You're giving me a headache

I wish it were a black and white world - then I would be able to pick a side and have a 50% chance of being absolutely on the correct side. Us versus them. Right versus Wrong. Left versus Right. Good versus Evil. Taste Great versus Less Filling.

There is something gloriously appealing to a simplistic worldview that can easily be boiled down to the phrase, "chocolate or vanilla". It is convenient to know that I'm going either to heaven or to hell and the outcome is determined solely on whether I profess a belief in a savior - or not. It is wonderful to believe that "you are either with us or against us." Ah...mission accomplished...or not. See how comfortable it is to say such things. Such simple duality is easy on the brain because it doesn't take any effort to choose.

A black and white world would certainly be convenient - I personally think there are entirely to many brands of toothpaste.

On the other hand - there is something dangerously insidious about a simplistic either/or world. For example, "if it weren't for 'them' we wouldn't have these problems." Simplistic but problematic.

Especially if you replace the word "them" with words such as cracker, nigger, crumpet-sucker, chigger, crunchy, paddy, kike, beaner or one of a 1,ooo other racial slurs. For example, at the turn of the 20th century, as the Irish came across the Atlantic and blacks made their way to opportunity in the north, they were commonly greeted by signs that read, "Irish and niggers need not apply". Which is why another old slur for the Irish was "NINA" - "No Irish Need Apply".

Well at least they knew where to look for a job - somewhere else.

We want simplistic - it is much easier to manage. This is the difficulty with complicated issues - these refuse to be boiled down to an us versus them, either/or option. We want it to be simple which is why we label those people who disagree or are different than us as conservative or liberal, fascist or socialist, Nazi or communist. There are a small minority of people making a living propagating simplistic worldviews - views that limit discussion, limit the free exchange of ideas and limit solutions. Unfortunately, these people can be seen broadcasting into billions of homes around the world delivering an exciting, loud, entertaining and simplistic blend of hostility, humor and zeal.

After all who wants to watch two reasonable moderates who mostly agree?

It is this simplistic world view that gives power to the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Osama Bin Laden, Joseph McCarthy, Glen Beck and my high school football coach - all idealistic fascists. We want it to be simple. We don't want to see the other side of the story, walk in another man's shoes, broaden our perspective or consider all the facts. All of these actions require us to swallow our pride and ego and admit we might not really know. "Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to one’s self-esteem," wrote educational psychologist Thomas Szasz, "That is why young children, before they are aware of their own self-importance, learn so easily; and why older persons, especially if vain or important, cannot learn at all."

Complicated issues such as health care reform, terrorism and energy give us a headache because like all forms of exercise it forces us to stretch our brains. Americans are the most obese people in the world: most of us refuse to get off the couch to exercise our bodies - perhaps instead we should use our couch time to exercise our brains.

All or nothing is a dangerous mindset - more shitheadery

Recently I read with some curiosity an essay by Wounded Eagle entitled A Thief in The Night.

Reading this article, and many like it, watching the news-tainment and listening to "experts" makes me really miss the intellectual integrity and character of William F. Buckley, Jr.

Essentially, she is suggesting that those that disagree with her are sneaking into her house and robbing her of her rights. In more hyperbolic, sophistic rhetoric she claims that those that are opposed to her idea of "America" are simply cancer to be cut out by whatever means necessary. Ignoring the mixed metaphors of the thief in the night or a cancer it is a dangerous message.

It advocates a belief system based on mistrust, fear and anger. It lacks historical content, perspective and honesty. It is intellectually dishonest and dangerous. She claims the mantle of Christ but rejects the nation's Christian desire to care for the sick and poor, patience and tolerance of those that disagree with her and supports the continued greed of those that created this economic disaster.

Although she parrots support for the Bill of Rights and the freedom of speech she doesn't practice it. Below is my response to what I consider more social shitheadery.

Hi. Interesting essay - you make some good points but it isn't a black and white world.

Franklin also said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

In the name of national security and safety the GOP heralded in the largest federal debt of our nation's history. The largest expansion of intrusive government power undermining the bill of rights came under the GOP. The largest expansion of executive power including wire tapping, search & seizure and Presidential signing statements under the GOP. Demonized those that in the name of responsible government called the Bush administration to account for choices.

All in the name of safety and security.

In order to begin to treat any illness - cancer or a cold - we'd better know what is wrong. To simply blame whatever is convenient is ignorant and dangerous. The problem with this country is not the liberals or conservatives, the GOP or the Dems. It is anyone in either group declaring they are the "righteous" and "moral" voice of America.

The word "conservative" is defined as "resistant to change". The Founding Fathers were considered liberals and radicals in their thinking and considered intellectual elitists. The Crown was considered conservative because they opposed basic human freedoms and human rights. The British Crown was resistant to change while the Founding Fathers embraced change.

It was the GOP that initiated the financial bailout of the banks - something I find outlandish as well. The banks don't make anything. However, the auto industry does & I'm tired of blue collar jobs simply being exported away.

This isn't new - Reagan, Eisenhower, Theodore and Lincoln all expanded the power of the Federal government in light of the economic realities of their time. Politicians typically do what is expedient, occasionally "best" and hardly ever "right". Neither do most people on the street - that is human nature. It isn't a black and white world.

Lastly, to suggest that those that are of a different opinion are simply a "cancer" that should be cut out by whatever means necessary is to undermine democratic debate. It's the extremists that are ruining this country.

If the GOP has a better plan for health care, energy or the economy share it. It is easy to snipe from the sidelines. When I ask my GOP friends what they suggest to address these issues they invariably just criticize without offering suggestions. They want the power without having offering a solution.

All or nothing is a dangerous mindset.