The Facts About Opinons

We groan when someone in the group starts a sentence with 'I think' or 'You know' because we know this means our friend is going to share his or her opinion on what ever the topic de jour is. And we all know the old adage: "Opinions are like A@@holes. Everyone has one and they all stink."

But opinion is a fact of life. We have to interpret information presented to us. Is a statement true or false? How does the statement affect me? Does it change how I perceive the world? In fact opinions become tied up with our identities. If someone disagrees with my opinion does that affect my self worth? Does it say the other person is criticizing my ability to form opinions?

An opinion is more a statement about how we perceive the information given than a statement about the truth of the information.

For instance, let's take a statement: "The President of the United States is a black man."

First: Is the statement true? Literally no. President Obama's skin color is more of a brown than black. He is a man. His father was a native of an African country. His mother was an American citizen living in the state of Hawaii. So President Obama is provably an African-American. African Americans are colloquially referred to as 'Black' even though skin color varies. So the initial statement can be taken as being 'True'.

Of course we could legitimately say : "The President of the United States is a Hawaiian."

Or we could say: "The President of the United States is an American."

Or : "The President of the United States is a Lawyer, and a father, and an Author....."

The point here being not what the fact is but which facts we choose to acknowledge when we form an opinion. Or should I say, which facts we allow ourselves to acknowledge based on our preconceived opinions.

Wait a second: Aren't opinions supposed to be formed from the facts, not the other way around?

Lately in Washington we see the effects of opinion trumping facts. The Republican's hold the opinion that President Obama is an ineffective leader. There fore they refuse to create the jobs he asks for, roll back the taxes he asks for, and authorize the income producing measures (taxes on the rich) that he asked for. Why? Because they don't want to 'give him the win'?

John Boehner said that taxing the wealthy and corporations prevents the wealthy and corporations from creating jobs. His logic is: If the government takes money from the entities that have accrued the wealth, then they aren't free to create jobs to make more wealth for themselves. On the surface this seems to have some logic, until you look at the results.

As restrictions and taxes have been decreased on these entities they have moved jobs to other countries that don't have our strong middle class or our messy safety and ecological rules. The jobs they create in this country are at the lowest possible wages because they are non productive jobs and don't create wealth.

The facts are that a strong middle class expects a fair economy where small businesses can flourish and not be destroyed or bought out by massive corporations. Where the health and welfare of the people matter more than the health of massive soulless non physical entities like Citibank or Chrysler. A strong middle class will demand fairness and a chance to form their own opinions instead of being told what to think.

What set this particular chain of thought off on me was the argument over the extension of the tax cut for the working class.

Fact: The tax cut was on the Social Security Tax which is paid only on the first $110,000 of income.

Fact: 85% of the people in this country make less than $110,000.

Fact: The original proposal was to pay for the 2% tax rate decrease by increasing the tax on unearned income which would effect the wealthiest 1%.

Fact: The tax on the rich had to be taken OFF THE TABLE for the Republican's to agree to any tax cut for the majority of Americans.

Now what's your opinion?

Burn Down the House or the Corporate Conspiracy Theory

When I hear 'conspiracy theory' my ears pop up like a hound dog. I know I'm either going to hear a great truth or a great lie, but in either direction I'm going to hear something that isn't supposed to see the light of day.

Today's topic came from an interview on NPR. Someone, I tuned in and have no context, said that the idea that republican run corporations were banding together to shut the economy down was 'ludicrous' or something similar in meaning. Companies, of course are in the business of making a profit and they can't see a clear profit from spending money in the US with all these rules about fair treatment of workers and health insurance... Why that's just not good business.

The secret here is that there is no secret. The American economic system has always been a street fight with the toughest winning and the weaker getting fed to the pigs. As we developed more humanistic rules in an attempt to protect the workers and the people surrounding factories the corporate boards and the schools that train them focused on minimizing their costs and finding off shore opportunities in 'business friendly' environments (ones where the corporations could pay a fixed price to the powers that be to build and run their factory and didn't have to worry about the health and welfare of the employees.)

I worked for one of these companies in the 80's. They spent a lot of money making sure the people in my town didn't make money. I didn't understand this desire of corporations to destroy the people who contribute to their wealth. I also told the Vice President of Engineering, not too politely, that this was an immoral act, to offshore jobs. He told me it was my job. And it was. My career there was over.

Fortunately it was the 80's and the economy supported even the people they were trying to destroy.

I suppose that's why I think there is a conspiracy. When the corporations got rid of the manufacturing jobs, we went back to the drawing boards and came up with virtual products that were created with brain power. Then they (corporations are always THEY) went on a feeding frenzy to buy smart people to make them lots of money from dumb people.

Until they found they could by pretty smart people in other countries where the government hadn't been taken over by panty wearing liberals that wanted there to be a comfortable and stable middle class. I can imagine the smile on the wealthy people's faces when they realized they could return all of the social climbing want to be well off middle class to the edge of poverty. Keep us where we belong. After all aren't we just the children of immigrants driven (or stolen) from every decent country in the world by wealthy landowners or traders who just didn't think our ancestors mattered as much as the dirt they stood on.

You see there has always been a conspiracy of the rich and powerful to hold down everyone else. It's what populated this country and is what is impoverishing us today. If I sound a little radical when I say 'Burn down their' house please forgive me. I hate being lied to, and the economic powers in this country have manipulated the economy and the laws to bring the gains made by the middle class after world war 2 down.

So we the people of the United States need to stand up, live up to the education our parents and grandparents fought and died for, and use our minds and our freedom, while we have it, to bring down the evil shielded by corporate America. You want jobs. We need to make our own. Don't like the price of food? Grow your own. Gas too expensive, go electric and go off the grid. Find a way to live that doesn't rely on the corporate ideology. If we built our economy around THOSE ideals we might have a chance to give our children a better life and a more robust society.

But we must establish control over the government. It is a government that has been undermined by corporate money and propaganda. Why else would the supposed 'People's Voice' Tea Party members support tax breaks for the wealthy. Why would they refer to these Vampires as 'Job Creators' when the only jobs they create are in Indochina?

Reason first.

Then Burn Down Their House.

Illegal Immigration or Where did the Mayflower go through Customs

To all the self righteous 'Americans' out there screaming to send the illegals home, let us remember that the Pilgrims didn't check in at Customs either when the landed. It wasn't like the land was uninhabited. We always need to look first at history so we know whether we are being reasonable or selfish.

America is a big country.

American's, in general, seem to have small minds.

In reality we are all illegal immigrants. I know my great grandparents slipped the border to come here for work. To raise a family. My great grandfather married a local girl and died in a construction accident. And no one cared except for his wife, because he was just another Irishman. Another illegal who would work where decent folk wouldn't.

Not a lot different from today. Illegals aren't taking good jobs, because they can't get hired with no papers. They aren't getting welfare, because they don't dare raise their heads that high for fear of being sent home. They work for a living and pay taxes they can't file for refunds on and Social Security they can't ever receive, and pay for Medicaid they can't ever get.

Sure we need better immigration laws. Why are they coming across illegally? Decent hardworking families? Are our rules too restrictive? Is the system working against them? Fix the process and the rules that cause them to be illegals FIRST. Then talk repatriation or amnesty.

Don't get the cart before the horse, or you'll end up pulling the cart. .

Thomas Jefferson, Mao Zedong, and Ed Osborne walk into a bar...

And the first question that comes to mind is "Who's Ed Osborne?"

He's my father, and possibly one of the most opinionated people I ever met. During the 60's (about my earliest recollection) and the '70s he was virulently outspoken against communism in all it's forms from Maoist China (he had a copy of Mao' s Little Red Book hid up on his shelf next to his bible because he believed in knowing his enemy) to social reform in this country (like welfare and civil rights).

Mao, as we all know, was the Chinese leader that is responsible for creating modern China out of the ashes of World War II, and making it a 'Workers Paradise' or the last hold out as a 'Communist' country. The reason Mao supported Communism is because the Russians (but not the American's or English) supported his People's Army that drove the Japanese out of China.

Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, articulated a particular view of social political structure where the people have the greatest right to command the government. He also advocated violent revolution against the established authorities.

What do these men have in common? They all advocated violent change as a medium of controlling social policy.

I'm sure I don't have the thorough knowledge of Mao's policies or Jefferson's writings that I need to really pull off this thesis but it seems to me that my father's ideas for social change/control in this country were more in line with the authoritarian actions of the People's Leader (Mao) than the writings of the aristocratic Jefferson.

In many ways this contrast is between the semi anarchy that is the United States with our gun rights and murders, and vigilantes and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the mild to strict authoritarian systems in place in other countries where the people either revolt against the government in total anarchy or run from the government in fear for their lives.

Here we can't run from our government because we are the government. Take a look around. You and your neighbors elect the hell hounds in Washington and Albany. Don't like what they're doing? Recall them. Elect someone else. Run yourself. Sure its a tough fight but it needs to be fought. Just don't sell your soul to the company store.