Testify, Dash!
Ag
You know you’ve worked in HR too long…
when you refer to “making my lunch the night before work so I can sleep a little longer!” as a “process improvement.”
Ag
So my immodest proposal is simply this: Individuals and households in the bottom 99 percent who owe debt to any large financial institution that received federal government support during and after the 2008 crisis should see their debt forgiven. That would certainly stimulate the economy, as most people would suddenly find themselves with a great deal more money to spend on iPads (and food, and clothing, and housing, and healthcare). The debt can be forgiven by decree or if the government really wants to it can step in to pay it itself; I don’t much care either way. (Though it’d be nice to see it just wiped off the books, to enrage the banks.)
Let’s wipe the debt of the 99 percent off the books, tell the financial sector to eat it, and get on with our lives.
This is an excellent proposal for a lot of reasons, the biggest of which is wiggle/negotiating room, the second biggest is broad understanding and support.
I’m not sure that is going to have broad support at all. I just spent two years suing banks on behalf of impoverished debtors … and still I think that’s a terrible proposal. The first thing it would due is wipe out everybody’s life-savings. Your money isn’t sitting in a bank vault somewhere. It’s been loaned out to other people. Your ability to withdraw money is contingent on people paying some portion of that money back. The second thing it would do is destroy whatever portion of the economy is remaining as liquidity turned to dust and no businesses could pay their employees.
And it wouldn’t actually result in a more just system. The guy who’s richer than 98% of the country suddenly owns his mansion free and clear. (Well, for about a week before the real troubles start. Functionally eliminating the financial sector is going to screw up or distribution network, so things are going to go Mad Max pretty quickly.)
I’d offer an even more modest proposal.
Demands
- Burn the world!
It has the same “kids if you don’t shut up and work out your problems reasonably I’m driving this car off a cliff” effect. But at least people won’t mistake it for a good idea.
It isn’t supposed to be a rational or even a modest proposal, it is a “burn the world!” proposal. It’s supposed to be, because the “world” isn’t working for a lot of people.
I don’t see how this proposal is any less ridiculous than “getting government out of healthcare,” ending bailouts, or “ending the fed.” yet an entire party representing almost half the nation belches these platitudes out incessantly.
as I’m discussing with username: Muppetpants right now on g-chat, I think quibbling that the demands of an irrational mob are not going to work out very well for everyone isn’t the point. the point is that things aren’t going very well for lots of people in the country and a change has to be made to the “system.” It can happen in a rational fashion that satisfies them or an irrational one that satisfies no one. the threat of an irrational conclusion, is the only way that the rational action can be arrived at. a true threat, not a paper one.
The right has their irrational threat and it is backed with force and somewhat serious. I think it would be very nice if the left has some nukes in this cold war.
Thank you, jasencomstock, for verbalizing what I’ve been far too lazy to express. Too busy making Panda Bear images. What can I say? I am who I am.
The political climate in this country has drifted so far right that presidential candidates can suffer no political damage when they sign a document that actually says that African Americans were better off as slaves while others can get away with headlining an event organized by far right religious nut bags and verbalizing the same kind of “Christian Dominion Over All” philosophy that they espouse. People can unashamedly engage actively in voter suppression as long as the voters being suppressed are traditionally moderate or left leaning and folks can be labeled as socialists for thinking that health care should be more accessible and affordable for all and that the top tax rate should be moved from 35% to 39.6%.
I am glad that we have some lefties speaking up for radically left wing stuff. That should be the point from where negotiations with those on the right need to start since conservatives are treating proposals to raise taxes on the poorest in society and dismantling the social safety net as reasonable things to consider.
Perhaps one day when can get to the world that President Obama wants us to live in, where he can propose something reasonable with elements that everyone can agree on and some things that are more controversial and then negotiate the details. But we ain’t there yet. So let the Fox News Sheep fear that leftist anarchy is at the doorstep. Maybe that will get them to realize it would be in their best interests to stop ignoring the less radical members of our society. And maybe allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire wouldn’t mean the end of capitalism as we know it.
Personally, I think about joining these protesters every time I hear some idiot talk about “broadening the base of tax payers” because, “Did you know that, like, 50% of Americans don’t pay ANY income taxes!?” And while they pay payroll taxes…and state tax…oh, and sales tax…all of which disproportionately hurt low income families, it is true that approximately 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax. This is such a prevalent right wing echo chamber talking point that this is what is suggested when you start looking for “percent of americans who” on Google:
Hey. Do you know why 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax?
BECAUSE THEY’RE POOR!!!!
If you took more money from them they couldn’t eat. Or repair their car that is the only way they can get to their low paying job.
Morons.
Ag
Never forget…to be as tacky in your tributes as humanly possible.
“Hey You’re holding the ‘D’ and I’m holding the fence. How are we supposed to wave something gaudy about 9-11 and get on the tv?”
“I have an idea.”
At least they didn’t have to put down their beers or take off their amusingly undersized novelty hats.
Ag
Leaders are not what many people think–people with huge crowds following them. Leaders are people who go their own way without caring, or even looking to see whether anyone is following them. “Leadership qualities” are not the qualities that enable people to attract followers, but those that enable them to do without them. They include, at the very least, courage, endurance, patience, humor, flexibility, resourcefulness, determination, a keen sense of reality, and the ability to keep a cool and clear head even when things are going badly. This is the opposite of the “charisma” that we hear so much about.
“
| — | John Holt (via chriszilo) |
Other things that confuse me:
People who say things like “Don’t worry karma will get them…” It just doesn’t seem like cursing people/predicting their doom is quite in the spirit of actual karma…
In some team workshops that I deliver that’s whatI call that the American version of karma.
What goes around comes around!”
The full American version has “Bitch!” at the end, but I don’t want to accidentally offend anyone who visits this blog so I’m choosing not to post that.
Oh, wait…
Ag
Mr Roper Is Responsible For My Sexual Development
So I watched a lot of TV as a kid.
A LOT.
Mainly cartoons and sitcoms (The 1970s and 80s adult alternative to cartoons). Even when I wasn’t actively watching TV, it was still on, subconsciously filling my brain with stories, rhythms, and perspectives. I think it did some good. Just like a writer who first learns how to write by reading, I learned a lot about comedy writing (good and bad) from those years.
But I also now realize that because I was a shy child, and one not prone to asking my parents questions about life, that a lot of what I believed about life, society, and men and women developed due to things I observed on those shows. One of the shows that I watched more than any other was Three’s Company. I remember watching syndicated reruns in the afternoon after school and then new episodes in prime time. I watched so many that too this day I can describe entire episodes after only seeing a few seconds of any one. This, by the way, has proven to be a thoroughly untransferable skill to the workplace or my social life.
Which brings us to Mr. Roper.
I learned a lot about comedy timing and comedic facial expressions (an underrated talent) from watching Norman Fell. But I learned more about what a man’s sexual role is in a relationship…
Mrs. Roper: Well, better get rid of the old set anyway.
Stanley Roper: Set what set?
Mrs. Roper: An old stove, and old husband, and they both take too long to heat up.
———————————————-
Stanley Roper: Look at that crack in the ceiling. You know that party caused that.
Helen Roper: The party didn’t cause that.
Stanley Roper: Oh yah. Then what did?
Helen Roper: It was the earthquake last year. Oh it was exciting.
Stanley Roper: Exciting?
Helen Roper: Yah, it was the first time our bed moved in years.
————————————————
Stanley Roper: Not in my building!
Jack Tripper: I swear, it will be completely platonic.
Stanley Roper: Whats that mean?
Helen Roper: Like you and me, Stanley.
————————————————————-
Helen would comment and imply that Stanley was sexually inadequate because he didn’t do her often enough, or well enough, or hard enough, or whatever, and the laugh track would blare and the other characters would snicker (which tended not to happen often on sitcoms), and I began to learn, in the years before I even had my first crush on a girl, a few key things:
- It is a man’s job to sexually please a woman, not the reverse.
- “Real” men should want to do it all the time, even if the person they need to do treats them the way Mrs. Roper treats Stanley.
- Apparently, Stanley and I were the only people in the world who thought Helen Roper was unfuckable (this particular revelation came later on. At the time I only new of “fuck” as the BIIIIIIG swear word).
These lessons were reinforced in sitcom after sitcom. Men “gave” women orgasms and if they couldn’t then they were failures. Any sex for a man was good sex. And what every woman wanted was a man with a very big penis capable of giving her multiple orgasms.
And so, my testicles dropped (not sure of the date) and I went out into the world believing that men were, by nature, inferior and inadequate partners for women. For the most part, this worked out well for my partners (two counts as partner “s”). There are worse things for a woman than having a partner who always puts your needs first. But as I matured, I realized what a skewed perspective I had and how it likely impacted many men and sabotaged many otherwise healthy relationships. How many men were unable to allow their partners to focus on their enjoyment as men without feeling inferior? I worked through it with my partners but I’m incredibly smart. And have a big penis. And give women multiple orgasms.
As far as you know.
So, can anyone else out there identify how pop culture screwed them up? I’m looking at you, romantic comedy fans!
Thoughts?
