Tag Archives: hostility

Advocating Peace Elsewhere & Still Needing to Get Your Shit Together At Home

Over the last few days, President Obama has been trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This isn’t anything new. Every president from Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon and Kennedy have been trying to do the same thing. NONE of them have ever succeeded. A couple of them got momentary results that sounded great, like Carter. And the world was so grateful, they even gave some of these presidents Nobel Peace prizes for their great efforts. But in the end, the peace fell apart because Israel and Palestine know only two modes: Cease fire and open fire. Long term peace isn’t in their vocabulary. They have generations of hate between them so that the only way they’ll ever end up with peace is for one side to completely eliminate the other. Sorry, but the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same stupid things over and over again, hoping for better results.

But that’s really not even the issue I want to discuss. What I find even more fascinating is that we have a president right now who is trying to instigate peace (I guess he wants to actually earn that Nobel Peace Prize he got for just showing up for work without actually doing anything to deserve it; hey, I voted for him and supported him, but even I know that was the most ridiculous prize awarded in the history of the Nobel, right after the one they probably gave to Vlad Putin for creating peace by wresting with bears). No, what I want to talk about is this ridiculous tendency we have to try to create “peace” around the world when we can’t seem to figure out how to instigate it in our own country.

Believe it or not, there is a non-violent civil war going on in the United States right now. The only thing missing is actual violence, because we have a line right down the middle of the ideological sides of the country, and neither side is capable of getting along with the other. Just look at the current state of the Republican Party. There’s a man running for their nod for president (Gingrich) who is being chastised because he dared to side against Republicans through some of the usual stupid things he normally says (like disagreeing with Ryan over the budget mess). At the same time, we have members of Congress on the right who are probably going to lose their backing because they might have made the mistake of being friendly with other congress members on the left. And then we’re starting to see the same kinds of actions from the left, chastising their own members for daring to work with the right. The Gang of Six (a group of legislators who dared to come to the middle and try to work things out) has been deep sixed (for lack of better words) because the rest of their parties are outraged (outraged, I say!) that members on one side would dare to come to any kind of consensus with the other.

If you go to places like Wisconsin, you see entire parties rallying against the others to the point of advocating criminal actions against the other side (how dare you leave the state to avoid a lopsided vote!). Read a column by Ann Coulter, or even the more even-handed Michelle Malkin, and you read nothing but vitriolic hatred waged against the other side. Read (or listen to) anything coming out of Michael Moore’s camp, and you experience the exact same kind of hatred from the other side. People in this country are communicating behind battle lines and the hatred is so present in practically everything they say that I’m not surprised that this country has become completely dysfunctional. No one is willing to cooperate with each other because everyone is so angry, and when people become angry they become incapable of thinking clearly and justly. The goal is to achieve points in an ideological battle, not consensus and understanding. And even worse, they’re incapable of even recognizing that, or if they are capable, they see it through filters that see the other side as the one responsible and everything they do is rational and just. These are the kinds of conversations that appear as screaming sessions on late night news shows, where people aren’t communicating, but they’re trying to get as much of their arguments in as possible because if they stop to listen it would take away from the time they get to present their full case.

This is the environment we live in today, and yet our president is trying to foster peace elsewhere. If President Obama wants to foster peace, how about actually trying to do it here. I don’t mean compromising, or making the other side look bad, because that’s what we’ve been doing for the last few years. I’m talking about actually putting forth a serious initiative about creating peace in the United States. Stop using rhetoric to push agendas, unless the agenda is to stop using rhetoric to push agendas. We’re really good at anger and hatred; I’d like to see how good we can become at being a unified country again. We haven’t been one for a very long time now. And I’m sure a reader is probably thinking to himself/herself, “well, that’s because of the people on the other side.” And that’s why we’ll never move forward.

Which is why we’ll never have peace in the Middle East, I should point out. Because as much as I’ve been talking about the stupid rhetoric of the people in the United States, believe it or not, it’s the same reason we’ve never had peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Both sides have to be right, to the point of swords and death. Compromising means weakness, and thus, a direction we can never move. Why would anyone expect a country where we can’t agree on whether or not fixing the budget is a national priority that we’d somehow be able to instill peace somewhere else?

In the Worst of Times, the Common People Turn on Each Other While the Greedy Hide and Laugh

It’s turning out to be a very interesting few years lately, now that we’re heading into the decade of the recession. While an economist might argue the recession is over, another might claim it’s still in the future, and another might chime in with the idea that it’s really a depression, and yet one more might claim things have never been better, the simple fact of the matter is that times are tight, and times are tough for a lot of people. If you buy into the lie that Americans are famous for sticking together, you’d be waiting for those Americans to band together and look out for one another. If you buy into the idea that banding together is a crock of crap, you’d probably recognize it when Americans have a tendency to kick anyone who is down and then point fingers, blaming that person for all of the troubles.

Unfortunately, the latter is how we’re responding to pretty much everything. In Michigan, for example, the legislators realized that obviously the people causing all of the problems must be teachers, and have now met and decided that they would tax teachers more (causing them to pay more money for their health care). The teachers, letting their response come from their union, have indicated that they are shocked that the people can so easily turn against them, especially when they are the ones teaching little Johnny to read. Well, if you listen to the people of Michigan, you might start to wonder how it is that the common person has become such a critic of anyone who would dare to be a teacher in this state. Some of the comments are outright hostile, and anyone who comes into the conversation backing teachers is immediately branded as stupid, corrupt, and some kind of radical communist who is teaching Johnny to build napalm bombs to kill all of Johnny’s friends at school.

When did it get to be this way? I know there was a recent batch of hostility towards community college professors for making over $100,000 a year in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Being a community college professor, although part time, I found myself shocked that the population of the city (and state) was nothing but hostile towards teachers. It was as if they were personally paying for these salaries from their own money, and because they weren’t making $100,000 themselves, no one else deserved it.

Now, I’ve come to the conclusion as to why those professors do make over $100,000 a year. This summer, I was offered absolutely no classes to teach as an adjunct (which is the lowest pay of any kind of instructor). Instead, the full-time instructors get first grab at all classes, and of course, they get the premium rate for taking those classes. Thus, their pay aut0matically heads up to those $100,000 figures we were talking about. The solution is simple: Hire adjuncts who are struggling to survive as it is. But instead, they hire the guys (and gals) who are arguably overpaid for the semesters they have already taught. The conclusions are obvious, but no one seems to figure it out, and thus, people will continue to complain.

But back to the hostility towards instructors and teachers. My opinion on this is that people really aren’t anti-teachers themselves but are anti-union, because the unions involved in these decisions are beholden to a tenure structure that massively benefits these teachers. Most every other worker in the state is not a member of a union with such power and prestige, so all they can see is that this class of workers is highly compensated and protected, and the average citizen is never offered the same kinds of protections themselves.

An example is my own job. I’m an at will employee, mainly because I do not belong to a union. I’m not advocating one, by the way, but at the same time because none of us have a union that we belong to, we have no such protections that these teachers all seem to have in their corners. It should not be surprising that those without the same protections are going to see those who are protected as “others” and thus, someone to be criticized for excess and outrageous behavior. It doesn’t take much of an analysis to see how a person in a union of such protection would then be perceived as someone who has too much of a good thing. And then you have a whole bunch of people running around hating teachers. The one to one logic doesn’t follow, but the eventual demise into hatred towards a class of people makes sense, especially if you understand group mob-like mentality.

If one is capable of distincing oneself from the passions of this argumentation, one is then also capable of seeing what is really happening in the background. There are people who benefit from this hostility, and they’re often never even involved in the discussions. I’m talking about corporate leaders and politicians who dig into this rhetoric, using it to feed entire careers of corrupt government service. I say corrupt because when you use the passions of people to rile them up and then benefit from stupidity, all the while doing nothing to solve anything, that’s corruption by manipulation of the masses. Yet, this happens all of the time, and continues to happen to this day.

This is why the whole debacle in Wisconsin took place. Politicians, enriching themselves on hatred and anger, orchestrated people to do all sorts of stupid things at no benefit to the people, yet in great benefit to people in power who seek to continue manipulating power. No one else benefits. Instead, people lost rights, money and power, all in the name of some other people using them through continued manipulation.

It’s happening in Michigan right now. We live in a very poor state that is suffering because a lot of very bad, corrupt politicians really only saw the benefits for themselves by rallying up the masses to make stupid decisions for themselves. Look at Detroit if you need to see a great example of this. Corrupt politicians, hiding money they stole directly from the people, cheated the people by promising to be something yet delivering the complete opposite. And then when they were called to account for their misdeeds, they claimed they were targets of politics or racism, or whatever else they could come up with to continue rallying the people behind them while they socked away more money before they were thrown from office (and sometimes directly into prison so they can wait it out before they are able to cheat the people again). Meanwhile, they continue to pretend that the people need to support them at their own best interest, and as always the people end up being screwed.

And when it comes down to it, some politician will use ridiculous rhetoric to lead the people down the wrong path again. And we’ll follow. As we always do.

Because we’re stupid. And to justify our stupidity, we’ll point our fingers at someone else who is probably just going about his business doing something that doesn’t affect anyone else in a bad way. And we’ll pounce on him. Hard.

Because we’re stupid. And we don’t know how to do it any other way.