When I read some dumb comment online, I often pass it off that some jerk just wants to be noticed and isn’t really serious. When the same comment is in the media, then I think that it is often a ratings push. That guy really didn’t believe the crap he is saying.
Take this thing about the 5 second rule for dropped food. I read it first online, that if food dropped on the floor is picked up within 5 seconds, then it is still edible. My reaction was of astonishment. Common sense should tell you that dropped food immediately becomes contaminated unless the floor is in one of these sci-fi movies clean room… but then again who would be eating in that room.
When I saw the issue debated and defended, I thought, ‘Naaaa, these people don’t really believe that’. On tv, I was a little more incredulous but thought, this is going to get the program tons of publicity and in America, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Then I read that some university researched and changed the limit to 3 seconds. Really? An intellectual institution goes for this? The next report was that another research group claimed that the second that food hit the ground it is contaminated. At effing last. But you guys really spent money to research what is essentially a common sense issue?
Imagine how floored I was when actually, face to face, a colleague seriously defended the 5 second rule. Really? You believe that germs take 5 seconds to jump on some piece of banana that has fallen to the floor? I was like ‘Wwwwhaa!’.
I mean, I apply the 5 second rule myself. I’m not gonna bin a piece of tasty chocolate cake just because it fell. Yum yum! But do I believe that it is clean? Nope. Its just my way of validating a foolish decision… that and a craving for chocolate cake.
Now, lets move to the current election season. I’ve read and seen media people write and talk about an end-of-world apocalypse if Obama is elected. I’ve heard much the same from the democrat-defending commentators… that mormons are gonna start enslaving poor people if Romney wins. The freaks run wild during presidential elections.
For the most part, I simply just dismiss the talk as posturing for fame or ratings. No sane person actually believe either of these positions. Really Louis? Well, time for a wake-up call.
At an art show, two fellow artists shared their political alliance. The reason why I specify artists is that these are Romney supporters and Romney has declared that as president he will cut funding to National Public Radio and the National Endowment for the Arts, while increasing expenditure to the military. As an artist and someone who for the most part deplores wars, it troubles me. And while I accept that not all artists share my political convictions, I found it astounding that both these artists had no issue with Romney’s goal of defunding the NEA. One of them even said that the NEA had done anything for them. Really? Now, I’m not going to tell you what this agency has done to benefit the arts and artists in the USA. You can research that for yourself. But this agency has tilled the ground from which working artists benefit. For the most part, the NEA is why art is a major part of the nation’s productive sector.
According to wikipedia (I know, not the best source), Ronald Reagan intended to push Congress to abolish the NEA completely over a three-year period upon entering the office in 1981. However, “…this plan was abandoned when the president’s special task force (loaded with conservatives) on the arts and humanities, discovered “the needs involved and benefits of past assistance”, concluding that continued federal support was important”. If Reagan decided against defunding the NEA, why would Romney?
To hear an artist support such nonsense is beyond befuddling. Support Romney if you wish, but hey, common sense is common sense. You don’t have to support everything he says, especially when he subverts your interest. But then again, thats politicks in America.
But worse was to come. These two artists went on to make mind-boggling claims worse than the 5 second food rule, stating that Obama intends to make America socialist, turn the USA over to the United Nations, and ban personal ownership of guns. It is incredible that any supposedly educated American could know so little of their country to give these claims any level of believability. This they say will be achieved through executive orders… in other words, should Obama be re-elected, he will sign away more than 230 years of American history. Really? I was stupefied.
Let’s get this straight. Obama is not a socialist. The democratic party is not socialist, and by world standards, even the American communist party is right of center.
It would be impossible to turn America socialist by the use of a pen or fiat. For the United States, the road to socialism would be a lengthy process. Not that socialism is bad, mind you, but the mindset of the vast majority of America would never go for it overnight. Neither would the military. America is too wedded to capitalism, even though right now that political and economic system is not working for the majority of people. And because of the fear-mongering, even when the system collapses as it must, most Americans will take a knee-jerk reaction and still cling to capitalism as they would to religion. Actually, capitalism has become religion to many.
The same with ‘signing over the country to the UN’. Now tell me, any thinking person would know that no American general would allow that. That would in fact lead to a military coup. America never allows a UN or non- American NATO commander to assume command of US troops. Again, civil war, with practically every American soldier fighting the UN. Not gonna happen.
Neither Obama or the democrats are pushing an anti-gun platform. And attempting to do so at any time would also lead to civil war. None of these three situations are possible, but the republicans find success with the wild allegations because too many Americans are plainly extremely ignorant… and may I remind you, quite racist.
All politicians including Obama rely on exploiting the ignorance of the majority. The republicans plumb the deepest fears of the electorate, managing to convince many that what is right for them is actually wrong for them, and corporations are in fact good for them.
According to one of the artists, it was rich people who bought her art, as if apparently, that’s a great reason to overlook what corporations are doing to this society, and how she amongst others, are greatly exploited by corporate imperialism. She is the type of person who would support corporations even as she knowingly drank their poisons. Go figure.
Even in Jamaica where politicians also exploit the gullible electorate, no politician could survive selling the same crap that republicans sells this electorate. Edward Seaga tried and failed, even though in America, Seaga would be considered to the far left of Obama.
The point is that Americans are not as smart as they advertise. They are not politically savvy. They are just as prone to believe the most outrageous fabrications that appear to support their candidate and denigrate the opponent, as the most backward fool from countries Americans detest for ‘their ignorance’. Americans are no better than them but in fact, often times worse. At least the bushman does not have access to all information. He goes by what is available to him. Americans accept misinformation despite what is available to them. And politicians know that elections are not decided by truth or honesty, but on the basis of misinformation, downright and scandalous lies, and the exploitation of biases and ignorance. Free and fair elections? I don’t think so.