I have a story to tell so please stay with me while we're on this written journey as the circular nature of some of the statements do get closed at the end. Please also remember my motto: Life is not Linear which is why Pi is so important.
That Obama won is not the issue that I'm upset about.
At 52%/48% I've realized that during my normal daily living I have started looking at people very differently then I used to, since it was my fellow American citizens that gave the man enough votes to win.
I go to Walmart and see the people there and know instinctively that my considered (meaning well researched beyond the pap that is usually given out to the populace) vote no longer matters when it has the power to be canceled out by sheer idiocy and feel good mental candy. I can no longer say that America works based on the simple fact that the public education system has for the last 30 years produced the stupidest people on the planet at the most expensive cost ever per pupil.
How do I know this for a fact?
I own a small business and recently used an online service in my city to post the job vacancy on its national website. The areas that I needed to describe were the job itself, its responsibilities and its pay range, along with any special instructions.
This job that I advertised for paid between $10-$14 an hour, depending on experience which was noted in the "special instructions", which translates to a max. of $28k per year (2000 hours of work per year with 80 hours off for vacation time = 52 weeks).
Within 1 hour of posting the job I had over 30 resumes in my email inbox.
The first one I clicked on had no experience in my field of business and they wanted $34k per year. I figured it was a person who was sending email resumes to anyone who had just posted a job under my general industry description.
Unfortunately, by the time I was through the 9th resume, with the person living about 40 miles from the job location, I had had enough.
I paid extra for a "yes/no" filter to the online job posting so the people applying for the job would have to actually THINK about the job before submitting their resume through email and still, I had a few people who had been making $60k per year saying "YES" to my basic filter that I felt had an educational component to it: This job pays $10-$14/hour and a typical year consists of 2000 hours. Please do the math before submitting your application.
I had one resume that made me laugh and just for humor to see if this applicant was for real, I called. I introduced myself to the young woman who answered the phone after finding out that I was speaking to the applicant. Before I could actually start the phone interview, she asked me how much vacation time would she be getting
I explained our general policy and then I asked her point blank why she had sent me her resume, which stated she was an "eager team player" and that she had just graduated with a bachelors degree in....(wait for it).....MUSIC when the job was for little more then a receptionist. After hearing an answer, that was no answer, which seems to be the method du jour, she seemed to think that the phone interview equated to a job offer and she said she was looking to make $40,000 a year plus benefits.
Being the CEO of the company, I have a cynical sense of humor so I asked her if I paid her $40,000 would she be playing an instrument, live, while the person was on hold. "Hold music?" she responded quizzically. "Yes, hold music. Live. You are have a degree in music so if its not for playing an instrument, would you be willing to hum?"
There was a significant pause and she said "what kind of job is this?""One that pays someone of your qualifications about $10 an hour.""How much does that come to a year?"I mentally sighed, thinking that the extra money I paid out for the filter that told this ditz to do the math, was a waste. "$20,000" I replied.Her response? "I can't live on that! I have student loans to pay. I have a car my parents just bought me for graduation but I have to pay the insurance on. AND I have my apartment rent....I have a degree I need $40,000 and that's that!" At which point she hung up on me.
Now, this person has a constitutional right to vote and that's an issue I'd like to address.
I'm not one who thinks you have to own land, like the original Constitution writers did, nor do I subscribe to their withholding the vote from groups such as blacks or women, BUT as it holds for then, as it does now, I think their intention was to keep the vote to those that understood the complexity of the issues under consideration which means, in a word, education.
Education, back then was mainly for landholders, the majority of them being men. If women were educated at all, it was by grace of their fathers charity and (odious terminology to follow) owners of human slaves forbade education at all for fear that there would be uprisings, an overthrow then of the "system".
We've come a very very long way since then in America, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Russia and to some degree (if they don't drown their female children at birth) China.
So the question now becomes not one of access to education but education itself.
There is a basic lack of intelligence of how the system works (earning a paycheck, having FICA taken out, what the gov't can and can't do) which is why I received so many time-wasting applications for the job opening, and a basic lack of critical thinking skills, which is why we now have, what will become known as: Obamination.
Eerily, this lack of education we face now, goes across the same groups the framers of the constitution tried to prevent from having the vote in the first place: women and minorities. However, since WW2, a new class of people has arisen who lack basic education: men.
There have been many reasons postulated as to why people voted for "O":
Because they wanted to prove that they were colorblind. This was either to make up for past "historical" sins that they are continued to be taught in school, or they felt guilty that they were not singled out for harassment and thus feel a sick kind of false life matrix. Case in point: Tom Brokaw saying that if his "skin was just a shade darker" he would have experienced a different life.
Many people voted for "O" because they believed that he would end the war in Iraq within 4 months of inauguration.
There was a strong and very vocal contingent of the populace that thought democracy was being subverted because all of a sudden it seemed that George W. Bush was "given" the presidency in 2000 and thus voted against all republicans as an "F" you to that particular historic moment and to the 'system' that they believed robbed them of their vote.
College students voted en masse for Obama.
All the reasons that people can dream up as to why Obama was voted in, have at its base one common denominator: a lack of understanding of simple civics combined with a gross distortion of 'education'. When William Ayers can become an educator to thousands of students, and then be interviewed with one answer being he still, to this day, 30 years after the fact, doesn't believe he killed enough people to make his point, we have a systemic problem that has led us to this 52%/48% vote.
Admittedly you could shave off maybe 1% for the conservatives that rejected McCain for his stupidity but even if we go so far as 2% for those Naderites and Libertarians that could have swung the election to a 50/50 split, but that would still mean that 50% of actual voters pulled the lever, drew the arrow, punched the chad out or as a freaked out Oprah Winfrey did - touch a screen, for Mr. Obama, a man no one knew anything about except what you could find on the side of a CrackerJack box: Yummy carmel popcorn with a Toy surprise inside!
Now comes the reality of a man who was voted to be President of a nation whose population is about 310 million people.
48% of voters didn't like the little they knew about him and similar to the above CrackerJack analogy, these 48% of the voting public knew that there could be the potential of getting sick if eaten in great quantities. Hence, they didn't like John McCain so much as they couldn't stomach Barack Obama and what he might bring us.
52% of those that voted for him did so for one of the reasons above or just because they're truly liberal in ideology, which runs the gamut from the purely philosophical approach of Hagel (this gets a little deep here but let's delve into it) -
Why are we here (his answer he leads you to is: to realize our potential as humans) as well as his theory of a "dialectic" (simplified this means there have always been 2 competing ideologies that have ruled the human history or for the MTV generation: how do we realize our potential as human beings),
to the derivative notions taken from Hagel's philosophy by that latte drinking Karl Marx, who sat on his ass at the local Starbucks in Germany thinking grand thoughts while doing very little actual manual labor or running a business and decided that he needed more money (yucky item and so bourgeois) so he wrote a book about his grand thoughts: Das Kapital. For those of you who are snoring at this point WAKE UP because this guy was the one who didn't like free markets and Adam Smith (see Hagel's "dialectic' he was using as a jumping off point?)
Let's leave Marx and his German philosophy that should have gathered dust on a bookshelf somewhere and get to the year 2000.
President Bush declared that there would be a "new" tone with his presidency and many on the center-right of the political spectrum were mystified by this seeming cave in to the hard core lefties that were the only ones really remaining in power at that time after having the 1998 election that saw many republicans jettisoned because they dared to say to President Clinton: You lied under oath, an oath you swore to uphold.
People merely thought republicans were closed minded about sex and were "holy-rollers" out to Christianize the country with their morals.
We, on the 48% side of the equation, will come to miss that "new" tone that President Bush brought to the Oval Office - one that tried to bring a country that was 48/48/2% into a whole unified land where he did not veto any legislation.
We asked ourselves: Why would President Bush approve the Ted Kennedy education bill that was titled by the White House "No Child Left Behind" (which, after Kennedy watched the president sign it into law, promptly went out to the microphones and said: "We need more, this wasn't enough."), and did something for senior citizens with the medicare drug act that NO ONE seemed to want, yet, somehow it landed on President Bush's desk, where he used the only real tool of power the office has: a pen (to either veto or approve).
The reason that there had to be a new tone and the agenda was basically set (quietly and with stealth) by the democrats was because, after the uneducated populace felt their votes had been stolen (since no one bothered to teach them civics and that there even was an electoral college) by the Supreme Court stopping the unending vote count that had no basis in reality after we watched that poor man looking crossed eyed at a dimpled chad and whether it was hanging or pregnant (see Al Frankin vs. Coleman in MN for today's 2008 version of trying to steal an election), the newly elected President Bush had a 50/50 split in the SENATE!!!!!
Anybody remember the righteous indignation that the lefties used to get equal representation on the committees as well as veto power over any legislation before it went to the floor where a full vote could be had if the republicans could get 10 leftist democrat senators to join them?
That raised the APPEARANCE that NOTHING could get done in congress by the republicans and set the tone for 2004, 2006, and this year's elections. Again, if anyone had a memory longer then 2 minute time span they'd remember this.
Let's just lay it on the table: It did NOT HELP that republicans, the party that is seen as the Morality Emperors and Ethical Kings, as well as the bread and butter stuff like taxes and less government, have as its false prophets: Larry Craig of Idaho coming out of the bathroom stall (no longer do we need a closet) and Ted Stevens putting in huge dollars for that stupid bridge (yes, I know, Robert Byrd of W. Virginia is the king of earmarks on the committee and WV has more highway miles per person then 46 other states).
As republicans, we have written into the party plank's 10 commandments, high ethical standards and moral ways that we should live. As humans, we should strive to reach these high and lofty goals but as humans, we often fail (leading to the Catholic church's schism about selling indulgences for absolution of sins) but as long as the public perceives that the republicans should ALL be Norman Rockwell families who follow the dictates of: Do as I say, not as I do; Go to church; love Go;, don't have premarital sex; just say not to drugs; taxes should be kept low; government should be limited.
Instead we get people who are republicans that have human frailties which manifest as - "please, can you pass the toilet paper and oh do my shoes look good under bathroom stalls", as well as yes, keep taxes down but give me all the money for roads in Alaska.
Republicans also got blamed for the housing mess, the stock market problems and Das Kapital in general. The media always had on the democrat who made sure that everyone knew the republicans were in power or were obstructing the democrats trying to get something done.
Case in point: The SEC and Chris Cox. Where was he all this time? I've only seen him at Waxman's hearing which means someone needed to tell Cox to get out there and press the message that he was in a no win situation and hamstrung with an equally divided republican/democrat SEC but if Cox would have been all over the press and all over Capital Hill, it would have looked like he was doing SOMETHING.
This leads us to gloss vs. substance. Look at the democrat attorney general Elliot Spitzer. The guy was shaking down every Wall Street company with mere threats that he would come after them and they made him Governor of NY, who will now not be prosecuted for prostitution (I hear). Why did he get so many CEOs and others quaking in their shoes? Because he seemed to be doing something, getting things done, even if it was partisan in nature.
And that is why this election was never about McCain vs. Obama. It was all about the facade of 'doing something' and since republicans had been (nominally) in power at Congress, for 6 years, and undermined by 50/50 senate where they could do nothing that couldn't be fillibustered, they were blamed for just that: doing nothing.
That's what I find so distasteful: That nobody knew it was the democrats who stalled for 8 years (since the 2000 election) on EVERYTHING so that when the time came they could sweep all three branches of government with the motto: Change. Inherent in this word is the subtext: we'll do stuff and get this country moving again.
Yep, it will be moving again, but the idiots who voted for this guy ALSO VOTED TO GIVE the Senate to the democrats and thus we're not only going to be moving, the whole train will have been picked up and put on a different track 4 standard deviations from the norm to...the left.
Was this what they voted for? To be left on the station platform? I think not. They were too entranced with the Obama in Andy Warhol or LeRoy Neiman colored t-shirts, and ignored the radical underpinnings of this man.
Now we, who are informed, and having been kicked off the train, will have to sit at the train station and watch the faces of those that did vote for Obamination.
What will these ill-informed people do when the promises "O" told them to expect, don't materialize and they don't get on the train after having shoved the 48% of us off?
They will blame everyone but "O", because to do so would mean that they were wrong and frequently the stupid do not like to admit to their idiocy.
Expect to hear a whole lot about how "O" can't do any of the promises to the taxpayers or to industries because President Bush will still be the fall guy, and mobs who are illiterate do not have the mental werewithall to make a distinction that "O's" economy actually started in 2006 with the democratic takeover of Congress.
We are now going to go through that scene in Dr. Zhivago where the doctor comes home to his house and finds 8 families living in it with a "block captain" who asks him "Do you have a problem with this arrangement comrade?"
Too bad if you do because unless a ground swell of unhappiness develops between now and 2010, the 3.1 million bloggers who write for DailyKos and other hard leftie blogs will put the squeeze on even moderate democrats to follow through with socialist policies or they will put up a primary candidate to go against them, withhold fundraising, and make the country even more leftist in 2010.
So the 48% of us that didn't vote for Obamination and only voted for McCain as the lesser of 2 evils, better begin to pick off a few percentage points of the population or the train known as the Representative democracy will be so far from the station that pure democracy looms, which anyone who thinks about it hard enough would see the eventuality that this track would take: if I'm one woman in a room full of 100 men and 51 of them vote to rape me and only 49 vote not to, guess I'll be bending over and grabbing my ankles.
I guess the 6 million Jews were outvoted by the 6,000,001 followers of another charismatic leader were in the same circumstance.
I feel for them because some of those same German Jews voted for that charismatic leader who turned on them. Same as Obamination will be turning on his voters, picking off the soft lefties and leaving only a core of hard lefties.
We cannot expect any help from the Pravda-MSNBC complex, whose parent company, GE, was given bank status and thus can run on taxpayer money to spew out its government sponsored message.
Education, is thus the key, and we must begin as stealthily as they did 30 years ago. We cannot do it in the schools so it is incumbent that as these kids leave college and go into the work force that they must be re-educated to reality and Adam Smith.
If you are a manager, you must start teaching fundamentals of business to your subordinates and your personal assistants. If you are a small business owner, explain that you are not made of millions and that out of each customer you have, the cost of rent, phones, paychecks, and supplies must come from each person served.
That is the only way to put doubt into the minds of the workers who have no time to do anything but skim headlines, hear 15 second news flashes on the radio, Tivo Oprah, or listen to 30 minutes of national news on NBC at 5:30 each night while making dinner and organizing screaming kids to come and eat.
Here is what I've done to try and improve the fundamental knowledge of my employees: I hold paycheck workshops. I teach them that out of the $10/hour that 75.6 cents goes off the top for FICA, leaving them at $9.244 per hour. Then its on to their tax responsibilities and what that brings their hourly rate down to. I explain that I have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and the PEOPLE WHO WERE VOTED IN making me withhold this money from them so that they direct their anger not at me, but at government.
I've also taken payroll inhouse again for 20 employees and I make my statements read:
What you've earned, what the Federal Government has decided to leave you with after paying for all its programs (which you may or may not benefit from personally), and then do a subtotal where I then say what the State Government tax is and finally they have a NET AMOUNT, which is always a lot less then their "what you have earned".They want more money from me so their NET AMOUNT goes up but I explain to themthat the price of each cupcake would have to go up and then we'd sell less cupcakes leading to me having to fire one of them: which should it be?
The looks on their faces when I bring this lesson home to them is: stupefied. They are not used to having anyone talk to them frankly about money, nor about how choices have impacts.
It used to be that my mom said there were 3 things never to talk about: politics, religion and money.
Since law makes talking about religion in the workplace a sin, and politics can also be used as a means of suing an employer over "hostile work environment" the only subject left is money and if you've made it to a managerial position or have your own business, you're obviously smart enough to talk in a politically correct and legally neutral way to convey your point about money and economics.
Unfortunately, this may make some of you angry since you pay taxes for education already and now you have to 're-educate' them on the time clock, but unless we start the process we will all be converted, through painful lessons, like hostages with Stockholm syndrome, into Marxist supporters.
Just remember that they have to get 48% of us who voted against Obama to begin with, keep the whole 52% of those that voted for him, in order to get their Marxist utopia.