Tagged: politics

The Last Time He

The last time he unquestionably believed something because of the proponent’s position in society he was a child.  This is not because he thought position, rank and/or authority were easily gained, but because he wanted to keep ever sharp his ability to think for himself.

And because there is that point, increasingly difficult to identify over time, when trust becomes foolishness–itself only a few steps away from danger.

Same Sh!t, Different(?) Day

Unless you live under a rock, you heard that President Obama recently had three dictionary’s (Google, Merriam-Webster and Cambridge) add the following entry to the definition of literally:  “Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.”

In typical fashion, that isn’t the only, or most impactful, word/definition that the president had modified.  While everyone was abuzz over the fact that a definition clearly in opposition to the word’s actual definition was added, nobody noticed the other word the president had changed: different.  (Of all the words for this to happen to, that he chose ‘literally’ to accomplish his ultimate goal is genius as it is so fundamental to a dictionary that it necessarily would draw attention.)

If you go to dictionary.com and look up different you’ll find, “not alike in character or quality” as the number one definition.  However, the same three dictionaries the president has in his pocket have caved to the pressure yet again.  Instead of just adding a definition to the number two spot, though, they actually erased all the previous definitions and instead put, “being the same.”

Now, we could discuss how, yet again, the president’s actions–always hiding bigger changes behind smaller changes–are disreputable, but let’s not.  We could discuss how, yet again, the president’s actions–endlessly overstepping the limited nature of his power–are illegal, but let’s not.  We could discuss how, yet again, the president’s actions–his surprisingly unsurprising changing definitions of words–are narcissistic and disrespectful to all mankind, but let’s not.  Instead, we will focus on how his most recent action, changing the definition of  different, clearly illustrates how he has a fundamental misunderstanding of his main campaign promise: change.

President Barack Obama promised to change this country, presumably for the better.  We turn again to dictionary.com and find that change is defined as, “to become different.”  Do you understand what has happened?  The nature of all the president’s flaws are revealed perfectly in this one seemingly minor action.  He wants to have it all.  He wants to “have his cake and eat it too”.  He wants to “have it both ways.”  However, as long as there is one other human–functional backbone included–in existence, he’s going to have a problem reconciling his ‘wants’ with reality.

His changing the definition of different doesn’t even make sense if he doesn’t have these ‘wants.’  How can a man who promises change fulfill his promise if everything is the same?

Some of us might be inclined to let this minor change be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.  Let’s turn to a dissenting opinion:  His entertainment value alone has been worth it.

For those of us who first learned how inept presidents were with Clinton, we were even more disappointed in Bush II.  And out of these three presidents that have done nothing but drop the ball, has President Obama not been easily the most enjoyable to watch.   Will you join me in admitting that rather than getting upset, you actually hope President Obama never leaves office?  Long Live King Obama!

How To Ignore

(If you’re short on time, skip to the bottom for numbered instructions.)

Five days had passed.  He still wasn’t able to focus.  He couldn’t believe what the President had said–what the President had done.

His friends were sick of listening to him rant.  He felt like his co-workers were starting to be more than annoyed.  But he couldn’t relent.  He was in shock that the President of the United States of America had come to the conclusion that his best play was to say what he did.  He was so angry.  Rage had descended upon him as if an avalanche.

Five days was too long.  He knew this.  Academically, he knew he needed to get over it.  But he was a man of integrity.   He couldn’t pin down the reason, but he felt his integrity was under attack.  As of this moment, though, he knew the time had come.  He had related to everyone what he felt, and he had reached the point of diminishing returns.  He knew he needed to just ignore it.  He just didn’t know how to do that.

Instructions for How To Ignore:

Step 1 – Decide that acknowledging an experience, regardless of it’s truth, hurts more than it helps.

Step 2 – Lie.  Deliberately convince yourself that you didn’t experience or aren’t experiencing the event in question.

Definitive Response to Mr. Mike Keefe

Dear Mr. Keefe,

I am writing to you in response to one of your recent works, “The Civilian Need for Military-Style Assault Weapons.”

Here’s the thing, civilians who argue for the right to own “military-style assault weapons” are not arguing that they need to own them for hunting purposes.  The reason civilians need to be able to own assault weapons is to maintain the ability to prevent and/or defeat tyranny.

It was during my second deployment that the idea struck me.  It doesn’t matter how many planes/boats/tanks the US has.  The reason we are running the show in Iraq and Afghanistan is because we have more guns and bullets than the enemy.  Before 2003, I might have had to argue my point simply on principle (still a winning argument), but after a decade of fighting men armed only with assault rifles, I can convince you with practical experience as well.  How else do you explain these last ten years during which the most powerful military in the world hasn’t been able to definitively defeat men armed only with assault weapons?

Let me state the main assumption in this argument; that is, the point on which we may disagree:  every government trends towards tyranny.  Our founders recognized this and put a check in place in the hope that it would be enough to prevent the tyranny from occurring.  That being, governments should fear (just a little) their people.  The real genius, of course, is that an armed population can actually overthrow a tyrannical government, not just threaten to overthrow it.

To sum up, your cartoon totally sets up a straw man in the debate on gun policy in America.  By defeating this straw man as soundly as you do, you miss your mark.  Rather than offer insight on the gun-control debate in America, you do two negative things.  First, you confuse a reason for assault weapon ownership that isn’t worthy of attention for one that is.  Second, deliberately setting up a straw man on an issue that restricts my everyday freedom to spend my money as I please actively promotes tyranny.  No thank you, Mr. Keefe.

Sincerely,

A Mugwump

Special Fourth of July Interview with A Mugwump

I’m excited to tell you all that I had an opportunity to interview A Mugwump this morning.  I thought it was a fascinating conversation, but you judge for yourself.

Captain’s Log – How many ways can we spend money?

A Mugwump – Just two.  The two ways we can spend our money are by choice or by compulsion.

CL – What is money?

AM – The dictionaries are wrong on this one.  Big time.  It’s not complicated.  Money is a language.  Unlike say, English which can communicate the breadth of the human experience, money can only communicate one thing.  Money can only communicate value.  Money is a language that communicates one thing.  Money communicates value.  That’s it.  All the talk about recessions, depressions, inflation, the 99%, the 1%, Wall Street, Main Street, all of that is meaningless.  Money is a language that communicates value.

CL – Are you saying that people with money are more valuable than people without money?

AM – No.  This point is tricky, so pay attention.  Money is only money when it is in motion.  A dollar in my pocket is not a dollar.  It is a piece of paper that looks like a dollar.  When I take it out to purchase something, as I hand it to the seller, it transforms into money.  It transforms into a communication of value.  Whether we have a lot of money or no money has nothing to do with our value.  When we choose to spend money, we communicate to others what we value.  As I said, money in motion is the language we use to express value.

CL – Okay then, let’s return to the two ways we can spend our money, what is communicated when we choose to spend our money?

AM – When we spend our money by our own choice, we come to an agreement with the seller of the goods as to the value of the product or service.  In short, when we choose to spend our money we communicate how much we value the product or service.  If we think a particular TV is worth $300 and the person with the TV thinks it is worth $300, we hand over the $300 dollars and the seller hands us the TV.  The money transferred communicates the agreed upon value of the TV.

CL – And what about when we are compelled?

AM – It is not the same when we talk about being compelled to spend our money.  When we are compelled to spend our money, that money does not communicate the value of a product or service.  Instead, when we are compelled to spend our money, the money communicates how much we think we’re worth as an individual.  The money that an armed-robber forces us to give him was freely given to us in exchange for the value of a specific application of our time, skill, and/or energy.  The armed-robber is giving us nothing of value in return for our money. Therefore, when we pay the armed-robber everything we have to stay alive, we’ve just communicated that we think our time, skill, and energy, in other words, our life, has no value.  And the act of paying everything–our time, our skill, and our energy (our life)–to stay alive is another way to define slavery.

CL – Slavery, huh?  It sounds like you may be describing the government as an armed-robber.  What do you think a government is?

AM – No, you misunderstand.  The government is not an armed-robber.  It does offer certain valuable things, which a private market cannot, in exchange for our money.  What do I think a government is?  To my mind, a description that fits all governments that have ever existed, in all time periods, for all cultures, for all nations, would have to be, “Other people making some of our decisions for us.”  That is what a government is.  A government is nothing more than another person or group of people making some of our decisions for us.  I say “some” of our decisions because that’s what this is all about.  How many of our decisions should a government make for us?  That’s what we are constantly deciding in this life.  To me, less is better.  But I can see how others might not want the responsibility of decision-making, so they might want others to make the decisions for them.

CL – Of all days, why agree to this interview today?

AM – Today, July 4th, 2013, is a fitting day to remind people of the nature of things.  America is the only group we’re all apart of today.  And if your readers are anything like me, they know they have value.  As a matter of fact, even if they’re nothing like me, I believe they have value.  I believe this, not because I have any special knowledge, but because in order to secure my freedom, I must believe and act on the idea that everyone has value.  I must act on the idea that no matter who we are, no matter what our background, no matter what mistakes we’ve made, we have value.  It’s Independence Day.  A holiday helping us remember that our country was founded because citizens disagreed with how/how much of their money they were compelled to spend.  In other words, they believed they should be making more decisions than their government let them.  It was founded because people believed they were worth more than their government thought.  If we want to spend our money as we please, if we want the amount of money we’re compelled to spend to be as little as possible, we need to be reminded that we all have value.  Everyone has value.