I just got back from a jog and a 5 hour nap. Usually when I jog, I get to Tim Hortons, stop for a coffee, and then go back. When I go to Tim Hortons, I usually sit there for 2 hours with my friends and chat about stuff. Well, today, we meet a lady who has a lot to say about some pretty interesting subjects. We mostly talking about social welfare- but her phone and tattoos came into question as well.
So, she mentions Coast to Coast AM. I love this radio show, but really, the listeners never have a complete understanding of the topics and get this biased point of view from the guests. I feel bad to hear anyone quote a show or something they've watched as fact and opinion without gathering anything else about the subject (Note: The Gordon Freeman call). I mean, I thought it was nice that she picked up on a few things that was mentioned, but to say that it's the gospel truth is a huge long shot.
She say some things about the American financial reform stuff that's being looked at and how they're throwing in some ban on natural supplements in that pile of stuff. She tells me that no one in the government has read these things and that they're going to sign it unknowingly- and I find this very far from the truth.
I may be at fault for having faith in humanity, and I may be at fault for respecting politicians- but I think I'm in the right in expecting someone to read this before it's passed. It seems remarkably naive to assume no one reads anything and that every politician is a bad person. Nobody up there is stupid. I believe it's exactly the opposite. If they want you to assume they're silly, they're going to try their hardest to help you believe that they're silly. Sarah Palin, for instance, I'm sure she has more up her sleeve. She's probably one of the most powerful women in the United States, even with all her fumbles. Everyone knows her name and face, and everyone has an opinion of her. You know why?
- She's personable and understandable. People can relate to her.
- People can assume they're better than her, giving them the feeling that they're smarter than a vice presidential candidate.
- She's hot for what she is.
Why do people like Paris Hilton? I've previously brought this up to quite a few people. She's making her own millions. She has huge business and I'm sure she would still have it even if she weren't the Hilton heiress she is. She has a commanding attitude and knows how to work the crowd to her favor. I feel embarrassed when people underestimate her.
If you, the wary, politically paranoid, uninvolved Canadian, has heard about what's in this bill- of course the government type peoples have. This is the most embarrassing part. How could anyone possibly assume this. At the most, they just don't care. Why not complain about that? It's a reasonable argument. At the least, they have a completely reasonable explanation why they agree. Overall, you probably have no idea what the rest of the legislature is about and you just heard about this little excerpt from a conspiracy theory radio show. Sit back and think about how stupid you look and how ashamed I feel for nodding at you in, what you'd probably assume to be agreement but, acknowledgement because I rather not be argumentative at midnight in a Tim Hortons over something so absolutely far fetched.
IN OTHER NEWS
I stole this hat from the drunk guy I checked up on on the way to Tim Hortons. On my way back he had left it there and I guess this is his punishment for passing out on a church doorstep. He was in his work uniform and this is his hat from the security company.
.JPG)
Also, I lost 15 lbs since I last weighed myself. I think I'm sitting at 139? Fuck yeaaahhh. Haven't been this weight since grade 9, sadly I no longer have a butt or boobs.
2 cmt:
Hello, I dig your blog! And on this post I'm broadly inclined to agree. When someone's solving the world's problems at midnight in a coffee shop using information from Coast to Coast AM, it's safe to say the appropriate mental effort may not have been applied to these issues.
However! I have two points of contention! Hope you won't mind me getting all ideas-y up in your blog, son.
On the subject of bills going unread in the senate, that's quite true. Senators routinely vote on things with only the abstract facts about it, which is why when they appear on TV debating the thing both sides can have entirely different ideas of what the bill's contents are. It's not conjecture, I'm not going "those rubes, they don't even read the things!" They'll admit to not having read things. Bills can be HUGE and senators are busy. But when stuff like the PATRIOT act shows up and iirc less than ten senators actually read it end to end it can cause some problems. Like the PATRIOT act being passed.
It's not a fallacy to suggest that because we know of a bill, the people signing on with it must know it better. Rubberneckers are even less qualified to vote on legislation. But that only establishes a relative understanding. "They're better qualified than me" doesn't mean a whole lot, because I'm not qualified AT ALL.
There's a way to objectively establish qualifications. I'm trying to remember what it's called... oh! A degree! Most senators don't have degrees in economics, biology, physics, healthcare, etc. They tend to have law degrees, and their education has bent strongly toward how to be a senator, which is to say how to get elected. They're smart people, it's just questionable whether they've invested their intelligence more into solving problems for the bit of the world they're responsible for or simply seeming to have done so.
Senators aren't freakin' Legion, I'm not saying they're all cynical climbers, but some certainly are, and most, even if they've read a bill cover to cover and want to do what's best for society, don't necessarily have the training to understand it accutely. So they need experts to explain the issues to them. That's a good thing, much better than hacking at it blindly, but they're still stuck in the abstract.
Also, re: fact and truth: I think people have so little access to real facts that relate strongly to their everyday lives that it's easy to feel like there can be no objective truth. It can be hard for humans to grasp truths, because we're just basic animals, but they do exist and we've developed loads of tools for examining data in search of truth. From the microscope to the Large Hadron Collider, people are constantly making stuff that puts the cold, verifiable facts of the universe in a context we can understand. The most basic and readily applicable tool in both in science and daily life is the scientific method. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
I realize this last bit is way too expansive for the sentence that brought it up, but it's a point I tend to champion. I would have a fist fight with postmodernism.
I hope that doesn't come across as fighty. It's reflexive. "Ooh, ideas! I have those! TYPE TYPE TYPE TYPE"
Post a Comment