Archive | March, 2013

An Economy of Bad Ideas

10 Mar

Can we talk for a moment about bad ideas? Some ideas are brilliant, some are profound, some are neutral, and the rest should fall into a metal bin labeled “BAD”. Then that bin should be taken out back and the contents lit on fire. Or should it? I’m not completely certain, with regard to how popular so many of them are, that people can  identify a bad idea when they see, hear, or come up with one. So, to more clearly define the lines between an idea that’s good, neutral, or HORRIBLY WRONG here are some things to consider:

How do these people become so damn relevant?

Being elected into a political office appears to have an effect on the psychology of a person that propels into believing their victory equals infallibility. The level of over-confidence is startling, especially when it’s coming from the leadership, i.e. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Raising revenues (taxes) will raise spending…on unimportant bloat that some of us like to call the Federal Deficit. The more election wins, the more solidly that politician thinks their ideas and actions are secure. We can recognize that that level of security can garner several benefits in any organizational framework—that is until it turns into friends-with-benefits or any other aptly provocative scandal. Suddenly they’re hoisted by their own petard. People in office, especially at the national level, continually view their success as validation, however, far too often elected officials take this way to far. It’s not enough to say “I’ve been elected to take my ideas into the discussion.” The method that’s used is, “My ideas are the only ones valid for discussing and if we don’t I’m taking my ball and going home.” For example, there are those who have sought to stranglehold progress as of late with Presidential nominees. While questions should be asked, points should be debated, etc. why does the Bad Idea Fairy visit them? Threatening filibuster for Jack Lew for the Treasury, Chuck Hagel for Defense, John Brennan for the CIA, or attacking Ambassador Susan Rice for her role in messaging after the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi to show she is incapable of being Secretary of State takes the powers of someone either really well-versed or really inept at being a logician. It’s almost impossible to figure out which. This is why Congress has a lower approval rating than Chris Brown.

Lemme get an attitude about not having any sense.

Ain’t nobody got time for
domestic violence.

Some arguments do not have the two sides we’re presented.

Let’s agree to disagree! Or not. Because some ideas do not have two sides. Evolution, climate change, birth certificates do not have controversies that need to be taught. All ideas will have dissenters, but at what point do “dissenters” become “truthers”, “birthers”, or Crazy Uncle Bill who always smells like black powder and has a YouTube video YOU HAVE TO SEE? The sell-ability of the idea of “two sides” is based largely in our ability of convergent thinking. We, as humans, tend to first look at just a simple list of set possibilities based around causation. However, we live in a free cosmos, so there can be more than one wrong answer—and that’s usually the ones people are most noted with going with. If a conspiracy can be suggested because we don’t agree with facts, then it’s more valid. Sometimes the crazier the conspiracy sounds the more plausible people will see it. To put questions to rest: We evolved from ape-like creatures hundreds of thousands of years ago into homo sapiens. The Earth is getting warmer in part due to how well we haven’t taken care of the planet. The President was born in Hawaii (HI)—It’s the Aloha State! We were attacked by a terrorist plot on 9/11/2011. Women using birth control allows to them to have control over their animal cycle of reproduction, improve their upward mobility, and overall increases the quality of society. Facts. They can be verified.

Let’s just say something indefensible and point out how it can’t be rebutted.

So when you don’t have a valid counter argument to a fact you dislike it’s time to pour some crazy on it. Ted Cruz was recently guilty of this when he wanted Chuck Hagel, nominated to be Secretary of Defense, to prove he hadn’t donated money to an organization named “Friends of Hamas”. The first issue is proving a negative. Prove you haven’t picked a book off a shelf, etc.today. The second issue: “Friends of Hamas” doesn’t exist. There’s no such organization…officially. And now you start thinking: Well what if there is a secret organization tha—STAHP. Just stop right there. Powers of the Universe: COMBINE in form of Critical Thinking Skills…in shape of Common Sense. There was no group. Brennan didn’t donate money to the non-group. It’s not a conspiracy to cover up anything, unless you think the conspiracy is covering up Ted Cruz’s ability to do something rationally productive.

The only thing we manufacture here are crises.

“Crises are our business and business is good” should become the unofficial motto of Washington, D.C. There are other organizations, governments, NGOs, etc. that use the similar methods. However, if you have a sizable portion of responsibility, and then use that to act capricious, destructive, and then manipulative in regard to proving that you’re needed, then you’re an abusive significant other. Not Congress. The debt ceiling fiasco, fiscal cliff, and sequestration started with the Tea Party garnering enough support based on the ineffectiveness of government. Once in power, Senators like Rand Paul and Representatives like Michele Bachmann, did not seek to improve the quality of government through any review or process analysis. They sought entirely to use the grassroots movement (still debated based on the Koch Brothers involvement) to bash government and essentially operate as obstructionists. Elected officials and those who support them in Tea Party have been widely labeled as the “American Taliban”, but it’s not their Christianity they evangelize as gospel. It’s the good news of specific parts of the Constitution that are their religion. Selective reasoning has pushed them into focusing on the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and other philosophical teachings based in the notion that they have edge on what the Founding Fathers really meant. The intention of the Founding Fathers was that we didn’t have be beholden to the intention of the Founding Fathers. There was absolutely no reason for Congress to let itself be obstructed by ne’er-do-wells identifying themselves as purists. The Tea Party isn’t the American Tea Party—they’re the American Hipster Party.

Where are the donuts?

Oh great. The CEO is going to speak.

Advertisements