Only half the country sees the obvious and disturbing irony that Trump is receiving validation from Putin regarding his assessment of the “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.”
Another portion of the country is blissfully unaware that they are co-conspirators in a plot to ensure that the chicken is fully plucked.
Yet another portion is totally oblivious to the irony because they are too busy posting their food pictures to Facebook or liking the jumping moon cat video to care.
But the remaining portion, along with the pleasing approval of adversarial foreign powers, won’t rest until every feather is theirs and we are left with a country absent of a democracy and absent a republic.
Consider Kristen Bell’s, Pink Sourcing video:
Funny, right? Well, not so fast; not according to this article:
“Another Celebrity Wrong On The Wage Gap” by Karin Agness
What I think is just as funny as Kristen’s video are some of the responses to Kristen’s video and, specifically, this one. Instead of taking Bell’s comedy satire for what it is, the author of this article is a little bent-out of shape that Kristen would make such a “misleading” parody. Sure, the writer for this Forbes piece has a point that the general Census Bureau statistic may not consider other factors like comparing similar jobs, that there may be less women in the workforce than men, that there is no consideration of the job choices women make vs. the job choices men make, etc. There also seems to be a lot of disaffected men out there giving their nod towards this Forbes article who are unhappy that they get paid the same or less than women do in comparable jobs while Kristen has the gall to make fun of a statistic that they are quite certain is false.
But, so what? It’s Kristen Bell! Lighten-up. She is really funny. In addition, the video is not just about men vs. women but also, women vs. women, subtly and, cleverly, highlighting other disparities that exist in the workforce with humor as well. My advice to this columnist and to all the other people who agree with her: “chill-out” and quit making such a big deal over this.
There really is nothing wrong with the point of view being promoted by the video. You cannot escape the fact that there is a real disparity in household incomes between men and women. In the long run, it really doesn’t matter why there are differences if you are truly concerned about a progressive improvement for women in the job market. So, in my humble opinion, regardless of whether you are a conservative or a liberal businessperson, you now have one other real option to consider whenever you get that itching need to exploit somebody: pick up that phone and call Pink Sourcing. Trust me; all your troubles will be solved.
Had our forefathers intended our form of government to be run like a business, they would have set it up like a business. But, that is not the purpose of our form of government. A business is not so concerned about protecting liberty, justice and freedom as much as it is concerned about the bottom line. Big Businesses, if left unchecked, more often than not, like totalitarian governments, tend to exploit people, limit their options; they tend to foster an idea that the business is more important than its people. When was the last time Microsoft was concerned about your right to practice a different operating system?
There is always room for efficiency in government and we absolutely need Big Business to progress as any meaningful modern society. The improvements to our lives that can only happen if Big Business exists are apparent. Laws favorable to Big Business should be encouraged but must be applied in the context that they don’t infringe on the rights, freedom and liberty of other American citizens. Only a government independent of thinking like a business can do that.
So, it is absurd to me when people base their reason for selecting a particular candidate on the claim that the candidate will run our government like a business. Our government should not run like a business nor should we trust people who think that it should. If a person believes that government should run like a business, it indicates to me that they have absolutely no understanding of what they are talking about, no understanding of our current form of government or why our forefathers would have thought such a notion to be an absolutely bad idea. Our government is not set up like a business on purpose because our government’s primary directive is to be subservient to its citizens, protector of our liberties and freedom not the other way around. Totalitarianism in any form is a bad idea.
Bob Schieffer’s last day as moderator of “Face the Nation” on CBS is today. I just want to mention that there are not many newscasters left that provide as much integrity as he does. Always respectful and fair in his questioning of both Republicans and Democrats, you never really knew if Schieffer was for his interviewee or against them. But, that’s exactly what all really good reporters are supposed to do: severely limit any personal bias they might have.
Tough questions the audience deserves to know can be asked without asking questions that are irrelevant and unnecessary for the audience to know (regardless of how sensational, ratings increasing that these other questions might allegedly be or how many other reporters seem to be asking them). Finally, good reporters should let the audience decide what they think on their own without telling the audience what they should think. Schieffer did all that and more.
Schieffer belongs to the same class of reporters that Walter Cronkite belonged to. This is a class of reporters that is quickly disappearing. In fact, it is my opinion that Schieffer might be the last one. Can Schieffer’s replacement truly bring the same type of integrity and quality to moderating that Schieffer brought to “Face the Nation?” My answer is, maybe, but Dickerson will have a very tough job in trying to match what Schieffer brought to the show. I have my doubts it can be done.
In this day and age, there is a lot of negative, unpoliced energy floating around in the social ether. Critically acclaimed movies with hopeful Oscar potential portray dysfunctional family members sarcastically hurling cruel and harsh insults at one another. For example, in one scene in “The Descendants” Shailene Woodly’s character brutally and unceremoniously puts down her younger sister in a way that seems overly harsh and unnecessary. And while I don’t really expect that Shailene would ever treat her sibling in real life that way, it does show a pervasive attitude in today’s society that it is perfectly OK to disparage people without a thought or concern to what that is really doing to the other person or to what that is really doing to relationships in general.
Treating a person with that much distain and disrespect is simply wrong. Now you might say that I am overreacting because it’s to be expected that siblings will treat each other poorly at that age. That is possibly true but that is just one example.
The point is that the language and the ferocity that is used against another person cause relationships to unravel and break apart. It adds to the dysfunctional condition that might already be present and it is likely a good candidate for the dysfunctional condition in the first place. We only have to look to Congress to see how the lack of respect Republican and Democratic members have for each other to see what I am talking about.
No dialog can be started to get any deal hammered out because each is too busy hurling insults at the other. And that only increases the contempt each has for the other. How likely are you going to want to start a dialog with somebody if they are hurling absurd and unnecessary insults at you? Probably, not very likely. Thus, the reason for the “do nothing Congress” we have today.
To cure this condition that has inflicted our social conscious and to get society moving in positive directions again requires us to start with some basic rules of civility. There was a time period, not too long ago, where people referred to each other formally as Mr., Miss or Mrs. After a period of time, when you were allowed to know the person a little better, you might be “on a first-name basis.”
Now, I am not advocating that we need to go back to using formal salutations, although, I would not discourage it either. I am advocating that showing respect for another person is absolutely required if we want a society that is less crippled by the dysfunctional phenomenon that seems to be so pervasive in today’s culture. There is a lot to be said about the old adage: “Don’t judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.” Showing respect for another human being whose appearance, social upbringing, habits or opinion might be different from your own is the only way we can cure the Condescending Mindset. And Curing the Condescending Mindset is absolutely necessary and the only way we can begin to cure the problems with congress and the rest of the dysfunction that plagues today’s American Society.