Nov 062015
 

american voters

by Alex Symington…….

We human beings have an obsessive need to identify and label every manner of thing in existence. Every animal, vegetable and mineral have scientific names in Latin, as well as more numerous “common” names. Take the Oak Tree for example; “An oak is a tree or shrub in the genus Quercus (/ˈkwɜrkəs/;[1] Latin “oak tree”) of the beech family, Fagaceae. There are approximately 600 extant species of oaks. The common name “oak” may also appear in the names of species in related genera, notably Lithocarpus.” Thank you, Wikipedia.

Our mania for labeling goes beyond the scientific to the world at large. We have the same obsession with categorizing our fellows in regard to race, religion, sexuality and political affiliation with countless hybridized sub-groupings. On one hand it is comforting to “know” what any one something is, but on the other hand it places limits on our perception of everything around us. I think it’s a Western thing.

Labels and identities are all well and good, but of much greater importance is how they manifest in the real world. Speaking of inaccurate labels, the new Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan comes to mind. Our corporate owned press consistently labels Ryan a “wonk”, the label given to a nerdy expert on any given subject. In this case the fawning press tells us that Ryan is a budget wonk. A wonk’s wonk on matters fiscal! In an op-ed piece, economist Dean Baker addresses the myth of Ryan’s wonkhood. (link below) Baker writes, “In addition to wanting to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, Ryan has indicated that he essentially wants to shut down the federal government in the sense of taking away all of the money for the non-military portion of the budget. This is a fact that is easy to find for any reporter who could take a few minutes away from telling us what a great budget wonk the speaker is.”

Baker goes on to say, “The budget wonkism of [Speaker] Ryan is a beautiful example of the failure of the national media to take their job seriously. Telling us he is a wonk, without telling us the content of his wonkism, is a bad joke which should get people very angry at the folks who pretend to give us the news.”

Baker’s article is an indictment, not so much of Ryan, but of the nation’s corporate sponsored press and their slothful, sloppy reporting or lack thereof. Ryan is acting as Ryan is expected to act. He is a Trojan horse, fox-in-the-hen-house hater of government, ideologically driven to destroy that government that pays his $223,500 annual salary. Perhaps rather than “wonk”, saboteur is a more appropriate label for Ryan.

In the case of Ryan, the press has anointed him with wonk status, but then there are those that self-identify. Some identifiers were false right from the start and others became so with the passage of time. One from the former category is “conservative”. (Ryan self-identifies with this one.) The word is a complete misnomer in that to conserve is to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss, to use or manage (natural resources) wisely; preserve; save. The folks that identify themselves as “conservative” are very busy NOT conserving! In fact they are hell-bent on extracting the planet’s remaining natural resources at an alarming rate with zero regard to the environmental havoc they are wreaking. These “conservatives” are destroying our planet, our only home, for an ever-dwindling return, but they can’t help themselves and are incapable of altering their terminal course.

Another label that has been co-opted and perverted beyond recognition, by none-other than those described in the previous paragraph is the identifier, “Christian”. (Yes, Ryan self-identifies with this one, too.) I realize this is a highly charged word, but many that claim to be Christian and followers of the Messiah have gone off the scriptural rails. Like many of the superstars of religious doctrine, Jesus’ overriding tenet was to love one another and to help our brothers and sisters as in Matthew 25:45, “I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.” Many in congress with the power to help millions of our brothers and sisters in need self-identify with the Christian faith and do absolutely nothing to help the needy and, in fact, legislate to end existing help. Then of course there is traveling all over the planet and killing people for oil. Probably not on the WWJD list. You can not be a follower of Christ and ignore his most elemental teachings.

For the sake of simple truth; that quaint old-fashioned notion, we must periodically examine these identities for their true meanings to assure that they have not been altered by time or intentionally hijacked. “Left” and “Right” and “Radical” are sufficient adjectives to describe most political camps. The labels of Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative are becoming more gaseous and less relevant.

The fact that Speaker Ryan self-identifies as a Christian and a conservative and the press further dubs him a wonk is laughable. He is none of those things and neither are his radical right supporters, even if they tell you they are. They are the cancerous “saboteur class” (how’s that for a label?) hollowing out our government from the inside and fulfilling their prophecy that government doesn’t work. Over time I have found the old saw, “pay attention to what people do and never mind what people say”, words to live by.

More from other sources:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/index.shtml
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33380-paul-ryan-wants-to-shut-down-the-government-permanently
http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/114_20150106_Salary.pdf
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conserve
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/paul-ryans-faith-based-lesson/2012/04/27/gIQAH76TlT_story.html
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/paul_ryan_marco_rubio_hiding_cruel_policies_smiley_faces_20151103

Print Friendly
Alex Symington
Actively engaged human being distressed by the current global paradigm of destruction of the planet for short term profit by the global corporatocracy and the bovine reaction of the people most affected. I write essays and poetry in order to sleep at night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Articles by Alex Symington Prior to November 2014.
 November 6, 2015  Posted by at 12:44 am Alex Symington, Issue #139  Add comments

  21 Responses to “True Identity and Paul Ryan”

  1. nothing to disagree with… but i really don’t see the point of the article. your thesis can be equally applicable to the “other side.” i would be interested in your analysis of how exactly a person of Ryan’s ilk differs from someone on the “other side” such as say, Hillary, or your boy, Bernie? when these “labels” are stripped away, just how do they differ? and i don’t mean the superficial rhetoric; how is government changed, how does the result differ when one or the other is directing the course?

    i submit that it doesn’t, but you may have another view.

    • Keysbum, Very cool. Your civil tone is well appreciated. You’ve certainly identified the confllict you have with some of us who write in this publication. It is generally not an ideological conflict, but a conflict with regard to what can be done about it. I see shades of grey, you only see all or nothing, black or white. In this sense, yes, I believe Bernie, and even Hillary, would be better than Ryan and Co. But we’ve been here before. ciao, PCM

      • not to be uncivil, heaven forbid… but, no Mr. Grapel, we absolutely disagree on ideology and any remedies salient to a solution. we do not even define the problem in the same way, nor do we even recognize what that problem is in the same way. you confine yourself to discussing socio/political paradigms within the context of the present construct, where as i eschew that construct for the fantasy that it is, and realize that another, even more pernicious socio/political structure is in place, that directs the system that you believe you exist in. that construct seemingly, is simply beyond your recognition and comprehension. i see plenty of shades of gray in the paradigm i recognize to exist, and only black and white in yours, and that’s because yours doesn’t really exist.

        bernie, hillary, ryan, bush, obama, etc., etc., are all products of the system you believe exists, the one that’s put in front of you; tell me, how has anything changed behind these disparate people and personalities? they did the same stuff in the 1800’s, 1900’s and now. it’s the same history with different faces, but controlled by the same people, with the same agenda, achieving the same results.

        if you don’t recognize that the “owners” are having fun with us by foisting trump, carson, and bernie on us, and laughing themselves silly, and also reinforcing their belief that we are sheep to be sheared, than you’re never going to get it.

        • poor jerry thinks heads and tails are different and separate and refuses to recognize they are of the same singular coin…..poor dear jerry also ignores thinking out of the box too! 😉 wjm

  2. Another home-run, Alex! I don’t know how you
    keep doing it.

    Don’t we have to wonder? What does someone
    like Paul Ryan, [and especially he], use as self-
    image and self-motivation? Why does he still
    carry the juvenile self-identification with Ayn
    Rand that virtually all others have outgrown?
    Does someone like him possess the ability for
    honest introspection as to what formed him,
    and what actually motivates him, and is it truly
    mature and moral?

    There’s a new set of terms being bandied about
    in reference to, what I would call, evolution of
    self: theory of mind; self awareness; awareness
    of other.

    For some reason he stopped, seeming to take
    ownership of his life and relationship to others,
    but actually only owning his own advancement.

    Yes, he’s third in power to the presidency, but
    as a member of his society – so far, he’s a
    failure. His only success, to me, appears to be
    as a father. Of course, we don’t really know all
    of those details either…

    pip

    note: What’s his name, kissbum{?}, seems to have come up with a false equivalency in comparing Ryan with a couple of good Democrats – in that Ryan is there to tear government down, while the two Democrats want to rebuild or repair what he and the tea-party have so badly damaged. Maybe he missed your point, Alex?

    • ahhh, “pip” that rapier like wit is just too much for me; you must be taking lessons from that other accomplished farceur shaquille.

      you are unfortunately, at the cognitive level to which i am loath to write; i spent too many years, and much too much money on college, to have to regress to Mrs Meyers 3rd grade grammar class in order to reach your level.

      sorry “pip.”

  3. Mr. Piper, It’s easy to be a follower of Ayn Rand when you are born into a rich family. In Ryan’s case, his daddy made his money in construction, much of it on government projects! Ryan is running for president, make no mistake about it, and he does have a certain degree of dignity compared to most of his “mates” that makes him very dangerous. Pardon me while I shudder a bit. PCM

    • Jerome, you’re probably right about the rich tending to be Ayn Rand-ians… but might be embarrassed to admit they’re still a follower once they get well into their twenties.

      Libertarians however are ‘a dime a dozen’ and of all monetary levels, the ‘lower’ levels being too unsophisticated to realise they sabotage themselves.

      [please excuse my unusual usage of some terms. I’m getting old and the senior moments leave me to
      make some substitutions. But, the nuances remain pretty much the same.]

      A question: who is this ‘shaquille’ kissbum keeps referring to.

      And, speaking of kissbum, his ‘genius’ being used more to establish an intellectual pecking order with, of course, himself at the top, is I suppose, intended to intimidate. Not only does he more show himself as a bit paranoid by using a nom de plum and no photo, but to me appears more troll-like than anything else. And, he’s obviously way behind the curve in understanding the latest conclusions in the studies of social evolution and why we’re half-failing to adapt to the new globalism.

      I’m left to wonder if he understands his own mind…

      pip

      • Mr. Piper, Generally, from what I’ve heard for a long time from “libertarians”, I’d guess they like the philosophy simply because of the name itself. it sounds good. Yeah, liberty, I’ll go for that. Not much deeper than that. Have you read my essay in this publication called “The Libertarian Illusion”. I was amazed it got no response from the usual freedom and liberty crowd who read this paper. As for Shaquille, I know who he is referring to because we are friends, but I’d rather you not figure it out because it makes no sense anyway. I enjoy your comments, ciao, Jerome

        • Thank you, Jerome. I’ll look up “The Libertarian Illusion” and most likely have a comment to make.

          And, as soon as what’s his name quits the ‘shaquille’ crap, [whatever his motivation], I’ll stop referring to him as ‘kissbum’, [which probably doesn’t fit him anyway, dedicated contrarian that he seems to be].

          pip

          • “pip” i am honored that you refer to me all. you can call me anything your shiny little dome can come up with.

            shaquille is boettger. but then you should have known that because i clearly identified him for you the first time i used the name in a comment to you.

            oops, i think i just id’ed one of the two… my bad.

  4. Alex, I do believe today’s definition of “conservative” is now this: they want to conserve more for themselves. Or maybe they should now be called “liberals”, because they liberally take as much as they can from others. Thanks Alex, Jerome

  5. KB, Your response is the very expected one. With that in mind, I ask you the following: if all we do here is little more than naive posturing and stupidity based upon some idea that things can change or get better, why do you bother with us and our puny brains? What’s the point? If you are so above the rest of us, so informed in your absolute concept of pessimism, and everyone else is so hopelessly ignorant, why do you waste your precious energy? To make us all as pessimistic as you? Or is it to enforce your own feeling of superiority? If I am wrong in these assumptions, then offer us a solution to the wickedness you see out there. If you think there is none, then I don’t see why you bother with “us”. Offer us a “vision” for the future, like many of us do here. Otherwise, I see no reason for your comments. KB, I’m not optimistic either, I see your fatalism as not unwarranted, but … “time keeps on slipping, slipping, into the future”, and that future will not be the same as this present. So I continue to have hope. ciao, PCM

    • the short answer( and its short cuz i’m watching UF blow it), is that i do not write for you. i have long ago given up any hope that i will convince any of you contributers. i write for others who may be reading your articles to correct the misinformation that you guys regularly pass off as fact. i have received comments to that effect in this forum and others, who appreciate my points of view.

      you guys frustrate me to no end because you do not engage in discussion, just name calling, as you just did, and regurgitation of the same tripe you obviously lack the ability to evolve out of. you never refute any of the things i say, you just keep repeating your talking points. proof? i have offered solutions many times (guaranteed income, debt free money) as well as visions (hopefully revolution in my lifetime) all in the name of “history repeating.” but you never acknowledge any of it, either because you can’t, won’t, or simply do not understand.

      you all keep referring to my genius, intelligence, superiority, etc. perhaps you are just reflecting your own sense of inferiority in the face of someone who simply has a different perspective, and can express it in a way that challenges your ability to respond. only you can answer that. and then there are some of you, ok, two of you(no names), who simply don’t have the gray matter to even bother with.

      and besides, it’s fun for me.

      • Hey! – you with no name, rest assured, when I referred to your ‘genius’, it was snark, hence the apostrophes.

        Thank you for this reply to Jerome. It tended to solidify my evolving opinion of you, [troll, so far].

        It’s unfortunate, especially for yourself, that your ego appears to outstrip your exaggerated intelligence. If that were not the case, you shouldn’t be so eager to show off what you do have, which isn’t negligible, we’ll all, I think[?], admit. If you were not so driven, perhaps you’d even be a quite acceptable person, still could be?

        Or maybe you really do enjoy being who you are?

        Oh, and I did remember who you called ‘shaquille’. I played dumb, trying to weasel the answer out of someone as to why. It’s not important to me, so if it would embarrass you, never mind.

        And, one final note, two actually, not being a stubborn pessimist like yourself, I spend my time on theorizing root causes and suggesting answers to our common global quandaries. You, being so well and “expensively” educated, might try the same. Granted, I’ve not known of you for long, but so far you’ve yet to impress me with any unique thoughts – just antagonisms of various stripe, and yes, with a couple of humorous suggestions. At least, I assumed you were trying to be funny.

        Also, if some of us here seem to be so far beneath you, perhaps you could find where those folks you mentioned who appreciate you tend to congregate and spend more time there?

        Just a few thoughts… pip
        alapip.deviantart.com

      • KB, Ahh, you answered the question. Your purpose is to make everyone as hopelessly pessimistic as you. Hey, that’s legitimate for me, but if it were me playing that role, that is, it is totally impossible to change anything, then I simply would not bother. Preaching no hope is not necessary. ciao, PCM

  6. Why are you old men so dense to not understand that the only hope we have to solve the problem of our ongoing enslavement and destruction of this planet, is to recognize the true cause of the problem?

    Keysbum has shared his knowledge of true history with the readers here and you continually dismiss this knowledge without bothering to take even a few minutes of your time to verify what he states.

    You Lie-Believers are a very large part of the problem.

    And your failure to back-up the editors of this paper in their time of need did not go unnoticed.

    • and that Mr. Grapel, is why i keep writing.

      thank you for the kind words Sister.

      • KB, I do not deny anything you say, I take it as another part of the vast whole of my experience that I fit into how I percieve things, and what you say has little impact on what I percieve. Not only that, you are offering nothing new, you are offering concepts that we are all aware of, that have been put out there for as long as I can remember. Hey, you might be right on with what you say, just as maybe Napoleon never existed. I deny nothing. I work rationally within the stimuli I have come by in my life. And no, I don’t believe you write what you do for the reasons you say (if I could figure them out), because what you preach serves no purpose other than to please yourself. You need not say the things you do if you really believe them. What for? ciao, PCM

    • As I’ve become a bit acquainted with this particular forum over just a short period, I haven’t found where you and that other secretive fellow have spelled out your justifications and explanations as to your conclusions on who and why and what are the, [so obvious to both of you], answers to all of the above.

      Perhaps there is a particular publication you might recommend that might bring me up to speed? Is it
      related to the old Tri-Lateral Commission, or are we talking a more diffuse frame of mind and action shared among the enormously rich, a caste-infused way of looking at and [not] dealing with the world and its unwashed?

      One thing I might suggest for the both of you who are so enamored with your own intellectual superiority: That you recognize this – you did not create yourselves. Your gifts were unearned, a ‘happenstance of random chance’, an unplanned matching of parental genetics, augmented by the
      appropriate circumstances of availability and the receiving of encouragement and impetus, [gifts for the gifted?].

      “From they to whom much is given, much will be required.” I ask you to prove that you are living up to this admonishment. What have you done in acknowledgement and appreciation of your unearned gifts? Or, are you as it appears, just a pair of smarter than usual sociopaths?

      And, BTW, if I decide to stay, a small contribution shall be forthcoming.

      pip

      • I love a good laugh Pip, thank you!

        To answer your question…I send money to Gaza orphan charities whenever I am able as I see the Palestinian people at the front battle line of the true perpetrators of ALL the sorrows of this world.

        Here’s a link to a gofundme I think is worthwhile
        https://www.gofundme.com/4x4njtaq

        And here is another gofundme for Ahmad Dawabsheh, the little boy whose entire family was set on fire while they slept by a psycho “Israeli Settler”. His mother, father and siblings all died.

        https://www.gofundme.com/ahmadd