it anyway... oh well XB~~~
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about Joe "The Plumber" WurtlskasasgghlhgerWurzelbacher being used as a bludgeoning tool in the debate: Joe will not create all these "new jobs" that McCain says he will create. Wurzelbacher says he wants to buy--not create--the business he currently works for, consisting of all of two UNLICENSED plumbers [himself and his boss], and it would still be a two-person job [maybe three] if he bought the business. Okay, WOO you made one job [maybe]. JTP might be taxed so much he'd have to start laying people off? Are you serious? If two-maybe-three people are making so much more than $250,000/yr that one of them would have to get laid off, I'd seriously worry about what they're doing or, before that, I'd worry about the rate of inflation that $250,000 is now only really worth $50,000. Or whatever.
I mean, I get why JTP would be upset--OH NOES YOU MADE WHAT I WANT COST MORE--but I also look at the Katrina victims and think, "They've lost everything through no fault of their own, due to Bush being an idiot and ignoring the warnings, how is not taxing the Ohio Plumber a little more going to help them?" There's two sides to all of it, and while some people do live off welfare at the expense of the well-off, to what degree can you turn a blind eye to those who are honestly trying but can't take care of themselves at minimum wage?
I do agree with certain anti-socialist concerns about the economy. However, I don't see how Reaganomics will help when--as it has been criticized--rich people tend to hold onto their money, not turn around and redistribute it as they please [which is usually to their own bank accounts]. There are flaws across the board, but I feel a little better with the idea of catering to the struggling, even if there are deadbeats among them, than catering to the moneygrubbers, even if there are benevolent patrons among them.*
Forget the stuff about "realizing the American Dream of owning their own business." That's kind of ridiculous--someone still has to work for the businesses. ["We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by."] At this point, I think a lot of Americans are dreaming about just keeping their homes. Remember THAT American Dream? Little house with the white picket fence? When did owning a business come into that? OH YEAH:"I'm not greedy. As long as I've got my health, my millions of dollars, my gold house, and my rocket car, I don't need anything else."
Relatedly, I've come to like being a small fish in a big pond, even if it's a little intimidating being among all these people I don't know who seem to know everyone else. Thing is it's easy to look at small businesses as the little guy, but big businesses came from small businesses, and a lot of small businesses wouldn't survive without big businesses [Sam's Club/Costco, i.e., not to mention UPS/FedEx/DHL/blah blah blah]. Big businesses create more jobs and serve more people than small businesses, with the added benefit of you can cross the country and expect one franchise to perform practically identically to the one back home, something that small businesses can't guarantee. Weigh the pros and cons, but it's weird that small business took such a large chunk of the debate, especially Joe's [theoretical] small business.
[prolly not even that, actually]
* It becomes a variant on the Trolley Problem: Who do you value? Do you value helping the majority--which, economically, is the lower- and middle-class--or do you value helping the minority--the rich, who have [in theory] earned their wealth and deserve to keep it? The obvious middle ground is to say "The poor but honest and rich who've worked hard BUT NOT the poor deadbeats and rich scam artists," but how does an outside observer decide who is who? One side wants to blanketly help as many people as possible, and the easiest way to do that is to hurt a few people a la Robin Hood. The other wants to help the few who hold all the money with the idea that those few will choose who gets money. It's easy to theorize which will work better, but it's hard to prove without actually putting it into practice.
There was a print column of Ask Marilyn that predated the online archives, which may be why I can't find it verbatim, but here are some approximations:Blaise Pascal says that one may as well believe in God, because believing and not being right means nothing lost, while not believing and being wrong is a great loss.
This is a perfect example of false dichotomy: Pascal assumes there are only two choices, and that one choice is better than the other due to what can be gained.
By this token, suppose there is a religion that promises a few days of life after death, compared to the eternal life promised in Christianity. Clearly Christianity is better, so you should believe in Christianity for the best gains. However, should there be a religion that promises eternal life as well as some additional benefits, shouldn't you go with the religion that promises the most?
Also, if believing in Christianity means sacrificing a lot of things that would have made your life better, then that is indeed a loss.
Notwithstanding that I'd believe in XYZ because it's right, not because I'd gain anything from it. I hate Christians who are basically in it for the benefits--that goes entirely against what Christianity means.
Pascal's Wager, though: This is what's playing out in the current election. Opponents of Obama complain that things won't work the way he thinks under his plan, so they might as well vote for McCain because he promises "no raised taxes for anyone, plus health benefits and a new pony for everyone!" Lying is contemptible, but how can you tell who is lying until that person actually does something and (dis)proves his/her word? Even then, it's only one or the other [or one of N choices, I guess]. There is also untold theorization that people have been planted to say things to the media to make one candidate look better, which is reprehensible but not entirely unbelievable [considering the D.C. sniper case and the one jerk who lied and said he saw the guy, just so he could get on the telly].
This is the sane choice--and one I hope most people make: Take the candidates at face value. Forget JTP and all these other schmucks you may never actually meet in real life, because your business is to worry about YOU first and everyone else as you need to prioritize. With that in mind, whichever one's plan--for all the flaws--sounds the most realistic, vote for that. Even if it means you can't buy the business, yes, but consider whether the other guy will help you any more. Everyone promises, but in this case more is not better. I did this whole table, in fact:Case 1: A promises outrageous things, B promises some things you want, some things you don't want.
Both would keep their promises: B is clearly better.
Case 2: A promises outrageous things, B promises some things you want, some things you don't want.
A would keep all promises, B wouldn't: A is clearly better.
Case 3: A promises outrageous things, B promises some things you want, some things you don't want.
B would keep all promises, A wouldn't: B is clearly better.
Case 4: A promises outrageous things, B promises some things you want, some things you don't want.
Neither would keep their promises: I contest that B is better anyway, because s/he is more convincing.
Take that as you will--yes, wagering on which is most likely to happen is still wagering, but wagering on a more certain bet is better than wagering on whatever promises the most, however farfetched the promises.
And by outrageous, incidentally, I mean stuff like "NO taxes at all, benefits for all, plus ponies!" when there's no possible way that even the most honest and well-intentioned of people could ever fulfill these promises. No taxing? Where is the money for these benefits going to come from? Realism is much more likely to happen. ["If you could wish for anything in the world, what would you want?" "A sandwich." "What?! I'd wish for a private jet, my own continent, and a million dollars!" "I got my wish."]
So yeah. Ah, Internet--you and your scary ways. [Thanks to the masses of unwashed, Internet-fearing heathens, I expect to wake up on the 6th and be horrified to find Ralph Nader actually make it in, or something. Well, not really--this election is too vocal and polarized for an increasingly invisible third party to really take it without weighted voting.]
Here's what rubs me the wrong way about Joe "The Plumber" WurtlskasasgghlhgerWurzelbacher being used as a bludgeoning tool in the debate: Joe will not create all these "new jobs" that McCain says he will create. Wurzelbacher says he wants to buy--not create--the business he currently works for, consisting of all of two UNLICENSED plumbers [himself and his boss], and it would still be a two-person job [maybe three] if he bought the business. Okay, WOO you made one job [maybe]. JTP might be taxed so much he'd have to start laying people off? Are you serious? If two-maybe-three people are making so much more than $250,000/yr that one of them would have to get laid off, I'd seriously worry about what they're doing or, before that, I'd worry about the rate of inflation that $250,000 is now only really worth $50,000. Or whatever.
I mean, I get why JTP would be upset--OH NOES YOU MADE WHAT I WANT COST MORE--but I also look at the Katrina victims and think, "They've lost everything through no fault of their own, due to Bush being an idiot and ignoring the warnings, how is not taxing the Ohio Plumber a little more going to help them?" There's two sides to all of it, and while some people do live off welfare at the expense of the well-off, to what degree can you turn a blind eye to those who are honestly trying but can't take care of themselves at minimum wage?
I do agree with certain anti-socialist concerns about the economy. However, I don't see how Reaganomics will help when--as it has been criticized--rich people tend to hold onto their money, not turn around and redistribute it as they please [which is usually to their own bank accounts]. There are flaws across the board, but I feel a little better with the idea of catering to the struggling, even if there are deadbeats among them, than catering to the moneygrubbers, even if there are benevolent patrons among them.*
Forget the stuff about "realizing the American Dream of owning their own business." That's kind of ridiculous--someone still has to work for the businesses. ["We can't all be heroes because somebody has to sit on the curb and clap as they go by."] At this point, I think a lot of Americans are dreaming about just keeping their homes. Remember THAT American Dream? Little house with the white picket fence? When did owning a business come into that? OH YEAH:"I'm not greedy. As long as I've got my health, my millions of dollars, my gold house, and my rocket car, I don't need anything else."
Relatedly, I've come to like being a small fish in a big pond, even if it's a little intimidating being among all these people I don't know who seem to know everyone else. Thing is it's easy to look at small businesses as the little guy, but big businesses came from small businesses, and a lot of small businesses wouldn't survive without big businesses [Sam's Club/Costco, i.e., not to mention UPS/FedEx/DHL/blah blah blah]. Big businesses create more jobs and serve more people than small businesses, with the added benefit of you can cross the country and expect one franchise to perform practically identically to the one back home, something that small businesses can't guarantee. Weigh the pros and cons, but it's weird that small business took such a large chunk of the debate, especially Joe's [theoretical] small business.
[prolly not even that, actually]
* It becomes a variant on the Trolley Problem: Who do you value? Do you value helping the majority--which, economically, is the lower- and middle-class--or do you value helping the minority--the rich, who have [in theory] earned their wealth and deserve to keep it? The obvious middle ground is to say "The poor but honest and rich who've worked hard BUT NOT the poor deadbeats and rich scam artists," but how does an outside observer decide who is who? One side wants to blanketly help as many people as possible, and the easiest way to do that is to hurt a few people a la Robin Hood. The other wants to help the few who hold all the money with the idea that those few will choose who gets money. It's easy to theorize which will work better, but it's hard to prove without actually putting it into practice.
There was a print column of Ask Marilyn that predated the online archives, which may be why I can't find it verbatim, but here are some approximations:Blaise Pascal says that one may as well believe in God, because believing and not being right means nothing lost, while not believing and being wrong is a great loss.
This is a perfect example of false dichotomy: Pascal assumes there are only two choices, and that one choice is better than the other due to what can be gained.
By this token, suppose there is a religion that promises a few days of life after death, compared to the eternal life promised in Christianity. Clearly Christianity is better, so you should believe in Christianity for the best gains. However, should there be a religion that promises eternal life as well as some additional benefits, shouldn't you go with the religion that promises the most?
Also, if believing in Christianity means sacrificing a lot of things that would have made your life better, then that is indeed a loss.
Notwithstanding that I'd believe in XYZ because it's right, not because I'd gain anything from it. I hate Christians who are basically in it for the benefits--that goes entirely against what Christianity means.
Pascal's Wager, though: This is what's playing out in the current election. Opponents of Obama complain that things won't work the way he thinks under his plan, so they might as well vote for McCain because he promises "no raised taxes for anyone, plus health benefits and a new pony for everyone!" Lying is contemptible, but how can you tell who is lying until that person actually does something and (dis)proves his/her word? Even then, it's only one or the other [or one of N choices, I guess]. There is also untold theorization that people have been planted to say things to the media to make one candidate look better, which is reprehensible but not entirely unbelievable [considering the D.C. sniper case and the one jerk who lied and said he saw the guy, just so he could get on the telly].
This is the sane choice--and one I hope most people make: Take the candidates at face value. Forget JTP and all these other schmucks you may never actually meet in real life, because your business is to worry about YOU first and everyone else as you need to prioritize. With that in mind, whichever one's plan--for all the flaws--sounds the most realistic, vote for that. Even if it means you can't buy the business, yes, but consider whether the other guy will help you any more. Everyone promises, but in this case more is not better. I did this whole table, in fact:Case 1: A promises outrageous things, B promises some things you want, some things you don't want.
Both would keep their promises: B is clearly better.
Case 2: A promises outrageous things, B promises some things you want, some things you don't want.
A would keep all promises, B wouldn't: A is clearly better.
Case 3: A promises outrageous things, B promises some things you want, some things you don't want.
B would keep all promises, A wouldn't: B is clearly better.
Case 4: A promises outrageous things, B promises some things you want, some things you don't want.
Neither would keep their promises: I contest that B is better anyway, because s/he is more convincing.
Take that as you will--yes, wagering on which is most likely to happen is still wagering, but wagering on a more certain bet is better than wagering on whatever promises the most, however farfetched the promises.
And by outrageous, incidentally, I mean stuff like "NO taxes at all, benefits for all, plus ponies!" when there's no possible way that even the most honest and well-intentioned of people could ever fulfill these promises. No taxing? Where is the money for these benefits going to come from? Realism is much more likely to happen. ["If you could wish for anything in the world, what would you want?" "A sandwich." "What?! I'd wish for a private jet, my own continent, and a million dollars!" "I got my wish."]
So yeah. Ah, Internet--you and your scary ways. [Thanks to the masses of unwashed, Internet-fearing heathens, I expect to wake up on the 6th and be horrified to find Ralph Nader actually make it in, or something. Well, not really--this election is too vocal and polarized for an increasingly invisible third party to really take it without weighted voting.]