Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts

Sunday, July 21, 2024

The MAGA Lie: America IS a GREAT Country

You have been told, are being told, and will continue to be told, how bad our country is, how dark is our future. It’s a lie. It was a lie 8 years ago, it was a lie 4 years ago, it’s a lie now, and it will continue to be a lie until it not longer serves the purpose of the liars.


In the 10+ years since I retired, I’ve been to all four corners of our great nation, the Northwest  (including Alaska), the South and Southeast, the Southwest, and New England. And then, of course, I live in the middle (MO). From stunning vistas, happy people, and a humming economy, I’ve been privileged to witness a great country, of which I’m proud to be a citizen. 


But if you believe everything you hear, we are a nation in decline, no longer great, no longer successful, no longer strong, and faced with a dark, dismal future, unless you hand over power (lots of power) to people who can only see that darkness.


America IS a great country. MAGA is built on a lie, because its foundation is that once (AGAIN doesn’t imply, it clearly states) we were great, but we are no longer. Let me remind you, that was the slogan in 2016, as well. Let me also ask, when was that period of greatness that no longer exists?


I’ve travelled (literally) around the world, including South America, Australia and the South Pacific, and Europe), and there is no other country that can compare, no other country in which I’d prefer to live or be a citizen. I challenge you to name one. What other nation do we wish to serve as our model for greatness? With all due respect to the citizens of other nations who think theirs is also great, we are the Muhammad Ali of countries on our planet, “the greatest.”


Any politician who tells you otherwise, who tells you….

“We are a failing nation….”

“We are a nation that is hostile to liberty, freedom, and faith….”

“We are a nation whose economy has collapsed….’

“We are a nation where free speech is no longer allowed….”

“We are a nation that [has] lost its confidence, willpower, and strength….”


That politician is lying to you. Again.


When I hear parroting politicians try to sell the idea of a country that once was, but no longer is, great, I question not only their truthfulness but their motivation. My witness tells me they’re lying, because that is not what I’ve seen and continue to see, daily.  Sewing discord and discontent is simply their pathway and payoff to personal power and wealth. 


Selling fear and unhappiness is not a new political marketing strategy (the KKK used it with great success in the 1920’s; Hitler used it to great effect in Germany in the 1930’s). If they can convince you to be unhappy, they can also convince you that they, and they alone, can reverse that and make you happy again, protect you from mythical enemies who want to personally do you harm (who have YOUR failure as THEIR objective). 


But first the parrots must convince you to ignore everything that is good, beautiful, and great about our country, to look past all the so many positives that make us the envy of the world, and, instead, focus on our (undeniable) problems (great ≠ perfect or problem free) that remain to be, if not solved, at least improved.


If you can choose, and you can, “Choose Happy.” Only you can make that choice. Choose wisely.


P.S. Note well, please, that just because something is not YOUR problem does not mean it’s not A problem.                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                           -30- 

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

Memes, almost by  definition, are simplistic and misleading.
In the wake of a restaurant’s request to Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she leave, (false) comparative memes have popped up: the (CO) baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding or the (WA) florist who refused another couple flowers; even more of a stretch, the refusal of restaurants to serve blacks prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Here’s the difference. Refusing to serve or do business with any individual is always that business owner’s right (it must be nice to be able to turn away business). But to do it based on the accident of a person’s birth, by virtue of race or sexual orientation, is discrimination by definition because it is not a decision about an individual, but a group, and not based on the actions (or even attitudes) of a particular person.
Ms. Sanders chooses to work for an administration that many people find abhorrent. This is her choice, as is the business owner’s (and its employees) to protest the policies of the Trump White House, a White House of which she is the face (at least as much as President Trump is willing to share the limelight for anything). That choice triggered the business owner’s choice.
Whether that turns out to be a sound economic decision or not remains to be seen. This particular protest, and others it may inspire, strike me as meaningless challenges that will accomplish nothing except to further fuel the outrage and divisions that are already growing the chasm between citizens. Unless the energy of outrage can be channeled into organized action, it is really little more than self-gratification. So feel free to vent your own outrage with prank calls, fake reviews, etc. if you have nothing better to do with your time. For me, I have now spent more time on this event than it probably deserves.
As counterproductive as the owner’s action may turn out to be, it does not compare to a civil rights violation, as were the segregation laws and policies and discrimination against gays. Business owners can refuse service to any individual for virtually any reason (including “You were mean to me in high school!”), but only as long as it is not based on that individual’s membership in a protected class of people. By the way, except for the District of Columbia, party affiliation is not protected.*

* I do not dispute for a minute that similar outrage (and quite possibly charges of racism) would have been generated in the opposite direction had a member of President Obama’s staff been treated in like manner. That, too, would have been counterproductive. Hypocrisy is a two-way street with both red and blue cars in more or less equal numbers. Secretary Sanders deserves credit for handling herself with grace and class under the circumstances. More than can be said about her boss's tweet rant reaction.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Boycott Football!!!

I used to watch football (on television). I was never a passionate fan, by any stretch, but I followed it and could at least pretend to know enough stuff that if the conversation veered in that direction I wouldn’t say something so ridiculous that it would reveal the depth of my ignorance.
No more. And it has nothing to do with the fake issue of the national anthem (an event that wasn’t even shown on televised broadcasts unless it featured a famous singer), or a draft-dodging president ginning up outrage over a lack of patriotism. I gave it up even before Stan Kroenke jilted St. Louis and took the Rams back to Los Angeles. I started to see it as a thuggish, brutish “sport” that glorified violence and then feigned surprise when its actors carried that same violence off the field. (See: Hey! Are You Ready For Some Fuhball! Unnhhh! Me, not so much.)
I have even better reasons, now, to be thankful that I didn’t have a son to convince not to play the game. because nothing demonstrates cognitive dissonance better than football. A large majority of Americans (83% according to one poll) believe that football is dangerous to the participants, that it “certainly” or “probably” causes brain injuries. Would that number be even higher if more people knew about the study showing 110 of 111 former professional football players’ autopsies showed CTE? Three out of four people say that head injuries are a major problem for the sport.
Three out of four also identify as fans of football and almost half say it’s their favorite sport to watch. Parents encourage their sons to play, from a young age, a sport that risks their long-term health, both physical and mental, that encourages a culture of violence. A study out of Virginia and North Carolina showed that 19 boys, aged 7 & 8, had taken over 3000 hits to the head in practice and games. Players aged 9-12 had averaged 240 hits to the head per player, with more force than people might expect. Over 25,000 football players aged 8 to 19 are treated in emergency rooms for concussions each year. (The Week, Vol. XIII, #639, p. 20)
About 90% of retired NFL players are in pain daily. Almost half (44%) have either had or been recommended to have joint replacement surgery. The goal of football is for (almost universally large) players to run into each other, knock each down or out of the way, play after play, and day after day if you include practice. Pretty sure the human body is neither intended nor built to take that kind of abuse. Despite President Trump’s bemoaning how football is being softened and made less “manly” (my words, his implication), the risks of this sport make whatever pleasure might be available as a spectator clearly not worth it (to me).
While I admit that the vast majority of retired football players claim they are happy they played, despite their projected shortened and painful life spans, I would suggest that the decision is not quite as completely personal as you might expect. The costs to the medical system for the health care of these men is not borne solely by them, but by society at large. Their costs, like the costs for those who decline to wear helmets when riding motorcycles (or even bicycles, for that matter) are not limited to them.
So if you’re boycotting football, I’m happy to join you (even if no one notices — I haven’t watched a game in years), because anything that diminishes the football culture in this country is okay by me. Just understand, I have my own reasons, and patriotic outrage isn’t one of them.

Just for fun, from the University of Snapple, early football fields had both horizontal AND vertical stripes, making it resemble, wait for it, a gridiron.