The Propaganda Machine

Don't patronize me, Dr. Seuss, if that is your real name.

You may be able to enslave the minds of the thoughtless masses with your Whos and Grinches, but not me. I see right through your insidious, twisted veil. I must admit, it is a very clever and nuanced deception, as audaciously effective as nicotine patches in diapers. You've spread a luscious smörgåsbord of evil just low enough for our children's eager hands, and their tiny mouths feed ravenously on the morsels of human defeat.

Their parents trip on mescaline while these innocent ones devour the sickening green eggs and rancid ham, frying their young brains in your crucible of self-diminishing complacency. Your intoxicating sewage asks each of them to suffer the inevitable scourge of injustice for the sake of something as abstract as "humanity." Your apology for human stupidity requires them to tear out their own hearts with a rusty spoon at another's request to accommodate your backwards world view. Humanity does not shrink, but stands tall in an obstinate refusal to accept your ideological terror machine by its mere survival.

I shudder at your talent, Doctor. If Goebbles had such brilliance and courage one could scarcely comprehend the effects. Today I breath a sigh of relief that animation technology did not achieve such great heights in the 1930s, but remain paralyzed with fear over the droves of Seuss soldiers that will inevitably sculpt our golden years in a frenzy of moral abuse and disregard for justice.

From the Rubber Chicken Advocacy Department

At least we all can agree that everyone is entitled to rubber chickens, and that they are superior to paper ones...

We know that. It is documented. We all share that belief. Whew, glad that discussion is over...or is it?

Seems to me some folks got their hands on enough paper chickens that they decided they could attempt to convince us otherwise...Maybe even try to substitute the rubber ones for paper ones...

Oh, sure, they may appeal to popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations to advocate the paper ones, but people can tell the difference, can't they? Or, are they vulnerable? Are they really capable of forgetting that we all agreed the rubber ones rock, and are not to be confused with the paper ones? Maybe they assume you think:

• That rubber chickens don't matter to you.
  
• That free rubber chickens are cool, but a whole bunch of paper ones is cooler.
  
• That other folks can tell the difference, so you can just listen to the kind of chickens they are voting for.
  
• That since collective knowledge is additive, if everyone prefers paper chickens they must be right.
  
• That you lack the confidence to trust your understanding of the merits of rubber chickens. (Wait...I know the free rubber ones are essential, but I will act like I believe they can be substituted with paper anyway until I'm absolutely sure.)
  
• That if the masses like paper chickens, so will you, even though it's obvious rubber chickens are better.
  

But, there is a more subtle psychological influence at work. It is the residual self image disturbance. Suppose you have found the candidate who understands we all need free rubber chickens before we can have paper chickens (or anything else), but, to your dismay, no one is listening to him. If you throw your support behind the guy supporting free rubber chickens, you might ask yourself...

• Will all my esteemed yet uninformed colleagues understand this guy? Probably not. They all think he's confusing rubber and paper.
  
• If they misunderstand him, will I be perceived as a lunatic if I support him? Everyone thinks I'm smoking crack because I keep saying he's all for free rubber chickens.
  
• If all my esteemed colleagues think I'm smoking crack, will I lose credibility with them? Not to mention power and influence over all the delusional paper chicken supporters - who are actually smoking crack?
  

If you trust yourself and your beliefs over the popular perceptions, yet give in to the above in order to retain relevance, you are probably making the assumption that you must retain credibility with folks who either don't care about rubber chickens, or the ones smoking crack. Perhaps you choose to be relevant in case there is a chance your rubber chickens will be under siege again.

My question...When does relevance trump everything else? How far can what is "relevant" and what is correct diverge before the rubber chickens are reserved for only the folks with the most paper chickens? More importantly, who's promise of rubber chickens is most vulnerable to being sacrificed to fallible public perception?

• Someone who's career depends on public perception?
  
• Someone who's career doesn't depend on public perception?
  

If rubber chickens are the reason we get to vote for rubber or paper in the first place, when we no longer have them, I guess that is when we must be satisfied with paper. And, there is definitely not an unlimited supply of paper...

Are we destined to live in a world where we all believe we must live with only hard-earned paper chickens because the guys hoarding most of the chickens are telling us so? Telling us so scarcely saying the word "chicken?"

But, there is evidence the elite crowd is losing some ground to geeks with mad tech skillz, some free time, and compassion for evenly distributed rubber chickens. These guys understand that even sensible people disinterested in public political perception are vulnerable to cheap visual and psychological tricks if they are aligned with powerful intellectual beliefs.

Although unrelated to the bird discussed in this article, I think this captures many people's impression of their importance, so we'll use that analogy. But, basing your opinion on such eye candy rather than the concepts is where disaster starts. Soon, you start thinking you can buy rubber chickens with the paper type. But, as much as you try, that never works. You can't have paper chickens unless you first have rubber ones.

I am bothered by this somewhat, though. Ron Paul is just a normal guy, and painting him in such a messianic light suggests he is the only individual capable of actively resisting an unfair proportion of chickens, rubber or paper. Are these qualities so rare that the one guy who acts on them is held up like some god? Are we really all virtually blind following the king with one eye? How would we handle the temptation of an unevenly balanced distribution of chickens in our favor?

Given the promise of an unlimited supply of chickens would you choose to stick with your principles instead? Would you continue to believe that all of us are equally entitled to our share of free rubber chickens, after which the paper type can be pursued? With issues so complicated no one would blame you or even understand the contradictions. I don't know if I could resist the extra chickens. Maybe he is the only guy that can. I don't know.

I am relieved to see that the battle to win hearts and minds is not restricted to groups hoarding the chickens. Occasionally it is waged by a grassroots organization of individuals bound by principles and ideas only, with nothing particular to gain but the personal knowledge that they are perpetuating the ideals necessary for such ubiquitous universal goals as peace and individual liberty, chickens that are rubber.

Perhaps their belief in rubber chickens over the paper variety is strong enough to endure persistent public attack on their character, beliefs, intelligence, and ideals. Perhaps it is even strong enough to endure such attacks from friends and family members. These ideas would need to be based on rubber so fantastic that they agree to risk every last ounce of their reputation on their knowledge that the primary chickens must made from it.

This person also recognizes that many an idiot does the same thing to protect their paper chickens. Or, they argue against rubber chickens without even knowing it...or, argue for rubber chickens while advocating policies that actually destroy them, and make more paper chickens. Which, of course, is why all opinions must be expressed openly without the influence of forces advocating their suppression (popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public). At least we can all agree on that...I hope. Yes, the proper material for chicken construction must be discussed, even if we all agree that paper is inferior to rubber, or even that paper chickens are actually a figment of our imagination.

We couldn't have all agreed that evenly distributed rubber chickens is proper without thousands of years of philosophical study, civil experiments, reason, and an effective method of vulcanization. No amount of trickery will dismantle these things. The benefits of free rubber chickens was established and made law hundreds of years ago, and reinforced time and again by countries who let too many chickens into the hands of a few, which is why we shouldn't really need fancy visual effects to illustrate their proper usage.

Perhaps we fail to recognize the benefits of free rubber chickens because we live in a world obsessed with paper ones. Or, perhaps we do not see that everything we have depends on free rubber chickens.

Imagine free rubber chickens.

The Real Green Revolution

It's unfortunate potheads are always stoned.

The ones I know are some of the most intelligent and interesting folks I've ever met. Excuse me for referring to them collectively, but I have noticed a correlation in behavior that I believe warrants discussion given our turbulent political environment.

If there was a viable political candidate who strongly endorsed the legalization of marijuana, would the collective pothead's ass ascend from the bean bag long enough to cast a ballot?

Probably not. Why? I have reason to believe it isn't straight up laziness.

I don't know this guy personally...but if I did...he's one of the most entrepreneurial guys I know. Legend reports a dense jungle of green bud overflowing his humble residence; an indoor rain forest of KB.

This isn't just a few house plants...this is an irrigated hydroponic laboratory with thousands of dollars of lighting equipment, according to the myth. As a homebrewer I have the highest regard for someone so fiercely dedicated to their hobby. He doesn't sell. He uses it in the privacy his own home. No harm done. Right?

Wrong.

Between meticulously sprinkling water on Goliath The Green Giant and puffing on one of his lush appendages, I'm afraid our accomplished horticulturist simply doesn't have time to defend his hobby with his vote, or, even mild concern about the presidential candidate who is thumping for stoner rights. This gentleman is doing everything in his power to end the war on drugs, legalize our hero's prized plumage, and liberate all who choose to partake in their dragon's share.

This candidate won 16% in the Minnesota Republican caucus straw poll.

Where was our hero when we needed him most? Not present. For that matter, where are the parading anti-establishment peaceniks from the 60s when you really need them? I don't see the tie died shirts at the rallies. I didn't detect the slightest floral waft from the packed Northrup auditorium on February 4th.

Has pot transformed from a symbol of liberation and peaceful protest to an opponent of civil dissent? Is pot now acting on behalf of the establishment, giving them free reign to perpetuate any crime against the Constitution among a green public haze of complacency?

I want to see a pot smoker's march on Washington, and although I don't partake myself, I will happily help organize such an event. Rise my half-baked friends and conquer the beast that insists you purchase your dime from Timmy on the high school tennis courts. The future is yours, all you have to do it take it.

May a green cloud descend on our capitol my friends. The revolution is in your hands.

Wake Up!

Well, that mysterious bonus hour from last fall has come back to bite us. The pain of time stings extra hard one day out of the year, and this is that day...an hour shaved from a precious weekend.

In all fairness, couldn't our time bandits have added one hour during a weekend, and then taken one hour off a Monday? For all the trouble it seems like they could have at least given us that.

But, maybe I'm missing the point. I know the original idea was proposed by Benjamin Franklin as a way for the people to save energy in a world powered by expensive lamp oil derived painstakingly from whales. So, if I'm getting this right, was he suggesting time itself conform to our needs rather than the other way around? Sounds like a thoughtful and brave proposition. Are you suggesting we place more light, less need for oil, and therefore, more prosperity and independence in the hands of everyone?

This sounds like a trap. And it's spoken by a diplomat. Aha! I see the problem Mr. Franklin...Are you suggesting we deprive the whalers and oil merchants of their earnings?

How dare you sabotage our bustling economy Mr. Franklin! What about the hard working whalers? What about the shop keeper trying to sell lamp oil. What will happen to them? May the cries of their starving children echo in your skull Mr. Franklin.

Now that we've easily dispatched that fallacy, let's look at a real solution...If you want to do some good, I suggest a simpler change...One that will charge the economy with a flood of wealth and activity. One without the need for any sort of biannual incremental shift. One so elegant in design and application that, after moments of thought, its merits are without question.

Simply switch AM and PM.

In such a world lanterns would burn throughout the night, every night! Thousands more would flock to the lucrative whaling business. Jobs would be plentiful as workers were hired to transport, store, and sell the much needed liquid gold. All who desired would share in the great demand...the overwhelming opportunities of a new renaissance!

As the sun set you would awaken to a bustle of activity with horses and carriages marching down the well-lit street with rows of lanterns ablaze on either side. Ordinances would be passed so all public buildings met the luminosity threshold throughout the dark hours.

An annual "Festival of Light" would be required in every town featuring giant flaming statues. Rivers, topped upstream with surplus fuel, would flow ablaze in the much anticipated conclusion to the ceremonies.

As the first hints of dawn approached on the horizon the curtains would be drawn and all the children would be tucked in for the daily winter's nap.

But, alas, the colonists were deprived of such an opportunity. Such prosperity was forsaken for the small reward of working during the same set of hours instead of the others...for the small advantage of some extra light from this glowing orb. They submitted to the ubiquitous golden monopoly in the sky at everyone's expense.

Shame on them and shame on us for blindly perpetuating these antiquated traditions. Those of us who "see the dark" understand that daylight is our perpetual nemesis. I hold my fist high and shake it at you, the day trader, The Sun magazine, DAY CARE! Yes, they even neglect the children.

Perhaps one day the thoughtless resistance of a simple, trivial change will not get in the way of unprecedented prosperity for every American. Perhaps one day we will hold our torches high and praise the great leader who brought the blessings of night to the doorstep of every man, woman, and child in this great country.

Until then I will awaken at dusk, strike a match, and light my lantern in ceremonial reverence for the opponents of Mr. Franklin and his ilk. I will curse this "Daylight Savings Time" for its short-sightedness and hope that one day we can conquer public perception and become noble creatures of the night.

When you peer out your window in the wee hours to see the rivers ablaze do not be afraid. It simply means the well-meaning people of the world have conquered ignorance and the era of prosperity has begun.

Persuasion by Force

Should we allow government to dictate our behavior in matters that apply only to ourselves? Does government have the responsibility to pick up the slack when we are incapable of taking care of ourselves?

No. Not only does it not have the responsibility. It does not have the moral justification for doing so.

Why? Because in matters that pertain only to ourselves we are the only individual capable of defining "happiness." Even if we are unable to properly ascertain that happiness, no other group or individual has the right to interfere in our pursuit of it.

Others may persuade us to stop writing boring blog posts in order to preserve our dignity, but you cannot lawfully stop me (hahaha!). More to the point, you can advise any civilized person to keep off the ice, use a rubber, or clean the needle, and you can do so with whatever persuasive abilities you have at your disposal; anything short of coercion by force...if not for its complete futility, for its effect of tending to encourage the behavior (children and lawless barbarians who are not receptive to reason excluded, and I know that is most of you - go back to your pit and put the lotion on the skin).

I might go out on a limb and say that one also has the obligation to help friends, family, loved ones and even complete strangers to the degree their resources allow and in whatever manner they see justified. Is this going out on a limb?

So the question is...why can't we just commission government to help friends, family, loved ones and strangers on our behalf? After all, isn't that why we pay all these taxes? Unfortunately, your friendly congressman is just as likely to blow your tax dollars huffing gas as he is using it to effectively reward good teachers. Sniff more glue? YES WE CAN! At a national level, that means doing whatever your billionaire corporate campaign contributers demand. Take the hard earned money we could use to help our neighbors and instead build a bridge to nowhere? YES WE CAN! Eliminate individual sovereignty? YES WE CAN. Perpetuate anti-American sentiment globally? YES WE CAN! Bankrupt the country? YES WE CAN!

Because individuals are far greater at identifying legitimate need than government, they are more effective assessors and distributors of charity because they target the most true and desperate demand. The degree to which individuals are capable of keeping the fruits of their labor and distributing it as they see fit is the primary measure of success for a free society, and central to our personal capacity to respect human rights and help the needy. Only a cruel, heartless population would allow the hungry to starve and homeless to freeze, especially with so much personal prosperity available to help.

If you believe we are a society of such heartless individuals, then you might suspect mandatory theft of a portion of prosperity from everyone is necessary to ensure the protection of basic human rights for the destitute. You might assume we must use government to do it.

But, if we are a society built of such trash, are politicians immune from such an affliction? Or, would politicians be the most tenacious examples of shrewed and unsavory cleverness who managed to claw their way to the top?

Assuming the above is even partly the case, the redistribution of wealth through government would not be weighted on the side of the needy. In such a society, only the very minimum amount of wealth is distributed to the desperate. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE is directed to the privileged few in the elite circle through rampant cronyism. It can be justified because these companies provide jobs, products, and services and it can be argued they are good for the economy. But, government advocacy is NOT the justification for any business - only market demand can validate a company's success. This cooperation between big corporations and government simply deprives small business, the poor, and especially the middle class.

If you believe we are a society of greedy monsters, and want to do something about it, you must starve the beast of government and allow the poor to keep ALL their earnings. You also must allow the middle-class - those who hang out with the poor more than the elite - to keep ALL their earnings so they have the means to help their neighbors and loved ones who run into hard times.

The greedy rich who hoard billions for themselves and their friends must not be allowed to use government to hoard billions more. This is what we allow to happen, and all while we still have enough power to stop them and restore the role of government to its rightful place - to protect OUR life, liberty, and property and not just the privileged few tugging the ropes. Why don't we do it? Oh yeah, because professional politicians spend lifetimes learning how to convince you otherwise for their billionaire friends and are much more convincing than me.

Why listen to the person who has the most to lose? Don't they have the most reason to lie to you? Then, if they are willing to lie, and discover you will let them take your money and liberty, what's stopping them?

To conclude, if the alternative is true, and we are a society of enlightened and charitable individuals, there is no need to take our prosperity in the first place. Personally, I suspect we are willing to accept the responsibilities of freedom already without requiring the outside of force from better men and women than ourselves. Do we need more persuasion to this effect? Absolutely, anything short of force will do.