More Words, News, and Brain Dumps
We've again been bombarded with multiple news events over this past week, from Capitol Hill to Texas churches. Gets damn hard to sort them all out. I leave the heavy lifting to those more professional and capable than I, and simply do my best to keep up as best I can with my limited intelligence.
From a news aspect, I have tried to follow the recent GOP tax reform bills as they ping-pong themselves between the houses of Congress. House has this one, Senate has that one--but, wait. Oddly, they seem to be the same one, only worded differently. As with anything, it's the wording that contains the details. Or, should. Careful wording will also hide a lot of details. This so called tax reform bill is, first, far from reform. It revises many tax laws, certainly. It's authors made the claim ( a while back, not so much now ) that is simplifies our tax codes. Well, from what I have followed, it actually does the opposite for the majority of Americans. If you are fortunate enough to be among the most wealthy, it actually does simplify things. If you've been avoiding paying taxes through sneaky, near-criminal actions, you can now avoid them with no chance of violating anything.
I saw the exchange ( most of you have probably now heard of or seen it ) between Senator Sherrod Brown and Senator Orrin Hatch. In response to Mr. Brown's statement that the bill was bottom line simply a tax cut for the rich, Senator Hatch ( who also chaired the committee ) responded angrily: “I come from the poor people,” Hatch said. “And I’ve been here working my whole stinkin’ career for people who don’t have a chance. And I really resent anybody saying that I’m just doing this for the rich. Give me a break. I think you guys overplay that all the time, and it gets old. And frankly, you ought to quit it.”
Knowing Hatch's background, it's easy to see where his anger came from. He felt called out on failing the poorest among his constituents, and, embarrassed by the truth, his anger manifested itself. He is well aware which side of his bread is buttered, and whether he likes it or not, he is not going to risk losing that butter. He, as well as so many others in Congress, is a member of the modern party system. This system says, no matter what, we must support the donors to our system, even if it means going against the best interests of the people.
Now, I am not going to profess, even after hearing discussions, reading boring reports, and staring at senseless numbers surrounding this bill, that I understand it. I don't. I don't understand the one we have now, fer Pete's sake. What did seem to come clear through the miasma, however, was this: for one or two years, middle class wage earners will see significant tax cuts. Those with incomes considered lower than middle class will be severely hurt right away. Then, over the course of 7 to 15 years, the numbers will change drastically. Because, you see, SOMEbody has to pay for the programs they decide to keep ( the largest being Defense budget ) and that money has to come from somewhere. Since it would not come from the wealthy businesses and individuals, well, guess who?
The idea, of course, is that the taxes saved by the wealthier businesses and corporations would 'trickle down' to the wage earners, creating higher wages and more jobs, which of course would 'offset' those lower income tax increases. You know: just like it did before, after the Reagan years.
Oh, wait. No, it didn't.
The fact that a group of the wealthiest people in America say this is a terrible tax plan speaks volumes. To me, anyway.
Also in the news a lot recently: accusations of sexual misconduct, leveled against celebrities and political figures. This seems to be almost a epidemic now. Some accusations are being made from incidents of as much as 40 years ago, unreported at the time. They cover a wide range of violations, from being overtly touchy to indecent exposure to child molestation. They all have some things in common: all the accusations are against men, and all caused the victim to feel from offended to disgusted to downright life-changing, and all were non-consensual. The key there is non-consensual. Other than the child molestation, or in the case of some accusations, out and out rape, none actually as far as I know have any laws against them. In the case of cornering a female without her consent, then proceeding to masturbate in front of her, as long as it wasn't in public, one can't even charge indecent exposure.
What we, the people, are left with is having to decide, for ourselves, whether there are varying degrees of such behavior. None of the accusations has been proved and all, save one, have been denied by the accused as having never happened. The one 'save' has been admitted by the accused, who apologized, a apology the accuser accepted, and in the range of the various other accusations, it was more of a male acting stupid for the benefit of other males. It wasn't right, no; it was wrong, and the accused freely admits that, and has demonstrated he has made every effort to rid himself of the attitude that caused such behavior. All who know him agree. He has even approved and called for a Ethics Committee investigation into his ethics. One has to wonder: in light of what others have been accused of, and their reaction to it, if perhaps we aren't making too much of a mountain over what is less than a molehill. It has been suggested he resign, and he has been publicly censured by other individuals whose own reputation wouldn't pass a white glove inspection. Even a dirty white glove.
No matter what, it is obvious times, and attitudes, have changed, and are changing. Traditions long held are now being held up to ridicule, and deservedly so. Equality is being sought, and given, albeit slowly. We are still slow to recognize that, for centuries, what we have accepted as a male dominated society of humanity was truly a human-dominated society. That other humans are due respect, regardless of gender, and the accomplishments of humanity came about due to both sexes. The mere act of being able to physically dominate another person does not make you better, or more capable; it just gives one all the more reason NOT to.
Besides: never piss off someone smaller than you. Many physically larger folk down through history have learned that, to their chagrin. Payback can be painful.
Now, for some fun with words ( I hope some fun, anyway; at least I can make me laugh ).
A new word has entered our lexicon: Mansplaining. Now, I am not sure what this means. No, really. I know it has something to do with a feeling that some males need to explain things to females, regardless of whether or not they are aware the female already understands it. I presume I have done it. Am pretty sure I have, in fact. Thing of it is, I have also done it to other males. Here's the thing ( as it pertains to me, anyway ): I often do it because, if I don't, I lose track of where I am at in the conversation. So, if I do it, that's why. I'm not smart enough not to. It goes with my current state of not being able to do more than one thing at a time ( and sometimes, not even THAT ). It's part of what makes me a lousy public speaker. A bit embarrassing, but there it is. However, I do hear this more and more, as a complaint from the feminine side of social media. I have no doubt men do it, and have done it, for decades. It;s rather like the 'There, there, little lady; that's cute, but you need to understand how this REALLY works'. Or "yes, my dear, I know you do this for a living, but we all know you don't do it as well as a man can '. And, I can see this being resented. If it were done to me, I'd plot revenge against whomever did it that would last for decades and include their whole family. But, hey, I never claimed to be perfect!
Another: a old word, but one which has blossomed into a trigger word among Americans. Equality. SO, what exactly IS equality, anyway? When I was young, and baling hay: was I, at 5 ft 5 inches tall, equal to the other guy who was 5 ft 10 or taller? Nope. Not physically. Now, in effort, and getting done what needed to be done? Yes. Might have taken me longer, but I still got it done. So, did I deserve equal treatment and pay? I say, yes. I worked just as hard; nay, perhaps harder. So, where, in that scenario, do we define equality? Take a different scenario: say I, the shorter, was a truck driver. Another driver, taller, happened to be a female. We both had similar routes, delivering similar product. Our records are equal. Should I, being the male, be paid more? No. Are we both equals in this case? Yes. We can now extrapolate the term to other scenarios.
Let's see how Webster defines Equality:
"
From a news aspect, I have tried to follow the recent GOP tax reform bills as they ping-pong themselves between the houses of Congress. House has this one, Senate has that one--but, wait. Oddly, they seem to be the same one, only worded differently. As with anything, it's the wording that contains the details. Or, should. Careful wording will also hide a lot of details. This so called tax reform bill is, first, far from reform. It revises many tax laws, certainly. It's authors made the claim ( a while back, not so much now ) that is simplifies our tax codes. Well, from what I have followed, it actually does the opposite for the majority of Americans. If you are fortunate enough to be among the most wealthy, it actually does simplify things. If you've been avoiding paying taxes through sneaky, near-criminal actions, you can now avoid them with no chance of violating anything.
I saw the exchange ( most of you have probably now heard of or seen it ) between Senator Sherrod Brown and Senator Orrin Hatch. In response to Mr. Brown's statement that the bill was bottom line simply a tax cut for the rich, Senator Hatch ( who also chaired the committee ) responded angrily: “I come from the poor people,” Hatch said. “And I’ve been here working my whole stinkin’ career for people who don’t have a chance. And I really resent anybody saying that I’m just doing this for the rich. Give me a break. I think you guys overplay that all the time, and it gets old. And frankly, you ought to quit it.”
Knowing Hatch's background, it's easy to see where his anger came from. He felt called out on failing the poorest among his constituents, and, embarrassed by the truth, his anger manifested itself. He is well aware which side of his bread is buttered, and whether he likes it or not, he is not going to risk losing that butter. He, as well as so many others in Congress, is a member of the modern party system. This system says, no matter what, we must support the donors to our system, even if it means going against the best interests of the people.
Now, I am not going to profess, even after hearing discussions, reading boring reports, and staring at senseless numbers surrounding this bill, that I understand it. I don't. I don't understand the one we have now, fer Pete's sake. What did seem to come clear through the miasma, however, was this: for one or two years, middle class wage earners will see significant tax cuts. Those with incomes considered lower than middle class will be severely hurt right away. Then, over the course of 7 to 15 years, the numbers will change drastically. Because, you see, SOMEbody has to pay for the programs they decide to keep ( the largest being Defense budget ) and that money has to come from somewhere. Since it would not come from the wealthy businesses and individuals, well, guess who?
The idea, of course, is that the taxes saved by the wealthier businesses and corporations would 'trickle down' to the wage earners, creating higher wages and more jobs, which of course would 'offset' those lower income tax increases. You know: just like it did before, after the Reagan years.
Oh, wait. No, it didn't.
The fact that a group of the wealthiest people in America say this is a terrible tax plan speaks volumes. To me, anyway.
Also in the news a lot recently: accusations of sexual misconduct, leveled against celebrities and political figures. This seems to be almost a epidemic now. Some accusations are being made from incidents of as much as 40 years ago, unreported at the time. They cover a wide range of violations, from being overtly touchy to indecent exposure to child molestation. They all have some things in common: all the accusations are against men, and all caused the victim to feel from offended to disgusted to downright life-changing, and all were non-consensual. The key there is non-consensual. Other than the child molestation, or in the case of some accusations, out and out rape, none actually as far as I know have any laws against them. In the case of cornering a female without her consent, then proceeding to masturbate in front of her, as long as it wasn't in public, one can't even charge indecent exposure.
What we, the people, are left with is having to decide, for ourselves, whether there are varying degrees of such behavior. None of the accusations has been proved and all, save one, have been denied by the accused as having never happened. The one 'save' has been admitted by the accused, who apologized, a apology the accuser accepted, and in the range of the various other accusations, it was more of a male acting stupid for the benefit of other males. It wasn't right, no; it was wrong, and the accused freely admits that, and has demonstrated he has made every effort to rid himself of the attitude that caused such behavior. All who know him agree. He has even approved and called for a Ethics Committee investigation into his ethics. One has to wonder: in light of what others have been accused of, and their reaction to it, if perhaps we aren't making too much of a mountain over what is less than a molehill. It has been suggested he resign, and he has been publicly censured by other individuals whose own reputation wouldn't pass a white glove inspection. Even a dirty white glove.
No matter what, it is obvious times, and attitudes, have changed, and are changing. Traditions long held are now being held up to ridicule, and deservedly so. Equality is being sought, and given, albeit slowly. We are still slow to recognize that, for centuries, what we have accepted as a male dominated society of humanity was truly a human-dominated society. That other humans are due respect, regardless of gender, and the accomplishments of humanity came about due to both sexes. The mere act of being able to physically dominate another person does not make you better, or more capable; it just gives one all the more reason NOT to.
Besides: never piss off someone smaller than you. Many physically larger folk down through history have learned that, to their chagrin. Payback can be painful.
Now, for some fun with words ( I hope some fun, anyway; at least I can make me laugh ).
A new word has entered our lexicon: Mansplaining. Now, I am not sure what this means. No, really. I know it has something to do with a feeling that some males need to explain things to females, regardless of whether or not they are aware the female already understands it. I presume I have done it. Am pretty sure I have, in fact. Thing of it is, I have also done it to other males. Here's the thing ( as it pertains to me, anyway ): I often do it because, if I don't, I lose track of where I am at in the conversation. So, if I do it, that's why. I'm not smart enough not to. It goes with my current state of not being able to do more than one thing at a time ( and sometimes, not even THAT ). It's part of what makes me a lousy public speaker. A bit embarrassing, but there it is. However, I do hear this more and more, as a complaint from the feminine side of social media. I have no doubt men do it, and have done it, for decades. It;s rather like the 'There, there, little lady; that's cute, but you need to understand how this REALLY works'. Or "yes, my dear, I know you do this for a living, but we all know you don't do it as well as a man can '. And, I can see this being resented. If it were done to me, I'd plot revenge against whomever did it that would last for decades and include their whole family. But, hey, I never claimed to be perfect!
Another: a old word, but one which has blossomed into a trigger word among Americans. Equality. SO, what exactly IS equality, anyway? When I was young, and baling hay: was I, at 5 ft 5 inches tall, equal to the other guy who was 5 ft 10 or taller? Nope. Not physically. Now, in effort, and getting done what needed to be done? Yes. Might have taken me longer, but I still got it done. So, did I deserve equal treatment and pay? I say, yes. I worked just as hard; nay, perhaps harder. So, where, in that scenario, do we define equality? Take a different scenario: say I, the shorter, was a truck driver. Another driver, taller, happened to be a female. We both had similar routes, delivering similar product. Our records are equal. Should I, being the male, be paid more? No. Are we both equals in this case? Yes. We can now extrapolate the term to other scenarios.
Let's see how Webster defines Equality:
"
Definition of equality
plural equalities
1
:the quality or state of being equal
2
:equation 2a
"
Pretty ephemeral, right? Even by definition, we are left to apply our own judgment, and conscience, to the word. Well, let's go back to the news about the sexual misconduct allegations I mentioned earlier. The different accusations have varying degrees of outrage, but, all have one thing in common: they involve the inappropriate action of trying to force another into a sexual situation without the other's consent. Or, as I might see it, a violation of the victim's civil rights. Which involves treating another person unequally.
I can carry it further, in my mind, to the act of denying respect to others while expecting respect in return. The old adage 'Respect must be earned' holds some sway, even today. I was taught in a slightly different way the same adage. With me, it was, everyone deserves respect until such time as they show they either do or do not deserve it. Either way seems pretty simple to me. If I feel someone has failed to show me any respect, I must first ask myself, did I do something to cause them to not respect me? Quite possibly, I failed to respect them without any cause. I try not to do this, but, sometimes I fail. If I fail, then, I deserve what I get. ( I don't have to LIKE it! ).
So, another word. Respect. I see this a lot now, too. Respect as it pertains to the beliefs of others, or, titles they may hold. Even in the military, when saluting a superior rank: you are saluting the rank, not the person holding it. You may think the person is a piece of doo doo. Some folks assign the same thing to civilian titles, and here, no, the rank does not deserve respect if the person holding it does not deserve respect. Slogans like 'You may not like him, but you need to respect the President' are so out of whack as to require hourly chiropractic adjustments. No, I do not need to respect the President, if he shows he is not deserving of respect. Same goes for police officers, co workers, bosses, supervisors, managers, etc. Person to person, I will respect you until such time as you show whether or not you deserve it. After that, all bets are off. So, I try to be careful how I use that word; it's one of my trigger words. As with opinions: I respect others opinions, unless they voice them in a manner implying only their way is right, and reduce a conversation to name-calling and repeating baseless accusations. When we do that, we lose, and forfeit any right to anyone respecting our own voice ever again.
Yes, all of this is from my perspective. It's just me, and just me is no threat to anyone. 😉 Just my way of unloading some useless, non-educational crap upon unsuspecting readers. If you are one, thank you, and know I appreciate you!
Comments