Monday, September 27, 2010

Dumbing Down The Elections

I find it interesting how we as a society seem to be against our politicians being elitist lately. That is, we're against those in politics coming across as ivory-tower academics of the intelligencia. We, the People, it seems, prefer our leaders to be of the people, elected to office by the average Joe and Jane from among the unwashed masses. We prefer the candidate we would rather sit down and have a beer with.

The reason I find this so interesting is that it openly admits that we want our standards for our leaders dumbed down. We don't want the smartest, the most educated, the most studious and the most intellectual to be our leaders. We don't want the smart ones at the helm. We prefer commonality over excellence.

Obviously, what stuns me about this is that those who advocate this are openly stating how they want those running things to be dumber, less educated, and less intellectual. Then, after having said it, they parade this opinion about themselves as if it's somehow some sort of truism we can all agree with. "Elitist, Ivory-tower, out-of-touch," they say.

Seriously? You honestly don't want the brightest bulbs in the chandelier? You prefer the duller knives in your drawer? You'd rather have two bricks short in your load and be satisfied with two fries shy of the Happy Meal?

It's official: The lunatics are running the asylum.

Case in point, take the current race for Wisconsin Governor between Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. Barrett has a B.A. in Economics from UW-Madison, and a Juris Doctorate from UW Law School. He's a member of Phi Beta Kappa. You know, exactly the qualifications we ought to be looking for in a Governor. Scott Walker, by contrast, graduated from Delavan-Darian High School, and then attended Marquette University, but apparently did not graduate, as his own campaign website fails to brag that he did so. He left college to work for IBM.

The contrast between these two could not be more stark. True, IBM is no mere blue-collar job to have on your resume, but not graduating is not graduating. He was not a supervisor at IBM, but merely an employee. An associates degree would at least be something, but we don't even have a brag of that on Walker's campaign website. And working for IBM, as every Dilbert fan knows, is hardly an exercise in being in touch with reality! And these days, one needs at least a bachelor's degree to qualify for any kind of a supervisory job, wheter it be a mere school teacher, or the foreman for your local garbage men. Being a County Supervisor is exactly the sort of job one could have while returning to school part time, but Walker chose to shun academia during his tenure. And this guy thinks his lack of study qualifies him to be governor? Maybe so in 1910, but not in 2010! No way!

Let's only briefly touch on the fact that Barrett has the courage to stand up to wife-beating thugs armed with tire irons, while Walker doesn't have the courage to even go back to class!

Walker is currently leading Barrett 53% to 42% among likely voters according to a CNN/Time poll.

We're living in the fucking Twilight Zone, I swear!

Russ Feingold vs. Ron Johnson is an entirely different case. Feingold has two B.A.'s and is a Rhodes Scholar who went to Oxford. He received his Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law School. Johnson, by contrast, is also well educated, but achieved this without scholarships by working his way through school. He is one thesis paper short of an MBA, having forestalled that final step to go into business with his brother-in-law. What amazes me in this instance isn't the contrast in education, because even though I think Feingold has a clear edge, these two seem about even. What gets me regarding these two is the phase-shift which takes place. Ron Johnson is a business owner. He's "the boss" of his company.

Hang on, don't we hate the boss?

Of course we hate the boss! We all hate the boss! The boss is a jerk! The boss is a blowhard! The boss is the very essence of the ivory tower elitist individual we all hate while they're giving us orders in the workplace!

Unless, that is, he happens to be a Republican running against Russ Feingold. Then he's "one of us," a "man of the people."

What an unbelievable load of bullshit! Look, if you want to vote for Johnson because he's a hardworking and upstanding guy (and I believe he is), then do so. Hell, if he didn't consistently stand for Christianity-biased violations of freedom, even I wold consider voting for him. But please don't do so because you think he's an average citizen. He hasn't been average for a very long time. He's exactly the "elitist" some of you presumably hate.

Look, I frankly don't want some average Joe running things. I want the elite in government. I want the best, and the smartest, the most well educated and the hardest working people in government. I want the cream of the crop, and damn it, I'm PROUD to say so! Our nation deserves nothing less. And everyone who is currently attacking President Obama for being an elitist, including Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, had better justify to me why they actually want a lower standard for America's leadership. I want them to explain how they can dare take this stand, and not want to crawl under a rock for shame.

Enough already with, "I want dumb like me" in politics!


Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Mensa, and the Intelligence of the Public

I've recently taken the entrance exam for, and been accepted to, American Mensa. Mensa, for those who don't know, is an organization whose members all test in the upper 2% of registered IQ. And while intelligence is relative (as I often muse that Einstein would say), it's pretty solid that one needs to be a very smart cookie to qualify.

I wasn't even sure it was a good idea to sit for the exam. The original plan was to have come home from work, at my usual 6:30 in the morning (because I'm 3rd shift), and sleep from 7 until about 1:00 in the afternoon, then go for the test appointment feeling well rested. But, no, I ended up being so excited about the exam that I couldn't sleep a wink. I nearly called and cancelled. I showed up for testing feeling quite tired, having not slept in 23 hours, and certain that I would bomb.

I arrived at the Oak Creek Public Library where the test was to be proctored, and found that there were only two other people there: A portly engineer-looking type of man, and an attractive middle-aged brunette wearing physician's scrubs. We were given two exams over the course of three hours, and told that to gain admission, we would need a passing score in one or both of these, but that we would not be told the final score. Instead, we would simply be notified by mail in 7 to 10 business days whether we would be extended a membership offer. I completed my tests, went home, and still couldn't sleep. I wondered if I could possibly re-take the exam later.

Two weeks went by before I got my response in the mail. It was an acceptance letter, telling me that, based on my scores, I was hereby offered membership to American Mensa.

Nobody was more shocked than I.

Seriously, I'm not especially gifted at calculating figures in my head compared to other science majors. I re-took chemistry twice and am about to re-take calculus a second time. I daydream constantly. I sometimes forget what I went into the next room for (which, when your mother has Alzheimer's becomes a rather scary phenomenon!). Sure, I read a lot, and I tend to see things others don't by means of divorcing myself as much as possible from all credulity, but I find it hard to believe that makes my hunk of grey-matter worth all that much.

However, upon reflection, perhaps I really shouldn't be quite so shocked. After all, 45% of the American public think that human beings were created pretty much in their present form, and less than 10,000 years ago. 6 to 8% think that the lunar landings were hoaxed. 25% of registered Republicans think that Obama is the Antichrist, and somewhere around 15% of the general public think he's a Muslim. No, I don't think I'm all that gifted. The ugly truth is that I got into Mensa, because the standards are dumbed down. The stupidity of America has lowered the grade curve. I'm a Mensan, because people are morons.

Okay, that's rather harsh, I admit it. But America needs to hear it, if nothing else so it can be snapped out of its collective sleepwalk. I understand that most are too busy with kids or mortgage to really be well informed, but damn, there's some really stupid shit that people believe! Years after it first went on the market, people still buy Extenz pills. (Now THAT's dumb!) Discovery's most popular shows include Ghost Hunters. Fox News still gets away with calling itself "fair and balanced."

Sure, it sounds conceited of me to take my new membership and use it as a club on people. But seriously, if this is what I'm capable of while groggy and sleep deprived, what other high IQ societies could I possibly join if I tested sharp? Maybe Cerebrals? (Featured in the film, 'A Beautiful Mind, and which only accepts the upper 0.03%.) Or perhaps the Prometheus Society? (Upper 0.003%.) Makes me wonder...

Look, I don't want to insult people, and I certainly don't want to sound like some big-shot. But I've been thought of as dumb all through grade school, and this turnabout feels good. So let me just say: knowledge really is power, ignorance is not bliss, and the cold, prickly truth really is better than the warm and fuzzy belief systems of our grandparents. Now a member of Mensa, I find that my credit score suddenly jumped! I now qualify for financial benefits and loans I couldn't before. Insurance companies like Geico are offering me discounts! In short, people feel safer with their money in the hands of a smart person, despite Enron.

The air isn't so thin up here. Won't more of you come up here and join me? I think you can!


Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Taxing Churches to Pay National Debt

Our country is facing a looming financial crisis in the form of a mountainous load of debt. Only a decade ago, Clinton left us a budget surplus and was trimming our national debt. Then Bush garnered enough hanging chads to get elected, and burned up most of that surplus on tax cuts. Politically popular, but guaranteeing our nation would flirt with debt again. Then, after 9/11, having presided over the start of two wars, he felt that a national crisis was best served by reducing national income yet again at the benefit of the wealthy. Add a sweeping sellout to the drug companies for Medicare and Medicaid and yet more tax breaks for the fattest of felines, and you understand how we could have dug such a deep hole in such a short amount of time. Bush never vetoed a single spending bill. Now, at ten trillion and counting, the Bush Debt is projected to reach 17 trillion by 2017, and it is not entirely implausible that the interest owed will exceed our entire national product! And then, frankly, we're fucked!

Way to go, Dubya.

For brevity, I'll ignore the insanity of Republicans using the Bush Debt as a means of unhorsing Obama, who had nothing to do with it. Instead, I'll simply point out how the Bush Debt was partly predicated on a dangerous philosophy, known as "starve the beast." The idea is, limit the amount of money the nation takes in through taxes, and this motivates the government to cut spending. Sounds good, right? But we've seen time and again that cutting spending is easier said than done, and while Republicans often cut taxes, they seldom cut spending. For that matter, neither do Democrats. It's simply easier for a legislator to eat shards of broken glass than it is for him to vote for a spending cut in his district. So, without a significant number of politicians willing to fall on their swords, the debt goes out of control.

This is something I try desperately to explain to my more conservative friends: The beast doesn't starve. The beast borrows from China, Saudi Arabia, and India. And then the beast destroys the dollar.

So what do we do? Admit defeat when it comes to getting politicians to cut spending? I think not. There are some simple things we can do as citizens to get the debt under control. But we have to be smart enough to make sure it happens. Here's our assignment list:

1. Institute term limits. The only way to get a significant number of politicians to vote for spending cuts is to make sure that a significant number of politicians are not concerned with re-election. Term limits are the only way to accomplish this. We need to insist that this gets done. If we do nothing else, we must do this!

2. Re-institute Pay-As-You-Go. George Bush, Sr. enacted pay-as-you-go during his presidency as a means of curtailing government debt, and it worked well. What it means is, you can't propose some new spending increase unless you either propose a spending cut of equal amount elsewhere, or propose a tax increase which will pay for it entirely. Unfortunately, this measure expired in 2002, just in time for his brat kid to give away the farm! We need this rule in place again, badly. And permanently, this time.

3. Let the Bush, Jr. Tax Cuts Expire. This one's a no-brainer. In time of dire national crisis, we simply must call upon those who are financially strongest to help bear the heaviest of the burden. America's been good to the rich. It's time for them to be good back! Because if we lose the dollar, their fortunes are at risk, too, even if they've moved their investments entirely to the Euro or the Yen.

4. Line Item Veto. We gave a line item veto to President Clinton in 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down two years later. We need to explore a way to give our president the ability to slash spending at the stroke of a pen in a way which will hold up under judicial review.

5. Legalize and Tax Cannabis. Again, a no-brainer. Our economy needs new industry, and new tax revenue at the same time. During the Great Depression, the repeal of prohibition helped to rebuild the economy. We need to end prohibition against marijuana.

6. Consider Rescinding Tax-Exempt Status On Certain Non-Charity Organizations.

It's that last item I'll consider more in depth. Specifically, should we consider taxing churches at this time?

In a way, it makes sense. Corporations, families, soldiers, stores, property owners, highway travellers, and nearly every other walk of life has to pay taxes. When it comes right down to it, even the dead pay taxes! But not a church. What makes them so damned special?

Certainly, our economy could do without greedy televangelists using their ministries as a means to sequester huge swaths of the public's money supply out of circulation! But most churches out there typically struggle just to keep the lights on. One likely consequence of church taxation might be that little churches would instantly go belly-up, leaving only big-box mega-churches in many urban areas.

Another problem is Constitutional. Congress cannot pass any law favoring any religion or denying it's free practice. Certainly, taxing a particular behavior acts as a strong disincentive. Thus, by taxing churches, Congress effectively denies the free practice of religion. Put another way, there's no tax for not going to church. Hence, people are encouraged to be atheist or agnostic. Or at least, discouraged from starting their own independent ministry.

What about the new Islamic Center near Ground Zero? I'll bet lots of people would like to see that taxed! But then, we'd be playing favorites again. If we can tax a Mosque, we have to be able to tax a chapel.

I suppose some people are resentful that churches sometimes get politically active having paid no taxes. It's anything but fair for those who don't put money into the hat to try and have a say in how it gets spent! But there would be an unintended consequence in forcing the issue. As it is, churches try to walk a fine line between being politically active, and politically neutral. This is because there is a law on the books, known as the Johnson Amendment (1954), which states that any non-profit organization cannot be politically active, or else it loses it's tax-exempt status. So churches try to remain politically neutral in theory, while being subtly active in practice, particularly on issues such as abortion or homosexuality. So long as they don't endorse political candidates, they are reasonably safe. However, if we taxed those churches, they might see this as a green light to become community-based political action groups, and preachers would begin endorsing candidates openly from the pulpit. This would be a consequence I would not want to live with!

So, no, I don't think Churches should be taxed. There are too many negative consequences, including one I missed earlier, which is that if Churches get taxed, so likely do humanist and atheist groups, who barely have a budget as it is. However, I do think that the Johnson Amendment needs to be strengthened. Churches should not even think of being subtle in political activism. In this time of national monetary crisis, we can't have ministries who pay no taxes campaigning, even quietly, for any "faith-based initiative" tax dollars. True, this is only a cosmetic solution to the problem of our national debt, but for important reasons concerning the "culture war," the message needs to be sent that non-profit means non-political. If you want to be in the game, you pay your admission fee just like everybody else. And if you are a tax-exempt church, it needs to be understood that such exemption comes at an all-important price:

You fundies stay the fuck out of politics!