I know, I know, Obama got elected by more than just the meth-addicted, American-Idol worshipping, teeny-boopers who voted for him based on "coolness" and not whether he had the slightest bit of competency and experience. I know, I'm aware of that. There were people who were just sick of Bush, hippies who whilst celebrating the 40th anniversary of Woodstock also wanted to be cool and young too, and your stalwart pull the level democrats,
BUT
he could NOT have gotten elected without the American Idol children.
Now, I try to convince people about the true and genuine danger this socialist (which is what he is) brings to America. I try every way possible from data and charts and information, to logical arguments, to reviewing the history of socialism, to even resorting to berating them for their stupidity and pointing out just how little they know about economics and therefore really shouldn't have the right to vote.
But maybe, JUST MAYBE, this simple line of logic may penetrate the Panzer-tank-like-armor-thick skulls of today's American late teens and 20 somethings;
If this is the result of the government running a $3 billion "cash for clunkers" program, just how well do you think the government is going to run health care?
Am I getting anywhere? Is the light starting to go on? Are you starting to think "hey, maybe I should just set aside my zealotlike commitment to the socialist ideology and maybe ask what kind of future I and my future children will have in this country?" Like now would be the time to become and adult, forget the protesting and think really hard about the budgetary and economic ramifications of this?
Bueller?
Bueller?
10 comments:
The problem is that people are hardwired to reinforce their belief systems and it is just monumentally difficult to get them to accept evidence to the contrary. As an example: Albert Einstein, a humanitarian but also a big believer in central planning, was an apologist for the Soviet Union long after evidence showed how many millions had suffered and died in the gulags.
Also, dude, change your blog theme. Please. White text on black background KILLS the eyes.
I was about 17/18 when the first gulf war came about. The media did it's job. We were marching on city hall, waving signs and crying that our poor boyfriends were going to be sent to death fighting Bush's illegal war. Oh and of course the media also told us that the draft was coming back.
Just think, this was before CABLE. AND before the internet. Soyou ALMOST have to feel sorry for these kids today. Couple the constant leftard indoctrination in their schools, the tv and their leaders (Hollyweirdians) and you have to expect them to be messed up.
That and their parents are complete wussies. They wrap their darling brats in bubble wrap, these kids have no idea what survival is.
While I don't doubt your expertise as an economist, this does not automatically make you an expert on persuasion or psychology. People have a hard time agreeing to capitalism, not only because they are morons but also because this forces them to admit they were wrong (diminishment of social status) and forces them to disagree with their friends (loss of social bonds) and makes them feel guilty for having advocated bad policies in the past (negative emotions). Consider the Ransberger Pivot and please report how that works out.
Rans,
Ah, a very good Ransberger Pivot argument you made yourself!
I don't worry about Obama's young fans; they'll get a clue when they leave school and can't even find a minimum-wage job. I feel for the older folks whose savings will be wiped out by the coming inflation.
On average, young Russians fared better than their elders when the Soviet Union went broke, because they had the time and strength to start life over again.
People are more likely to change their religion than their political allegiance. So changing a person's mind about their political beliefs is harder than changing people's beliefs about their religion. People don't want a scientific explanation when a spiritual one will do, and people certainly don't want a economic explanation when a socialist one will do.
Ah yes, the Ransberger pivot.
Here I thought the Ransberger pivot was a dance move or a unique way of turning a double play.
Now that I've read up on it, I see the Ransberger pivot technique (ab)used a lot.
Where the RP technique seems to fail, is that the argument following the pivot is usually a bunch of BS which doesn't pass muster with my crap detector.
One of the main reasons why capitalism is not supported is that 'only the strong will survive' (i.e. people with disabilities will not recieve the help they need - simply because most will not be able to provide an economic benefit to society.) However there is a nice table which shows that philantrophy is practiced more by people that actually EARN their wealth (as opposed to inheriting it.)
My question is would creating a "inheritance tax" be viable as opposed to increasing income/capital gains/corprate tax? This will increase incentives for entreprenuering however it will also cause alot of whinging amoungst the middle class society - I'd like for some of these politic's students driving around in their 'congradulations for getting into the easiest course in univeristy' BMWs to pay for my computational mathematics degree!
I've given up on changing people's minds and instead settle for trying to give them such a horrible case of cognitive dissonance whenever they express a stupid opinion that they just shut up in the future.
A couple days ago a couple of these idiots were claiming, simultaneously, that hospital costs are going up because emergency room care is expensive for the hospital and that's all anyone can get (and socializing medicine will fix that) and also that when people come in needing care they just get dumped off on the sidewalk, presumably to get scooped up and turned into Soylent Green or something.
Either people who wander in without money are getting care (and adding costs to the system) or they're getting dumped out on the street (and not adding costs to the system), not both. I pointed this out and got a typical idiot platitude in response; "Not everything is about costs."
I suppose in their minds, moral indignation makes up for an utter logical failure. It's like radical muslims celebrating bin Laden for blowing up the WTC but then saying it was actually the Jews that did it. If you can cram enough crazy and stupid into your ideology, nothing else matters.
CC,
The kind of people who watch American Idol are the ones with no insurance. With attention spans of "Oh, look! A squirrel!" they are not participating in the discussion. For which, the adults who have to pay for this crap, are grateful.
Post a Comment