Flippin’ the Word

Woof.

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Listen up…this is probably the one and only time you’ll hear me talk about football!

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Noticing is hard, especially when what you notice bothers. It’s been really hard for me, this noticing thing, because so much of what bothers me gets brushed aside as insignificant, and I’m branded as nit-picky and critical. So, I’ve tried to curb some of my more nuanced observations on this site, but I’m bringing them back, because another thing I’m noticing is that people dismiss because they agree and that might mean they’re nit-picky too.

What I noticed today is so seemingly nit-picky that it’s based on capitalization in a song lyric. I’m obsessed with Sheryl Crow’s new song “Love is Free,” which she says on her site is an ode to Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the city’s ”very spiritually based” citizens. You’d think, then, that in such a spiritually-charged song, the word God would be capitalized. It isn’t, but the word Cadillac is.

Check out the new “57 Things” page for some musings, facts, and idiosynrasies of moi.

I reread my last post, and it occurred to me that I’ve taken to thinking of the government as an entity. Most people make this mistake of conception, probably because it’s easier to blame government as abstract object than what it actually is - a being of our own making. A juggernaut, yes, but not on its own merits. It’s a juggernaut which we birthed and nourished. Still nourish, by denying the origin and source of its existence and its strength.

So much can be inferred from the way a culture speaks of that which is important to it. I learned once that the American Indians referred to horseback riding in a way not describable in English: There was no distinction between verb and noun - the verb didn’t do something do the noun; rather, verb and noun mingled to describe a transcendentally symbiotic convergence of man and horse. That semantic window highlights an undercurrent of the Indian identity.

Such as it is with regard to the way we conceive of government. It’s simpler to speak of it as a giant bowling ball, powered by an invisible force and made invincible by inertia. But actually we control the ball’s direction, spin, and speed. Currently, our thumbs aren’t in the slots nor our hands even around the ball. Because we think we are the pins, and because we think it, it’s true. I suggest we get on the right end of that ball.

I hear a lot of fuss about small government versus big government, and I suspect I’ll only hear more as the Democrats and Republicans go to battle between, not within, the parties. I guess you could say I support small government, but it’s probably most accurate to say I support another point on the role-of-government continuum: Almost no government.

Most unfortunate happenings, I believe, should be chalked up to life and put in the “cost of being alive” column. As such, not every single unfortunate event must be accounted for and minimized by government. We should, for example, accept that certain store merchandise will offend us. So, we’ll be sometimes offended - what’s the big deal? No need for indecency statutes if we’d just withstand some offense every once in a while.

Of course, evil must be controlled. By government, probably. But I’m not sure that anyone can trust a government to protect its citizens from evil, but not from cheeky t-shirt slogans. As soon as we want to be protected at all, we’re protected from all. And it makes me feel like I’m walking down the hallway in kindergarten, when we had to keep one finger over our mouths and the other hand on our heads.

My opinion regarding Iran was formed last night during the debate. So far, it’s not been an issue I particularly care about, primarily, I think, because I couldn’t find a reason to care. But last night, Ron Paul hit it on the head, culminating what I’ve always believed, but have had trouble articulating - even in my own head. Paul made connections, and that resonates with me always: anytime I can see some issue’s link to some other, I have instant clarity about both issues and peripheral topics.

Ron drew the ironic, inane link between what we’re ostensibly doing in Iraq (spreading “democracy”), and what we’re jumping to do with Iran. The key to our ironic involvement with both nations is Pakistan - we send gobs of money to Pakistan for the “spread of democracy” - money entrusted to a military general who overthrew a democratic government. The American millions are supposed to go towards democratizing Afghanistan. To recap: We’re financing Pakistan’s attempt to bring democracy to Afghanistan - put another way, we are financing a decidedly anti-democratic nation (one which, in fact, usurped democratic rule), to democratize Afghanistan.

So what does all of this have to do with Iran? America is on its high horse, awaiting the chance to engage Iran. Why? To bring democracy and “stability” to the nation, naturally! When anyone comes close to noticing the insanity of this impending war and the yappity-yap surrounding it, war-loving politicians bring up Israel. As in: “America must stand by Israel, its strongest ally in the War On Terror, so Iran must understand that we will annihilate any nation that poses a threat to Israel.” (This reminds me of another Ron Paul comment of last night. America does treat Israel like a child!) The irony is that it’s America, through hundreds of millions in aid and oil dollars, that finances every single signal of “instability” that Iran demonstrates! Iran could not afford to be a threat to Israel nor the U.S. but for the cash cow that is America.

To get rid of the Iran threat, leave Iran alone - militarily and monetarily.

I talked in my recent podcast about the way the presidential candidates have latched on the word “change,” and I’m forecasting that it’s more than a cringe-inspiring earsore - the candidates will eventually have to explain away all the maudlin cries for change. After the “agent of change” hype withers, Americans will come to their senses and admit that, really, not very much change is necessary.

“Change” is a fad notion - it sounds sincere and it’s catchy. But this is what I’ve noticed about people, especially Americans: We spend a lot of time considering the imagined plight of others, decrying hyperbolic desolation and despair. We comfort our own failings with stoic “it could always be worse” musings, biblically proclaiming that “we have it so much better than so many.” So yes, Americans are fixated on the “life is hard” mantra and thus the “change” message is appealing - until it stales and people consider their relatively comfortable lives. Because something else about Americans is that it always comes down to oneself. Oneself relative to others, of course, but oneself nonetheless.

In the fall the candidates will be bumbling for a new it word. It might be “stability” or “reliability” or it might be some unwieldy phrase like “the preservation of this great nation.” Nice tries, all of them, but I’m crossing my fingers for the irony of “status quo.”

I’m struck that Ron Paul is regarded as a “radical,” because I can’t find one idea of his that is radical. His basic platform is that he will bring a return of the U.S. Constitution. I’ve heard the Constitution described as revolutionary, but never “radical.”

Paul’s plan to eliminate the IRS is certainly in contrast to most mainstream politicians, though Mike Huckabee cries incessantly about his own plan to “put the IRS out of business” and that phrase is invariably met with rousing applause. For some reason, Paul is called a nut for wanting to get rid of the IRS, while Huckabee is lauded as a revolutionary.

On the topic of a North American Union, Paul is also criticized for his ” radical conspiracy theories.” I hope that any sane person, whether or not a Paul supporter, would agree that it’s much more radical to propose that the U.S. government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks than to recognize the gradual blending of Canada, America, and Mexico.

Along those lines, it’s certainly radical to propose that the government take over an additional 1/7 of the U.S. economy. Extensive state ownership of enterprise is the very definition of socialism. The government already owns a massive segment of industry, and a governmental takeover of healthcare would push America to the brink of socialism.

It’s definitely radical to drone on about the “progressive” nature of this election. Electing a woman or a black man is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned, since all I ever hear is how we must be “blind” to gender and race. So I’m blind. I want to elect someone who happens to be white, male, and Christian, and I don’t want to elect people who happen to be black or female. The politically correct crowd preaches that these differences shouldn’t matter, but that’s a confusing message when I can’t turn on my computer without hearing about the “importance” of electing a minority member. (Which: Since when have women been a minority? We number at least half the earth’s population, and probably a little more! Yet the phrase “women and minorities” has seeped into the political rhetoric, belying the fact that women as a minority is a mathematically impossible lie.)

Most radical of all is the hysteria over the “dying middle class,” when this is a golden age for most Americans. Only a delusional person could look around and sulk about the sad state of affairs. Hell, my maid  has a BMW! As far as I can see, the middle class is not only flourishing, it’s growing. It’s radical for a politican to say otherwise, and it’s even more radical for anyone to believe it.

Considering all this, Ron Paul appears decidely unradical. So enlighten me in the comments or in email: What’s so radical about Ron Paul?