Random ramblings of a mind damaged by years of disuse and abuse. Also a place to go to be bored to tears.
The Random Comic Strip
Words to live by...
"How beautiful it is to do nothing, and to rest afterward."
(The right to looseness has been officially given)
"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders," wrote Ludwig von Mises, "no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle."
Apparently, the crossword puzzle that disappeared from the blog, came back.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Just whose money is evil?
I'm a little late posting this morning but... well, I am out of town and pretty lazy so that combo leads to late or missing posts. I trust you'll forgive me... and not tax me for a missing post.
As I sat down for breakfast (something I only do when out of town, I almost never eat breakfast otherwise), I began perusing the USA Today paper for a little distraction. And there was certainly some of that to be found.
An editorial about protecting voters from secret campaign money was prominent on the Op-Ed page. There was also a section called "Input" which appears to contain Tweets from various people who use creative capitalization. A Tweet, to me, is "revealing one's inanity in 140 characters or less." The subject of "Input" was the question: Does Super PAC funding help or hurt politics?
I can sum up the comments easily enough: buying elections, bribery, hurts the US, gives Republicans the edge, special interests.
USA Today is a liberal paper. It didn't start out like that. Well, it didn't appear to, anyway, but it has become liberal. Perhaps they were just covering up the bias at first.
I don't think Super PAC money buys elections. You see, I have more faith in the total electorate than most seem to have these days. I am still a cynic and think the average voter picks a candidate on emotional grounds but I think these tend to cancel each other out. That's where the thoughtful voter comes in. He (or she) picks a candidate based on logic, on realistic expectations. That voter doesn't pay much attention to the tidal wave of political ads but looks at the issues, looks at the current political reality, and selects the candidate on merit. Or the lesser of two evils... whatever fits the situation.
I sometimes wonder what those who fear the Super PACs think. Do they believe that the vast majority of voters are easily swayed by an onslaught of political ads? Do they have almost no faith in their fellow citizens? Or do they simply think they are superior to the rest of the voters?
The truth is that unions have been throwing huge amounts of money into swaying elections for the past several decades. Hollywood celebrities have thrown huge amounts of money and endorsements into the fray for decades. George Soros has been tossing a lot of his money into the ring as well. Is it only bad if it's corporations or conservative rich guys do it? I don't think so.
It's up to us, the voters, to reject or accept the arguments in these ads.