Punchinello’s Chronicles

November 3, 2008

Voting for Change and Self Destruction

Filed under: Foolish Rants — Punchinello @ 2:42 pm
Tags: , , , ,

One of the most fascinating and frightening dynamics of the 2008 election process is the number of people voting to destroy themselves under the rallying cry of change. We see business owners voting to wreck the foundations of business, wealthy people voting to destroy the principles of wealth, and so forth.

I’ve been trying to find a good analogy for this kind of out-of-phase logic, and I think we can work up a story of firefighters and their work in life.

Mr. Obama campaigns on the idea that wealthy communities with many houses and homes have a lot of firefighters. Poor communities with less beautiful and smaller homes have fewer firefighters. (It’s not a true statement, it’s for the purpose of the analogy.)

The premise is that more money buys and “grabs” more firefighters and more firefighting equipment.

At issue is what causes fires, and how those fires should be handled. Fires represent a danger to conservative thinkers, but apparently represent an entitlement to liberal thinkers.

Conservatives identify with the experience of a fire, knowing that each of us could possibly be victims of such a tragedy. Liberals intellectualize fires, seeing them as things that happen to other people. Liberals always objectify existence, standing aside from the “common fray,” and develop fantastical plans about how to help all those other poor people who are forced to deal with reality and life.

Mr. Obama stands in front of wildly cheering crowds of people across all demographics. He has journalists fawning over his brilliance, wealthy financial backers, money pouring in, and ecstatic adulation and adoration everywhere. Many of those fans own houses, live in apartments, and have some sort of home in a building.

“We need to equalize the wealth,” says Obama. Too many firefighters are focused on too few neighborhood areas. These brave men and women drop everything and run to a fire. They bring too much water, taking too many resources! The greedy wealthy have control over too much water, and we need to do something about that!

Crowd: Yay…bravo!

I propose, says our analogous Mr. Obama, that we stop the production of water and fire hydrants!

Crowd: Yay…bravo!

To make life better for everyone, not only the wealthy, I propose fundamental changes to the way we manage fires. It’s clear and obvious that the reason the wealthy have more fires is because they have more firefighters!

Crowd: Yay…bravo!

It’s clear an obvious that we must redistribute the firefighter resources in America! No longer should we allow the wealthy to have all the fires!, while poor people have so few or none!

Crowd: Yay…bravo!

No longer should firefighters be given all the water, when water is so expensive!

We must change our dependency on water, and develop alternate ways to work with fire. I propose that we raise the prices on water and introduce a windfall-profit tax on water used in wealthy neighborhoods!

Crowd: Yay…bravo!

If I’m elected, I will turn off the water supply in those wealthy neighborhoods! It’s clear and obvious that the only reason wealthy people enjoy so many fires is because they have so many firefighters! We must form a government agency to equally distribute fires to everyone! A fire in every home, that’s my motto!

Crowd: Yay…bravo!

With a new national agency in charge of providing a fire in every home, we need to shift our water resources to ducks! It’s clear and obvious that we’re running out of ducks, and unless we do something now, we’ll certainly die! Therefore, as part of my Regime of Change, I propose turning off and dismantling all fire hydrants and water storage facilities. I propose re-tooling all fire hoses, and using them to fill our nation’s wetlands!

Crowd: Yay…bravo!

No longer should the wealthy be the only ones to enjoy house fires! EVERYone has the right to have a fire in their building! Everyone should enjoy the benefits of the Red Cross, free coffee and blankets, and a public shelter when their home burns to the ground.

And furthermore, my fellow Americans, I propose a new law! My first duty as President of the United States will be to mandate that all fire hoses, initially, until we can remove them completely, should use only air! To improve our supply of ducks, conserve the environment, and make America equal to the rest of the world, firefighters should use only air to promote fires.

Gradually, as the nation begins to transform to a fundamentally new society, we will phase out firefighters. We won’t need them anymore. The government will be in charge of starting fires! We don’t need private firefighters to start fires!

Look around you! Don’t you see the truth? Whenever there’s a fire, there are firefighters! It’s clear and obvious that these firefighters, unknowning and innocent tools of the rich, are the main cause of fires! We NEVER see firefighters running to a plain building! We never see firefighters around when life is normal. We only see firefighters when there’s a fire!

It’s clear and obvious that if we remove all firefighters, we will have a better life! And with the government providing fires for everyone, regardless of whether they own or rent a building, all of us will have an equal opportunity!

Crowd: Yay…bravo! (…collapses into orgasmic swoon.)

It’s stunning, watching the millions of people who wildly cheer for their own destruction. Anyone who argues or asks questions is slinging mud, not with the program, spreading fear tactics, and a racist. No, it’s the always-present conflict between reason and fantasy.

“In any irreconcilable conflict between opinions, reality will always arbitrate.” – Ayn Rand.

Conservatives hope to develop ways to prevent fires, elevate all people to a point of having better fire-proofing, better buildings and more powerful ways to mitigate disasters. Liberals hope to equalize everyone by burning down everything, removing “evil” technology, and returning to a more “natural” environment without interference or intervention by mankind.

Advertisements

6 Comments »

  1. Then again, I find it difficult to support the notion that “Liberals” will destroy the country when the last eight years has been nothing short of an outright, statistical, political, economical nightmare.

    Secondly, I know how much you dearly hate “liberals”, but I’d wager with you that the majority of those voting for Obama are in fact Democrats, and no- Democrat doesn’t automatically= Liberal just as Republican doesn’t = conservative.

    I think you need to look past the shallow name tags and more to actual issues.

    Then again, the skill at which the US has pulled off at somehow electing Mr. Bush for 8 years is impressive, so who knows? You may very well get your wish, those righteous conservatives will prevent fires by likely starting more wars and alienating us from the rest of the world with loonie Southern-fried religious morality based politics.

    Comment by bob — November 3, 2008 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

  2. I do agree that a liberal isn’t at all the same as a Democrat. In today’s government, I would probably say that J. Lieberman would represent a Democrat, going back in the lines to H. Humphrey or J. Kennedy. I have no argument with legitimate Democrats, and I think there’s a great deal of room for discussion there.

    But the liberals (by ideology) have come to dominate the DNC and Democratic party. Some of that may be a perception from the media, just as media perception seems to show that there aren’t any conservatives.

    The name tags of Democrat and Republican are simple, based only on party affiliation, and have almost no brand anymore. The underlying ideology of liberal and conservative go to the fundamentals of government, the nation, and societies in general. I wouldn’t say either term is “shallow,” and I agree that both terms are labels. So too, the warning against drinking bleach is a label, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.

    One of the best ways to diminish meaning these days is to scoff at “simple” or “shallow” labels. It’s sophistry and empty rhetoric, but so many people seem to fall for it.

    The key issue with Mr. Bush is that in his first year, the US was attacked by an unoffical military terrorist organization. He had the choices of a diplomatic response or military response. Given the lack of official structure, what would have been the diplomatic response? Who would be the negotiating person?

    Bush chose military, and many people think he made the right choice. That war was forecast as being a multigenerational war, mostly due to the structure of a guerilla organization. Now people say we’ve been in it “too long.” What, 6 years? Consider how long the British-Irish conflict or the religious conflicts of the Middle East have gone on.

    Mr. Bush also was saddled with Mr. Clinton’s debt-reduction strategies, and the changes to the banking and mortgage regulatory laws. It took eight years for those of Clinton’s decisions to have a final and visible effect, but Bush has had to handle the consequences. Bush also was the heir to countless years of no national energy policy, and decisions not to invest in nuclear power or national oil fields.

    Finally, Mr. Bush has made certain economic decisions that many people think are wrong, but they’re not much different from those made all the way back to Mr. Reagan. Taken together, Bush has presided over a national, global, and social set of events that are pretty much inevitable.

    One reason I don’t mind too much if Mr. Obama should win the White House is that Bush has demonstrated the reduction in actual power an American President now has. Sustaining the war is one real power, and Supreme Court Justice appointments are another. The third is the overall agenda for tax structure, but that comes mostly through Congress.

    Comment by Punchinello — November 3, 2008 @ 10:26 pm | Reply

  3. I agree with you on some aspects of how Mr Bush handled events immediately after 9/11. By showing an aggressive stance and responding with military force- specifically to a known group that had actually committed an atrocious act against us, I agree. But I don’t agree with the reasons for going into Iraq.

    This opens up a sort of realm of Grey area. Here’s the problem with using what I would call “conventional” warfare against unconventional societies. In “Classic” wars such as WW2, we used time-proven, Western style warefare: We destroy the enemy until they become disadvantaged logistically and combatively. More importantly, in doing so the foe’s morality is also beaten to submission and… they submit to our demands. That works great for certain countries. But what about regions where warfare has been a non-ending event for thousands of years? What if the enemy has morals that are based blindly to religion? What if the enemy already doesn’t have all that much to lose, and everything to gain via their steadfast belief that their will is tied to religious superiority?

    These are questions that were not asked by the US prior to making the decision to go into Iraq and Afghanistan for that matter. We instead figured that military force would once more- demoralize and weaken the enemy. The truth is that I fail to see how military force will ever win this battle. The mistake the US made was misjudging how to deal with theocratic societies. Religion is indeed perhaps the most powerful weapon a country can posses. This is also why I greatly dislike religion being anywhere near the US government because religious morality has nothing to do with political function. We’ve come dangerously close to reaching that level.

    But I digress. Yes- Mr. Bush did the “right” thing. But was it the right plan on attack? It is easier to ask this in hind site.

    Comment by bob — November 4, 2008 @ 10:27 am | Reply

  4. So the proposition is that the US should have done nothing, other than bomb the Taliban after the WTC attack.

    Comment by Punchinello — November 4, 2008 @ 12:35 pm | Reply

  5. No…
    That’s not what I’m saying. I’m talking about this from a mere chain of events perspective. Was going after the Taliban the “right” thing to do? Certainly. Will doing so solve the problem? I doubt it unless we want to basically setup a permanent, money-sucking presence there and be willing to be part of their thousands of years worth of warfaring culture. The bottom line: It will never end.

    Comment by bob — November 4, 2008 @ 2:48 pm | Reply

  6. Right, so there’s no solution.

    Comment by Punchinello — November 4, 2008 @ 9:57 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: