The Ugly Truth

The other day, I had the unfortunate experience of recognizing my own naivete, regarding how many humans actually want to be humane.
As I was sorting some old papers and articles, I came about an old book review of the "Bell Curve". Race controversy aside, the book seems to statistically explain a common phenomena I observed working with poor and disadvantaged social groups, usually white. It kinds of hits you in the face that the ability to rise up and achieve in society is very often determined by genetic intelligence. Simply put, the smarter your parents were, the more likely you'll make good decisions and be somewhat successful..
Now then, it seemed really obvious to me (and to folks like Warren Buffet) that this genetic tendency towards success or failure naturally shows a good reason to help the unfortunate with more social programs, right? Wrong.
As I read further in the book review, they stated that conservative think tanks embraced the "Bell Curve" findings from a public policy perspective, as it justified eliminating food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance, etc. Say what? I had to re-read this part. As I continued, the article clarified: since these impoverished social groups with lower intelligence will always be poor and never achieve middle class lifestyles, there was no point to subsidize their offspring and encourage breeding.
The only thing they left out, was the logical conclusion of this argument-- that the poor and stupid should just die.
I could not believe this ugly truth.. The same argument I had been using for years to justify social programs - they were using as an argument against ! I always thought Ayn Rand was something of a cruel anomaly with her rants about the "dullards" needing to die, but now I see she is not alone. What a cruel, cruel world we live in.

Add Your Mobile Phone Number

I need to take a moment and comment on the overly bossy request to "add my mobile phone number" when logging into "Blogger". This same bossy little request is also suggested by my email account provider...
The trouble is, these fine folks at Blogger and elsewhere, seem to imply I must actually have a Mobile Phone. Why is it assumed that any live human being, breathing and online, must have a cell phone??
We did temporarily try to fit in with "society" and acquired a "Go-phone" or some sort of similar apparatus. I believe it took about two weeks before my husband lost it in the Bush. (not like a forsythia or something--but off the road system in rural Alaska). Now how does that make our life more secure?

Here are other things we don't have (in case Blogger insists we do): A bathtub, stairs, central heat, or a doorbell. Things we do have: an outhouse, antique glass carboys, moose poop, and stray dogs. Now how I do I enter those numbers upon logging in??

Confusion at the Party

As an outsider, who seems to be blessed by constant exposure to nothing but conservatives and/or Republicans..let me explain why their party is currently so confused...
Conservatives and Republican aren't the same thing--but they think they are. (very funny)
The easiest way to categorize these folks would be to split them in half: Urban Republicans and Rural Republicans.

Urban Republicans like less government, big money, hard liquor, and tend to be socially tolerant. They have no problem with working wives, day care, "government schools" and college. In their opinion, poor people get what they deserve, as they are just lazy. Urban Republicans are secretly quite suspicious of church, home schooling and vegetables.

Rural Republicans, really like the word "conservative". They care more about social issues than making big money. University educations don't really make sense to them, except that they may do more harm than good as they encourage things like "choosing to be a homosexual"...Rural Republicans actually care about the poor, but want to help them without government spending.

The only thing I see these two sides actually having in common is mutual distrust of government. I believe less government makes more sense in the world of the Rural Republicans, as their churches actually perform many government type services on a smaller scale. Urban Republicans simply want to be rich oligarchs--and they know that Government is just standing in their way of world domination..

I would say that's it in a nutshell. It's quite ridiculous, as the Republican party has no idea how to deal with these pretty much opposing view points. Currently they have candidates that represent both sides (Gingrich is an Urban Rep., Santorum Rural Rep.). Interestingly enough, this only helps awaken their voters to the inconvenient problem of two types of Conservatives trying to squeeze under the same hat--and it just doesn't fit.