Lamentation of Positivsm

     Although the premises that are to be proposed in the remaining post have no direct statistical proof save personal induction, it is still beneficial to express a minority view as long as it can be conceived to be well-reasoned. Thus, the point is that many people nowadays believe that everything will get better with time. A plethora of human beings, many intellectual, ascribe to the notion that society tends to improve as time goes on. Although the case is generally true as a trend of observable history, it is also true that modernity has created a fundamentally different environment than the one a millennium ago or even the one a century ago. Better weaponry and transportation ensures a quick and efficient response to any riots or dissent, and even democratic nations generally utilize sophisticated instruments of which to regulate their citizenry and educate themselves to foreign thoughts and innovations. As largely anecdotal evidence of a slowing push for equality, wage disparity has skyrocketed in America since 1980. People have gained less wage hikes in comparison to what was a historically proportional increase to productivity. Many of the same people who advocate an ameliorist way of looking at life also believe that things are not as bad as they seem. But by definition they also believe that things will get better and eventually work themselves out; so a problem arises. The very same group that wishes for society to better itself is largely complacent and relatively conservative in response to modernity. Perhaps the most prominent image that comes to mind is that of sheep, which blissfully believe in the future. Although such an analogy is overused and often placed out of context, in this case the optimists take a Pollyanna position in life and do nothing of note one way or the other. Such an ideology seems fatalistic and too reliant on chance. Indeed, it encourages withdrawal from reality and the future problems that may arise into a more indifferent and laid-back world view. While many proponents of said mindset would argue that their is very little to be done, many are also (probably in an unrelated fashion) religious. Though there is no attack on religion being conducted, it is strange that the very people who have faith in the religion do not practice its basic tenants of doing instead of watching. Surely continuing to have such a mindset of giving in and hoping for the best will take its toll on humanity, if it already has not. In order for people to have a future in which they are connected to reality, a future that is therefore meaningful and satisfactory in retrospect, humans must learn from history and take an active stance in areas like politics and government, tools that can help to express one's individual perspective and doing their part to further a better society instead of mindlessly thinking that humanity will continue to become a utopia despite any force as it sounds reassuring and easy. Just because the past has been favorable does not mean that the future will be so king. It is necessary more than ever to have back-up plans for the practical betterment of civilization.  

The Nomenclature of "Liberal" in the Context of the Psychological Well-being of the American People

     Nowadays liberals are oftentimes bashed by both moderates and conservatives for being too extreme. Perhaps the name lends itself to a more radical overtone; compare its nomenclature to that of "conservative" or "moderate," which sound inherently cautious and well-reasoned. As aforementioned in a previous post, people are more likely to identify as conservative or moderate as opposed to liberal even though many of their subsequent choices fit more into that category. But for such a shallow difference to have such a profound effect on the choices of the American people in general shows just how desperately there needs to be an amelioration of the system, including the public fields of politics, media, and education. Politics is the most obvious: politicians need to stop polling certain words that mean the same thing but have more support due to different societal associations. Tricking up people to vote against there own economic interests is arguably evil, especially when one considers that the representatives are supposed to be public servants that help their constituency as a whole, not a small group of elites. In addition, politics need to be focused less on emotion and more on hard facts. What has no effect statistically on a certain group of people needs to be implemented if another group of people require it for the guaranteeing of their own liberties. Similar to politics, media needs to stop focusing on jingoistic banter and start fact-checking. If one side is clearly and demonstrably wrong, having a history of horrible mistakes, then it is okay to point that out and not treat everything as equal when doing so is fundamentally disingenuous to the American people. In particular, the media needs to stop being so intimately involved with the government and function more as the watchdogs on the side of the American people, something that is actually beneficial to society. Indeed everything has its liberties, but if people can reason giant oversteps of limitations on government regulation of freedom such as the Patriot Act, then surely the people can allow a small concession so that news stations are penalized for straight-up consistent lying. But most important is the reconstruction of the educational system. People have lost faith in their schools and for good reason. Much of the engagement is short-term memorization with very little critical analysis. American society is far too focused on test scores and needs to transition to a more student-friendly hierarchy that actually prepares and engages the student in relevant and interesting source material. Of course not all classes are so redundant, but the fact remains that the majority of the population has internationally sub-par education, especially the South which is unfortunately used as a stepping stone so that a few provincial elites maintain the status quo while the majority of the citizenry suffers relatively medieval conditions. It is unlikely that any of these measures will be implemented in the foreseeable future, though the continued and fervent espousing of actual common-sense reforms is critical to make sure the nation as a whole does not descent into a new paleolithic era.  

The Futility of Reactionary Conservatism

     It is an unchanging axiom that conservatism will never continue for long. At least, not in a relative sense. As far as modern history(the period chosen arbitrarily from Sumer to Canute the Great to  present's creation by the ever-flowing future due to the early establishment of Western ideals) goes, the world has become increasingly conservative. People have continued to integrate new ideas and cultures, even though they invariably opposed such change as dangerous. When England began to take over significant areas of land, it justified itself by stating that the other people were inferior, either due to culture or skin color or often times both. The power that England accrued allowed it to boast that the sun never set upon it. But eventually even the largest empire in human history crumbled: the rights of minorities to autonomous home rule was established, indigenous people adapted to new technology as way to challenge British superiority, and the democratic education that Britain established became the uniting banner for many later revolts and revolutions. Of course, such a trend was global and affected other powerful civilizations as well. Empires crumbled throughout the ages, be they  Egyptian or Chinese. It seems that people of their own home area(or rather the provincial elite) wish to have a majority say in their own lives to the extent that they are willing to consistently murder and conspire. 

     But the preference of autonomy to heteronomy is not an exclusive by-product of modernity. In general, society  tends to have a greater toleration increasingly voluptuous outfits, and the activities associated with them, in proportion to its collective age. As time went on in Greece and Rome, the women came topless to gladiator fights or street parades. Rome was famous for having an incredibly adulterous(a word that is supremely outdated as the majority of people commit this heinous crime) culture, especially prior to their fall. Even American society has drifted from the lofty colonial outfits and dresses to rugged pants and t-shirts. Perhaps the most annoying society in opposition to this theory is Islamic society, which throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing due to its striking regression. But such a change is the exception rather than the rule, temporary, and often times inaccurate in regards to the actual whims of society. Although for a time burkas (Islamic clothes covering every inch of the female body) were traditionally upheld, it could be imagined that they were not particularly favored due to the the more open nature of humanity. Ironically, elaborate designs were embroidered on their surfaces, defeating the whole purpose of drawing less attention. In present times, only a few countries mandate the outfit. Even Iran, descending from the great legacy of Persia and a major Islamic country after the Islamic Revolution, refuses to be controlled by its Islamic culture and engages in parties ending in shocking intimacy and binge drinking. 

     If history is viewed this way, then one might sensibly argue that society needs to be moderate, neither adopting the immorality of the Romans right before their fall or the strictness of Islam which has never been very effective. Evidently, it is assumed that the Romans' promiscuity was somehow a causation for its fall. But the fact that many regions and cultures have adopted their devotion to primal desires, with Western civilization leading the charge, suggests that it is not a bad thing; after all, Europe leads the world in many other good things such as longevity and healthcare. In addition, society needs to be in a continuum, always wanting to evolve and change(often times for more autonomy and individual rights) as time goes on. Such a desire is at odds with reactionary ideology, which vehemently opposes change. Thus, society is both paradoxically more receptive to change as well as less open to it than ever. But their can be no middle path as one cannot hope to reconcile the differences of the other. Both hate each other with intensity and have never historically come to a real compromise in this regard. After all, the world in general has become more frisky and westernized, the Islamic countries included. It seems that the world naturally inclines towards greater freedom, a trend that will probably be hastened thanks to technology connecting more people. Conservatism is adopted as a balancing force for people who believe that society is becoming too heterogeneous, in part due to the generational effect. But such a movement is often times extreme and short-lived. Indeed the Tea Party embodies this, as it is nearly absolute in the insanity department and probably will fizzle down after the nuclear fallout resulting from the failure of conservatives' kamikaze efforts to stop Obamacare failing. Society in the global sense tends to work itself out in such patterns. The best conservatism can do, not considering a new ice age or the like artificially forcing regression on the world,  is to achieve the moral high ground in their actions for once and not just their words. What this means is that it can no longer force people to go a certain way or do crazy things like burn buildings. No, it must be what the progressives were, allowing people the right to choose. Such an action was what made religion so great in the beginning, as people had the choice to join a more unified and principled group. Everyone wants principle, after all. But nobody wants it shoved down their throats. If, even after such a sane measure, society as a whole fails to become more conservative, then so be it. People should have pride in their own beliefs being strong in the face of perceived immorality and be satisfied with their own lives. 

Boehner's True Connection to the Government Shutdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwzEpSJNaLs
     The blog post will comment about the above video interview of John Boehner on "This Week." In particular, the focus will be on Boehner's comments of how he will not negotiate with the Democrats unless they delay Obamacare a year no matter what. Several points are salient in this way of thinking: Boehner's framing of negotiation when his party is the one that has consistently never compromised, the continued assault on Obamacare, and Boehner's feigned powerlessness despite him actually having the power to pass a resolution to end the government shut down.
     Perhaps most insidious is Boehner's continued insistence that he will not negotiate, framing the debate as if his party is the one that is the sensible one. In fact last year Boehner delayed the implementation of Obamacare by suggesting to President Obama that large businesses should not have had to pay for a year. Since big business holds a lot of sway in both the Democratic and Republican parties in present times, the president agreed. Of course, Boehner used the exclusive one-year delay to say that Obama was discriminating against the poorer people, thus winning political capital and stabbing the president in the back again, figuratively speaking. Now the time for the implementation of Obamacare has once again come around, and the Republicans once again insist on a one-year extension. It does not take much imagination to see that the Republicans will never let Obamacare to pass this way, continually asking for the bill to be postponed until the next year. Clearly, the Democrats are the ones with the ludicrous amount of generosity to the point where they go against their ideals, while the Republicans are steadfast in their convictions; it is not hard to see who is the real unreasonable party.
     In tandem with the crazy Republican ideology of to insist on getting everything or start crying foul, the Republicans also fail to see the laws of math. In present day, it is estimated that the Republican GOP has tried, and failed, to repeal Obamacare a record-breaking 44 times, perhaps more, wasting valuable Congressional time and billions of taxpayer dollars in the process. If the first few times did not succeed, it stands to reason that the next 40 will not fare better unless there are sweeping changes to both the Senate and the House, which was clearly not the case. By rallying the base, mostly Tea Party, the Republicans make it seem that the country is on their side when really only a small reactionary wing has a disproportionate amount of influence in the Republican party, the very same party that evidently seems to get its demands met a vast majority of the time. The bill itself will not cost all that much more. It will only add about $230 dollars on average to an American. Although this may seem like a lot, consider the fact that it is often required to have car insurance, which is surely not as essential as health insurance and can meet or exceed this cost, especially when taking into account the tendency to own multiple new cars. Surely if no one has a problem with car insurance, than something like required healthcare for most, a similar application in that the industry it is insuring is in favor of, will be accepted, since it will inevitably save tens of thousands per year.
     Finally, the most striking facet of the argument Boehner makes is his crocodile tears at his situation. In the video, it was obvious that he was very fervent in agreement with the most extreme reaches of his faction, namely the Tea Party. He stated multiple times that he will not negotiate without the discontinuance of Obamacare several times in a very dominant manner. But Boehner's tactics are disingenuous in nature: He can very well end the government shutdown right now; the required votes are already there. Instead, he insists that the majority of the Republican party agree with the terms of any proposed bill, in other words relying on the minority of his own minority party. As House majority leader, he has the power to call a vote in passing a bill, but he is so engrossed in ensuring the radical Tea Party members largely agree that any bill in the past few years has been hugely draconian and one-sided in favor of the ultra-conservative.
     Therefore, it can be concluded that the government shutdown is the fault of John Boehner and his Republican party. No, perhaps that accusation is somewhat unfair. Many of the more moderate establishment Republicans, if moderate is an apt word to describe them, are actually in favor of ending the government shutdown and passing Obamacare. They have the foresight to see that winning the war is impossible. The corporations, despite their opposition to Obamacare, do not want a shutdown at any rate. But Boehner will not enact a vote as he knows that Obamacare will no doubt pass. Just as how the attempt to repeal Obamacare failed 44 times, it will conversely pass the first time if Boehner allows a vote on the issue. Of course, Boehner will not allow this to happen as he has demonstrably strong connections to the insane but influential Tea Party. It is clear that, despite Boehner's continued insistence to the contrary, Obama is not the one with the sole power or responsibility to end the shutdown. In fact, the entirety of the Democratic party is in favor of implementation, a fact reflected in the virtually guaranteed passing of the bill through the Democratically controlled senate and president, who has the bill as his greatest, and perhaps only significantly progressive, achievement and namesake. Boehner is the one who is the one truly responsible for the hold-up. His continued protestation of reality and the power of the Tea Party continues to hurt America every day their ultra-conservative ideas continue to stubbornly allow the shutdown of the government when he can and should heed the call of the people for once.

The Captivation on American People by the Ted Cruz Type

     In today's times, America has become ensnared in the antics of a seemingly fresh and bold junior senator. Almost single-handedly, Ted Cruz rallied the republicans in a seemingly heroic filibuster and was later cited by many of the more conservative GOP congressmen as the reason why they would not compromise without the 45th attempt and actual first success to repeal the 4-year old law. Ted Cruz, new and unorthodox to the political front, seems to personify the radical change that most Americans want. However, the Ted Cruz type is not a new invention but rather a recurring theme most prominently showing up when Americans were most conflicted with their own beliefs. McCarthy comes to mind as perhaps the best and most infamous example. Megalomaniacs such as him often times cited vitriolic and reactionary speech, threw another group of Americans under fire for their own gain, and generally do not have a vision for the future. Instead, they seem to bask in the moment at hand.  Perhaps the most distinguishing feature is that they believe they are doing some kind of ordained task.
     Ted Cruz encompasses this criteria quite well. He claims the Americans are overwhelmingly in support of repealing Obamacare,  going so far as to say that his 21-hour tirade was similar to the time of people against Hitler in his filibuster, later voting for the measure he was filibustering. Ted Cruz's so-called heroic measure helps none but himself, inflating his own image among the republican base at the cost of popular support for the party that now seems crazy and unreasonable nationwide. Indeed, Cruz is trying as hard as possible to stay in the limelight, likely to try and run as president when he is still and enigma and a symbol of hope for at least some of the voter base. The most shocking detail is that apparently Ted Cruz was raised up as the anointed one by his father Rafael Cruz, who supposedly told his son every day that he was special and would lead the American people against a massive threat. Such a lunatic mindset was also displayed by McCarthy, who imprisoned many of his own colleagues and  fellow Americans for his 15 minutes of fame. What is remarkable is the relative and unprecedented frequency of the type, the two of which, despite their huge influence, both gained infamy in the last century. Although this may seem like a large divide, nations who have even one such individual gain power tend to be quite unstable. America had two in a small space of time, which brings to question the state of the American people. In most other westernized countries, such extreme individuals would be rejected as unreasonable by the constituency. Instead, both the American people and the media treat them as darlings and a chance for true change. If America truly is so desperate for change, than the political arena can only become more volatile as time progresses and these feelings are allowed to ferment further.