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?

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.

Welcome Tea Party Activists

Dear America.

You F^&*ing Morons.

Oh I should scratch that but I can't find it in my heart to say something soothing and peaceful.

A bunch of rapid dogs have been elected to office. In the grand scheme of things I agree with them. The way we do business has to be changed. But the idea that the republican party (the corporate party) has won after two years of trying to screw up the good things and blaming Obama for the policies they instituted. The propaganda machine has over come the truth and common sense. Now the dogs are going to rip up things they don't understand.

Like health care. None of these illiterate bastards have read the bill. The worst parts are sops to the republicans and maybe should be repealed. But the idea that we the people should insure ourselves is good business. Yeah, let's redo health care right. Let's make sure everyone gets healthcare and the insurance companies are out of that business. They don't need any more unearned money.

Let's use that extra money to fund small business green projects that cuts the knees out of the corporate meglomaniacs. Let small business guide the development of our new economy without the weight of healtinsurance payments. Each Health insurance company collects at least 35% of their premiums as profit. Don't pay them and there is a net savings.

But do you think those tea party morons would see the positives in this? I don't think so because they are paid to support the Corporate Megolith. Big Money and Big Business has bought and paid for this election and their rapid dogs are going to chew at the little progress towards rationality we have made. I say the whole economic crisis was engineered by big business and big money to break the Obama administration and the democratic movement.

Looks like the money won as usual.