Words and Labels of Hate and Stupidity

Before any commentary, there needs to be an understanding that ignorance is the basis of hate. We fear what we don't understand. Fear makes us uncomfortable. In fact, we really hate what makes us fearful and that's the problem. So what makes us afraid? That's easy -- things we believe might do us harm. Categorizing helps make sense of a problem and brings me back to the subject ...

What are the labels of hate and what do they really mean? More importantly what's the progression from a difference of opinion to hate. I'll start with categories, names, labels ...

A good beginning is with stereotypes or a generalization about a person or group of persons. Then there's a bias developed when individuals are unwilling to obtain all of the information they would need to make fair judgments about people or situations.

Stereotyping creates the framework for a bias. Bias referring to a type of selective thinking whereby individuals tend to favorably view what confirms their stereotypical beliefs, and ignore or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts those beliefs. Actively seeking out individuals who share a bias is sometimes called bias confirmation.

Next is prejudice, often derived from stereotyping and bias confirmation, that is just the prejudgment of a person or situation that fits a negative stereotype or bias; and when left unchecked can result in bigotry. A bigot being an extremely biased, narrow-minded, individual who's very intolerant of persons to whom conform to their prejudice or oppose a bias.

A racist believes that a person's race dictates their human traits. Racist beliefs are almost exclusively opined as a negative thereby allowing the racist a feeling of superiority.

While a racist always has a prejudice and is often bigoted, a bigot or prejudicial person is not always racist. Example: Joe's a misogynist, a woman hater. Joe hates all women regardless of their race. So although Joe's bigoted toward women, he's not a racist -- well, not unless he hates Asian women more than other women. To keep the word game going we can also bet that Joe's a chauvinist; or persons convinced of the superiority of their own gender.

Another important word to define is race. In 'today speak' the concept of race is often confused with ethnicity, and this is especially true when considering racism. Technically speaking race is genetic and ethnicity is learned.

However racism today seems to include both. Obviously, a white supremacist is a racist. And so is a black man that hates white men. But why is a Jew hater called a racist -- isn't anti-Semitic enough? And then why is it that a Muslim basher can also be called a racist -- since when is a Religion genetic and not learned?

Why? Because hyperbole rules hate. When someone says or believes something stupid, why stop at calling them ignorant when you can label them prejudice or a bigot or even better -- a racist? And isn't it easier to hate (or love depending on your bias) a racist, than it is to hate (or defend) someone who's just stupid?

If there's any solution for this hate proliferation, it will come from understanding, resisting fear, breaking the cycle of confirmation bias. We need to start listening to people who sincerely want to ratchet back the hyperbole. I'm not going to look to politicians or news reporters or anyone else that has something to sell me to reduce the hate. Their job security is fear -- pick me! I'll protect you.

Nope the solution is yours. Listen to yourself. If that (politician/TV talking head/cleric/retail salesman) says my only possibility of (security/happiness/redemption/rests) is in accepting their message -- then it's probably bullshit! Don't let that message be your belief foundation.

Final note: Oh and has anybody noticed that one of the few truly large groups you can hate anymore without being called a racist are homosexuals. Is it because they're everywhere? In your race, your gender, your ethnicity, even your own family. Oh well, I guess bigotry, prejudice, and stereotyping will have to suffice.

Redistribution of Wealth: Let's Start Here...

I'm starting to get interested in the Tea Party's anti-redistribution of wealth stance -- taking from the rich and giving to the needy is apparently a bad thing. And as it's the Feds that are doing the nasty, let's start by not redistributing federal taxes paid from rich states and giving it to poorer states.

As of 2004[1] for every $1 in Federal Taxes paid, California only received $0.79 back in federal spending. Some of the biggest Tea Party membership states faired a lot better. For instance for every $1 in Federal Taxes paid here's what some of those states got back: Kansas, $1.12; Oklahoma, $1.48; Idaho, $1.28; Kentucky, $1.45; Mississippi, $1.77; Alaska, $1.87 ...

So shouldn't us Californian's demand a 21% deduction from our tax bill, and shouldn't Oklahomianites get a 48% tax increase, and Mississipianiters get a 77% tax hike, etc. ?

Of course it's not as simple as that, but I'm also not as simple minded as a lot of those tea baggers --like Sarah Palin. for instance. I doubt I'll make it to her next Tea Party appearance. But if you're there. ask her about that 87% redistribution of wealth to Alaska. Golly-gee, I bet she's not gonna offer to give that back.

---

[1] Not the most recent info, but a pretty good picture of the present trend HTTP://Taxfoundation.org

Another Rush Job

Another Rush (Not a lie. Just a distortion of the facts.) - disclosure.

I looked at Rush's site today and found this story ripe for investigation. Basically his story indicates that a MS-NBC news woman, Andrea Mitchell, was pleading with a black congressman, Elijah Cunningham, to get the health care legislation passed. Especially suspcious was the story headline - Andrea Mitchell Makes On Air Plea: "You've Got To Get This Done for Him!"

Next, read the 1st picture story top of this page: Rush's story taken as a snag-it picture from his website.

The headline caught my attention, and I read the story. It didn't make a lot of sense either. So I did some research starting with a Google search. Most of the hits were right wing blogs decrying how a supposed journalist of the MSM (main stream media) had been caught, concluding with proof like this how could the left (with reporters like Andrea) ever criticize Fox News.

It took awhile before I could find a site with an actual video clip and not just a transcription. I could have heard the audio of Rush's show but I was unwilling to become a "Rush 24/7 Member" at the bargain price of $6.95 a month. Finally I did find a video clip a video clip of the interview that also didn't make much sense . Although within the nineteen second clip, it did appear Andrea was saying what had been reported. However it didn't sound like a plea as much as an argument -- like, "This is what you're trying to do, Isn't it?"

When I finally found the full length video on Andrea's Face Book wall (picture 2 above), I confirmed my suspicion. Andrea and Elijah had been talking about the black congressional caucus and how they were trying to support the president who had been a member. So her words were more a recap of her understanding of the situation of how YOU, the caucus, feel about Obama and his efforts on health care reform, and are going to work to get this done for HIM.

So except as a stand-alone Rush/Blogger sound bite, what Andrea said was in no way a personal plea or even a personal opinion. The greatest misstatement (besides Rush's) was Elijah's response to her statement, "Andrea, I agree with you a million percent." What he should have said is that he agreed with her understanding of the situation.

Now Rush and the bloggers didn't listen to the interview in its full context. Or more likely they did, but the full interview didn't present the opportunity to distort the "NEWS" to their benefit/satisfaction. The sound bite allowed Rush and the bloggers to rage on about how all Obama does is just about HIM, his legacy, his efforts, his sense of power... Had they only have played the next few seconds of the interview their audiences would have heard the next words, as spoken by Elijah, "But it's not just about HIM, it's about getting ..." and he continued on with something maddening like "... It's about getting affordable health care for millions of Americans." etc., etc.

This is my third shot at taking a Rush story -- almost at random -- and doing a little research of my own. Regretfully, for America with its millions of Rush followers, I have been able to discover misleading, misdirected, and/or missing information in each story that demonstrates Rush's distortion of the facts. "But ah, ah, ah folks, he just wouldn't be interesting if he were truthful -- or fair and balanced."

A good quote from Bertran Russell appeared on my Google page today that seems to fit here:

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.

It's what he doesn't say that counts!

Hey Rush, is there anything you forgot to mention in this story?

It’s not what he says, but what he doesn’t say that’s enlightening. In Rush’s Story One yesterday (last week) Rush again pointed out how the idiots were running Obama’s economic recovery. Specifically naming Lawrence Summers (Obama’s Director of Economic) as the “idiot” responsible for Harvard University losing 1.8 billion in it’s endowment fund because of his “too aggressive” investment policies while he was the University’s President.

The facts that are true in this story: Summers was Harvard’s President and during the recent downturn the endowment value lost 1.8 billion dollars.

The facts that are missing from the story: Summers was Harvard President from 2001 to 2006. He left two years before the current bear market. During his Presidency the endowment grew from $17 to $30 billion and continued to grow after Summer’s departure to $35 billion before it fell to it’s current $33 billion. Bottom line the endowment almost doubled during and shortly after Summers’ Harvard Presidency.

That’s the kind of “idiot, egghead” (Rush's words) I want looking after my finances.

This isn't my first try at debunking a Rush story. In fact I try to do it every few weeks just to confirm my belief that Rush lies to his legion of worshippers who obviously never take the time look through his smoke and mirrors.

Bob

Sources:
I reprinted the Rush transcript as printed on his website rushlimbaugh.com, November 30th, 2009 below. I’ve also attached a link to the “Boston Globe” story linked to as the source for Rush’s comments. ( http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/11/29/harvard_ignored_warnings_about_investments/?page=4 ) And to be totally fair, the article had some reasonable critisism of Summers operating cash, investment policies during his tenure as President, but fell way short of Rush’s claims of his being an idiot. Example: the article states “Even with the losses, Rothenberg said, the cash strategy has earned Harvard returns averaging 8.9 percent over the past 10 years. He and other university officials say the cash pool is still ahead of where it would have been, if invested more conservatively all along. But no one could be specific about what that net gain has been.”

You say "dither" like it's a bad thing

With Obama scheduled to reveal his plan for Afganistan tomorrow night, I'm left wondering what it might be. Will it be worth all the dithering that Cheney has accused Obama of doing.

Then I started wondering what might have been if Cheney and company had dithered a little? What if, rather than just rubber stamping the Iraq War plan, Bush had dithered and asked, "Now, you're sure they got them WMDs?" or, "What do we do if they don't greet us as liberators?" , or even "What are we gonna do after we shock and awe 'em?".

I'd think the disaster that was/is The Iraq War II has already taught us that a little dithering can be a good thing. And I find it amazing that anyone would lend credence to one of the architects of that disaster's criticism.

I Love God & America

I've been informed by way of a Facebook poll that there's a plot to remove the words "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance to our flag. I for one am against it.

I'm also against removing the words "and to the republic for which it stands." A republic being a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government. Can anyone realistically think of a better system?

I also believe this country is "One Nation, Indivisible. ... with Freedom and Justice for All".

Yep, I believe all these things. But I sure wonder why there are so many people who want to divide our Nation with the injustice of lies while attacking a citizen (or their representative) exercising their freedom of speech?

I'm an American who serves the cause of freedom. And my primary interest is to better this Nation. So, should I express my convictions?

Sure, as long as I don't fabricate lies, exaggerate truths, and say just plain stupid shit.

Ben Stein's a Butt!

Got an email the other day urging me to take action against Obama's health care programs and quoting a Ben Stein article http://spectator.org/people/ben-stein . There was a sentence or two referring to health care, but by far most of the article was just a criticism of the Obama administration. And his purported purpose in writing the article was to urge America to stop Obama from pushing through his reforms.

Ben gave us all the reason necessary to be critical of the president, like -- "Barack Obama is a super like able super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future." Pretty tough talk, but short on facts. In fact there were no facts -- just opinions.

Here's one thing Ben wrote that I was pretty sceptical about and thought I could research -- "Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation." The only related articles I could google left me guessing he was referring to a statement by Hillary that maybe America can't keep Iran from getting a nuke. Short of conquering those countries, sounds realistic to me.

And call me naive, but GW Bush's comment back in 2000 about Iran being a part of the "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq and North Korea might have already given Iran and North Korea the impetus to "go-ahead" with a nuclear program. Especially after we invaded the other Axis country.

But what does Ben have to do with GW? Why would I want to look back. Ben doesn't look back. If he did, he might see statements like he made in 2005.

On the December 15 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Fox News contributor and former Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein announced that President Bush "is going to go down in history as one of the great peacemakers and democracy-builders in the history of the world." http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200512160009

I really like Ben Stein in "Ferris Buller's Day Off", and I even watched his televised game show in the nineties, but his commentary on CBS's Sunday Morning show has allowed me to see the evolution of Ben's opinion from worshipping to slamming GW for the poor manner in which he handled the war in Iraq. So I have to wonder why I or anybody should ever follow his advice.

And maybe I shouldn't kick a man while he's down --- Ben just lost his NY Times financial column, because they felt his advertising for FreeScore.com (like free credit . com) was a conflict of interest. Obviously being a man driven for the public good, he gave up the column before his ad gig. But maybe that was good for America, too. In an August 12 2007, column, Chicken Little’s Brethren, on the Trading Floor, Stein made the absurd argument that because sub-prime was so tiny relative to the US Economy, it was meaningless. Those who followed his advice lost millions.

Does that mean Ben is not a man of conviction? He took a lot of flack from the science community for "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" -- a movie he co-wrote and starred in that criticised evolution in favor of intelligent design. Yes, Ben's got his own opinion about science, too. "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein#Views_on_evolution_and_science )

So now I've given a few reasons why I think Ben Stein is a Butt. But that's just my opinion, based on some facts.

Humph!