when ignorance is strength

A friend of mine has reminded me that, by definition, one half of the population is intellectually below average.

I think that how we treat those who have less reasoning capability is very telling about who, as a nation, we are. Whether we try to educate and lift them up or whether we try to just take advantage of them says more about us than it does about them.

A couple of days ago I was watching a segment on the NPR news hour and they had a couple of senators discussing the Gulf oil spill. I was preparing dinner and was pretty distracted, but I am confident that I heard the Republican senator saying that we need less regulation of the oil companies in the Gulf.

His reasoning went like this: before this spill, the odds of a catastrophic oil spill had been calculated as something like one in thousands. There are about 4000 wells in the Gulf, so since we’ve had that one spill, it just makes sense that there won’t be any more. This logic was not challenged by either the moderator or the Democratic senator.

What he was saying, of course, makes no sense. I think that I remember from the study of logic that the existence of one thing makes it more likely that there is another thing similar or identical to the first. In other words, once it can be shown that there is more than one, the odds are then that there are more than two.

(As an aside, I once saw a television reporter at the opening of a new baseball field. Her actual statement was, “this is one of only two ballparks in the whole country completely financed with private money, and that makes it unique.” Of course, if there are two, it is by definition, not unique. But more on TV news in other posts.)

With reference to the senator who said that one catastrophe makes a second catastrophe less likely, I have to wonder whether he really believes what he is saying.

I mean, logically, he either believes it or he doesn’t. This leaves me with the following observation: if he truly believes that crap, he is an idiot and unfit to serve. However, if he doesn’t, he is a hypocrite who is playing on the ignorance of that one half of the population.

The rise of the Republican Party has, at least in part, been fueled by this careful, cynical manipulation of the other half. It’s this continual assault on logic and reason that has helped keep it as a major player in politics.

I don’t remember who it was, but a Republican politician has stated that the issues of guns, gays and God are sufficient fuel to assure many reelections. If you can keep the masses concentrated on things you could care less about, you can create a lot of mischief in D.C. when people aren’t looking.

Kentucky’s own Mitch McConnell is a master of hypocrisy. There is no better illustration of this than when he speaks of the dangers of trial lawyers as a threat to our democratic system. Mr. McConnell is, of course, a trial lawyer by training.

So one must ask, are the Republicans really afraid of trial lawyers? Well, of course they’re not. They have their own trial lawyers. When Republicans cynically deride trial lawyers, what they really fear are juries, potentially a great equalizer between huge corporations and otherwise small, insignificant people.

Mr. McConnell and his Republican friends pass all types of laws to deregulate rules for corporations and weaken protections for individuals and it keeps corporate donations flowing to the Republican Party.

However, when an individual, or individuals, are injured by a corporation’s actions a jury may award compensation to the injured party or parties. This is a huge problem for the Republican mindset, because it can elevate the status of an individual to that of a corporation (or rich person). This is why Republicans continually try to set caps on damages that juries can award.

In short, Republicans are fearful of both our legal system and those little people who are called for jury duty. When you have control over the three branches of government and continually game the system in favor of the rich and powerful, its got to be scary to have 12 ignorant, unwashed little people with so much power.

Hypocrisy, cynicism and ignorance becomes important tools to keep the powerful in power without regard to the costs it imposes on the country. This is what happens when it becomes more important to get and stay in power than it is to do the right thing.

Rand Paul- Part Two

I must admit I'm becoming intrigued by the way this Rand Paul thinks. I watched a clip of a "debate" which took place earlier in the week between Mr. Paul and his opponent, Jack Conway.
Now, I've got to admit I've always suspected that the federal government wastes a lot of money, but as it turns out, for every dollar which goes to Washington, those politicians waste $1.50 of it.
Seriously, that's a lot of waste, and Rand Paul explains it by saying that money going to Washington gets "swished around in the bureaucracy, half of it gets left in Washington, half of it is wasted, and half of it goes to political cronyism."

I think I have the quote right, and hopefully Mr. Paul's handlers will issue a "clarification" for us soon. The entire video is about 45 minutes, and the brilliant statement appears at about 39:30.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/rand-paul-americas-poor-should-be-glad-theyre-americans-video.php?ref=fpb

Rand Paul-Part One

This is my second blog entry on my second blog site. The previous site was difficult to access for some which made a good excuse to discontinue for a time.
Hopefully, a better site will keep me motivated, but we'll see.

I wanted to comment on an article which appeared on the op-ed page in the Courier-Journal yesterday which was a repost of a Greg Sargent Washington Post story about the misunderstanding of Rand Paul's "underground electronic fence" between the U.S. and Mexico.
After some critics suggested that the idea was, well, kind of kooky, Rand Paul's spokesman, Jesse Benton "clarified" Paul's position by saying that the electronic fence wasn't meant to be underground. "That's a stupid word that was put in by whoever is writing for our website and we need to remove it."
That's the end of story, according to Mr. Sargent and the Courier.
Except, of course, that its not.
In an early interview by Mr. Paul as reported by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post on June 25, 2010, Stein wrote:

In a speech before a small gathering of supporters back in May 2009, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul elaborated on his proposal to build an underground electronic fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, framing it as a cost effective and even respectful way of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants.

In a speech in downtown Paducah, Kentucky, Paul pegged the cost of his quixotic idea at somewhere between $10 and 15 million dollars (a relative pittance when compared to other border-fence proposals, and likely far too rosy a projection). The benefits of an underground fence, he argued, were that it would not have the symbolism of a Berlin Wall-like structure and it would be considered less offensive to Hispanic voters who are already fleeing the country.

"Where I disagree, maybe with some people on the immigration issue, I don't like the symbolism of a 15 foot fence going the whole border. It's extraordinarily expensive, and it reminds me of the Berlin Wall which was built to keep people in and from fleeing to the west," Paul said. "I think you could actually put an electronic fence under the whole for border for $10 or $15 million, which sounds like a lot to us but that's peanuts. And you could probably have helicopter stations in maybe five different locations, and I think you could have any breach of the border could be stopped at any point and we send them back."

Now, to me, "under the border" would mean underground. But that's just me.

In an interview with something called RT, Paul is asked point blank about the "underground electric fence" and he replies, "I think that would be one way..." and goes on with other high tech solutions to the problem. He doesn't say, "Oh, that underground stuff was put in by whoever is writing for my website." Rather, his lack of objection, to me, seems to acknowledge the underground fence as his idea.

Here's the link, the question appears right at 8:30 into the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aILHHAJhqpM&feature=player_embedded

All I'm saying is this: Whether or not its a crazy idea, the evidence is that its Rand Paul's idea, not something placed into his website by "whoever."

The media used to be all over this stuff, but has in the past several years become stenographers to the politicians. No investigation, no nothing. "you talk, we type." Glen Greenwald at Salon.com writes frequently about this phenomenon and I wish the media would do a better job of actually investigating the facts behind the statements.

But for Greg Sargent, case closed.