Friday, December 24, 2010
McConnell's iron grip slips
By: Glenn Thrush and Manu Raju
December 23, 2010 04:31 AM EST
For two years, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) maintained iron discipline over his 40-to-42-member conference, mustered a mostly united opposition against the White House — and helped define the GOP as “the party of no” in the eyes of critics.
But in the waning days of the 111th Congress, the White House and Democrats think they have finally found a crack in Fortress McConnell. On two critical pieces of legislation — the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military and the START agreement with Russia — Republican moderates defied their leadership and backed two major priorities of President Barack Obama.
McConnell publicly opposed both — and underscored that point during an appearance on CNN last Sunday, geared, in part, at halting momentum for the deal on the arms control treaty.
People close to the laconic, deliberate GOP leader minimized the two votes, saying McConnell was simply respecting the diversity of his caucus and had delegated the whipping operation to other Republicans. Moreover, they cite several lame-duck victories — extending the Bush-era tax cuts to all income groups, killing both the $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill and the DREAM Act — and say the conference will re-unite early next year when the focus returns to issues of taxing and spending.
But the two lame-duck votes suggest that the GOP's six-seat pick-up in November may, paradoxically, complicate matters for the man who had come to embody Republican resistance in the age of the Obama. And while nobody in the White House thinks McConnell has lost his grip, they see an opportunity to increase their leverage as McConnell finds himself squeezed between an incoming class of emboldened conservatives with a tea party tinge - and the eight to twelve Republicans who showed their independence on “don’t ask, don’t tell” and START.
After two years of nonstop Democratic infighting, the White House is clearly enjoying the possibility of a GOP family feud — and are closely watching how the old-school McConnell meshes with new-breed Republicans like Utah’s Mike Lee, a strict constitutionalist who won’t vote for anything James Madison would have rejected, and tea party idol Rand Paul, a fellow Kentuckian whose election McConnell initially opposed.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday suggested that McConnell “miscalculated” in the lame-duck by failing to “put aside partisan political interests” on START.
Sen. Chris Dodd, the retiring Connecticut Democrat, said McConnell’s position reflected the influence of the tea-party wing of the party. “I think Mitch was overplaying his hand. It was a case of the tail wagging the dog.”
"It was crazy opposing START — crazy — and he shouldn't have done it. I don't think Mitch is terribly comfortable with the tea party types," added Dodd, who has served with McConnell for over two decades.
“It will be interesting to see if he will dance to their tune or try to make them dance to his,” said an Obama ally. “Either way, it will be fun to watch.”
McConnell, in an interview with POLITICO last week, said he was simply "try[ing] as best I can to keep as many of us together as I can. Even when we were down to 40, from Olympia-to-DeMint is a pretty diverse group," referring to Maine moderate Olympia Snowe and South Carolina firebrand Jim DeMint, a tea party leader.
"[W]e've had everybody singing out of the same book a remarkable percentage of the time,” he added.
But that percentage is dropping, at least at the moment.
Earlier this week, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, among the most independent Senate Republicans, expressed disgust that the GOP leadership allowed Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to enjoy the most successful lame-duck session in decades.
"Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," Graham told Fox News radio. "This has been a capitulation in two weeks of dramatic proportions of policies that wouldn't have passed in the new Congress."
With the president on the ropes after the Nov. 2 midterms, McConnell bucked some conservatives — championed by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer — by agreeing to a landmark bipartisan deal with Obama to temporarily extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, including the wealthy, a central McConnell policy priority. Yet in doing so, McConnell knew he was allowing Obama to regain the political initiative and reclaim his lost mantle of bipartisanship.
And when McConnell went back into partisan mode — backing Minority Whip Jon Kyl and Sen. John McCain, both of Arizona, in an unsuccessful bid to defeat “don’t ask, don’t tell” and START — he found himself, uncharacteristically, on the wrong side of public opinion and in opposition to a sizable minority in his own conference.
For much of the 111th Congress, McConnell had to worry about defections by two or three of his conference, most notably Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, along with retiring Ohio moderate/conservative George Voinovich and, at times, Massachusetts freshman Scott Brown.
But eight Republicans defied leadership on “don’t ask, don’t tell” — Collins, Snowe, Voinovich, Brown, freshman Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and two conservatives, John Ensign of Nevada and Richard Burr of North Carolina. Thirteen bucked McConnell on START, including Indiana Republican Dick Lugar, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who worked hand-in-glove with administration officials on the treaty, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a member of the GOP leadership.
“McConnell picks his battles very, very carefully,” said Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), who was unseated by Lee. “There are some in leadership who don’t. McConnell picks fights he can win. Once he picks one he thinks he can win, he almost always does.”
START was different, he said, because McConnell simply outlined his own personal preference on the bill — knowing a substantial number of Republicans would eventually vote differently.
“That’s a different kind of message than this is something where the entire conference has to be,” Bennett added.
Added McConnell spokesman Don Stewart: “The only bills that had a change in partisan makeup after the election were the [omnibus appropriations] bill and the tax bill. ... Before the election, Democrats were bragging about raising taxes; after the election and Sen. McConnell’s leadership, nobody will see a tax hike next year.”
Yet Democrats see signs that McConnell may be off his game. His claim that his 2012 objective was to unseat Obama may have appeased his party's right wing, but it has tested extremely poorly in Democratic-sponsored focus groups of independent voters, according to a party official. In an interview last week, McConnell responded to Democratic complaints about him by telling POLITICO, “There’s much for [Democrats] to be angst-ridden about. ... If they think it’s bad now, wait till next year.”
Meanwhile, Obama has adopted a feel-good tone of bipartisan comity, appealing to independents turned off by the partisan rancor of the past two years.
“My sense is the Republicans recognize that with greater power is going to come greater responsibility,” he said at a news conference Wednesday before flying to Hawaii for his Christmas vacation. “And some of the progress that I think we saw in the lame duck was a recognition on their part that people are going to be paying attention to what they're doing as well as what I'm doing and what the Democrats in Congress are doing.”
But some liberals question whether the re-emergence of the GOP’s moderate wing is a lasting phenomenon or an opportunistic one-shot deal for Republicans to cast votes that were popular in their home states.
"[Republicans] were in lockstep again to shoot down the omnibus,” said Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski. “I think [McConnell] will give his people more latitude on issues of war and peace, issues of conscience, but not on spending bills," she predicted.
Indeed, when Democrats tried to move their agenda forward early in the lame-duck session, McConnell got all 42 of his senators to vow to block all legislation unless a government-funding bill was approved and the Bush-era tax cuts were extended.
In the next Congress, McConnell plans to also insist that Democrats allow more open debate on amendments on the floor and will unify his caucus if he feels like they are being "jammed."
"On taxes and spending, we've got clear instructions from the people of this country and most of us feel exactly the same way about it," said Alexander, the only member of the GOP leadership to back the arms pact with Russia. "The New START treaty is for every individual Republican senator and Democratic senator for that matter to make their minds up about it."
But McConnell has his eye on other issues as well, including entitlement reform, which he said is needed to slash the deficit and would require an "aggressive" push from Obama in order to generate bipartisan support.
Still, that could come at a risk — and Democrats think the lame-duck gives them hope they can reverse some of the 2010 losses in 2012.
"I think the pendulum moves very quickly right now," said Alaska Sen. Mark Begich.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
Source
Saturday, December 11, 2010
My new course of study
Currently, I am looking into John Maynard Keynes ( pictured left ) and Milton Friedman. It is the war between these two men, both dead, that is waging between our two political parties currently.
I have come to the conclusion that anyone who does not know who these men were, what their economic philosophies were and how they have been applied around the world and in America, are essentially economic illiterates. I am rectifying my own illiteracy currently. I suggest you do that same.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Obama policy of appeasement
This week, President Obama delivered what he called a framework for a compromise between the Democrats and Republicans and the spin machines went into high gear.
On the right, claims were made of a major victory, of a tax lowering, job creating triumph over the Democrats and even make claims that this "framework" ,none of which is yet law or even a real bill, for that matter, is yet another simulus package.
On the left, the word "capitulation" has been thrown around with such vigor that one would think it was the progressive vocabulary word of the week. So like any good vocabulary builder, the definition of the word should be thrown out for all to see.
Capitulate - to surrender unconditionally or on stipulated terms.
Does it apply?
President Obama released his compromise framework on December 6th. Congress would have been in session until at least December 23rd. Of course, they wouldnt have been in session every single day, but in Washington, the phones are always being worked, deals are constantly being made, in session or not. Additionally, the Democrats could have played the political strategy of keeping congress in session through the regular holiday break, working beyond December 23rd right through Christmas and up to New Years Eve. As we all know, politicians are often slaves to the polls and as we also know public opinion can change on a dime given the right circumstance.
Public opinion, in this case, was with the Democrats. Under their plan, 98% of all Americans would have kept their current tax rates, while only 2%, the richest 2%, would have seen an increase in their taxes next year. With a skyrocketing deficit, public opinion realized that someone has to pay for the bailouts ( which bailed out the richest 2% ) the wars ( the richest 2% does not fight and die in ) and the stimulus packages ( from which the richest 2% are not hurting are only positively effected ). Like Mr. Potter, in "It's a wonderful life", they see that now is the time to buy when they can get the most bang for their buck. And when the economy gets better and they will again have, while the have-nots struggle to find the cash to purchase a portion of the American Dream for themselves.
Additionally, none of the tax cuts are funded. This means another round of selling our debt to China, Japan, Britain and a host of oil rich middle eastern countries whose population see the United States as just plain evil. There are varying reports, but the tax cut for the rich will cost us between 700 and 800 billion dollars as of which we are putting on credit for future generations to pay. We are the architects of their poverty.
President Obama justified his decision by saying that the unemployed and the lwer tax brackets were being "held hostage" by the Republicans and while not negotioating would have been the politically smart move, he couldn't risk the lives of the hostages. So as many on the left put it, he capitulated.
When Chamberlain was patting himself on the back for achieving "peace in our time", Winston Churchill said:
"This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."
There have been many comparisons over the last 48 hours. I am going to point out why this comparison is false.
This "framework for compromise' is not the "first sip, not the "first foreatste of a bitter cup." In the last two years, that bitter cup has been handed to progressives time and time again, and our leader, our President, has asked us to drink from it.
To be fair, President Obama has a point. Something is better than nothing. Making advances through compromise is better than no progress while clinging to principle, but the cup is still bitter. And that cup may just turn to poison if the Republicans follow through with their threats to repeal those advances and unfund what they can't repeal.
And this is where Obama is not a capitulator. He hears their threats and believes they won't actually follow through. He sees their threats as political posturing and very little more. So, he throws them a bone, expecting them to be satisfied. But, recent history has shown that this does not satisfy them. They in fact cannot be satisfied. President Obamas compromises have only emboldened his political opponents. They want more and more and the more he gives, the more they feel they can get from him in the future. This will only get worse when they take control of the House of Representatives in January.
The public option, tax breaks for the rich, the estate tax, these things are but the Sudetenland. In January, the Republicans will show us their Poland.
Appease - to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
It will be hard. It will not be easy. There will be casualties in this fight. ( My own family currently relies on the extended unemployment insurance, so the casualties may be right in my own home ) but to continue along this dangerous path of appeasement is only feeding the monster. We must fight or the monster will devour us and with it, the hope of a better and brighter future.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
What is the Monkeysphere?
This article was originally published HERE.
What is the Monkeysphere?
By David Wong Sep 30, 2007
"One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic."
-Kevin Federline
What do monkeys have to do with war, oppression, crime, racism and even e-mail spam? You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go Inside the Monkeysphere.
"What the Hell is the Monkeysphere?"
First, picture a monkey. A monkey dressed like a little pirate, if that helps you. We'll call him Slappy.
Imagine you have Slappy as a pet. Imagine a personality for him. Maybe you and he have little pirate monkey adventures and maybe even join up to fight crime. Think how sad you'd be if Slappy died.
Now, imagine you get four more monkeys. We'll call them Tito, Bubbles, Marcel and ShitTosser. Imagine personalities for each of them now. Maybe one is aggressive, one is affectionate, one is quiet, the other just throws shit all the time. But they're all your personal monkey friends.
Now imagine a hundred monkeys.
Not so easy now, is it? So how many monkeys would you have to own before you couldn't remember their names? At what point, in your mind, do your beloved pets become just a faceless sea of monkey? Even though each one is every bit the monkey Slappy was, there's a certain point where you will no longer really care if one of them dies.
So how many monkeys would it take before you stopped caring?
That's not a rhetorical question. We actually know the number.
"So this whole thing is your crusade against monkey overpopulation? I'll have my monkey castrated this very day!"
Uh, no. It'll become clear in a moment.
You see, monkey experts performed a monkey study a while back, and discovered that the size of the monkey's monkey brain determined the size of the monkey groups the monkeys formed. The bigger the brain, the bigger the little societies they built.
They cut up so many monkey brains, in fact, that they found they could actually take a brain they had never seen before and from it they could accurately predict what size tribes that species of creature formed.
Most monkeys operate in troupes of 50 or so. But somebody slipped them a slightly larger brain and they estimated the ideal group or society for this particular animal was about 150.
That brain, of course, was human. Probably from a homeless man they snatched off the streets.
"So that's the big news? That humans are God's big-budget sequel to the monkey? Who didn't know that?"
It goes much, much deeper than that. Let's try an example.
Famous news talking guy Tim Russert tells a charming story about his father, in his book Big Russ and Me (the title referring to his on-and-off romance with actor Russell Crowe). Russert's dad used to take half an hour to carefully box up any broken glass before taking it to the trash. Why? Because "The trash guy might cut his hands."
That this was such an unusual thing to do illustrates my monkey point. None of us spend much time worrying about the garbage man's welfare even though he performs a crucial role in not forcing us to live in a cave carved from a mountain of our own filth. We don't usually consider his safety or comfort at all and if we do, it's not in the same way we would worry over our best friend or wife or girlfriend or even our dog.
People toss half-full bottles of drain cleaner right into the barrel, without a second thought of what would happen if the trash man got it splattered into his eyes. Why? Because the trash guy exists outside the Monkeysphere.
"There's that word again..."
The Monkeysphere is the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number much larger than 150.
Most of us do not have room in our Monkeysphere for our friendly neighborhood sanitation worker. So, we don't think of him as a person. We think of him as The Thing That Makes The Trash Go Away.
And even if you happen to know and like your particular garbage man, at one point or another we all have limits to our sphere of monkey concern. It's the way our brains are built. We each have a certain circle of people who we think of as people, usually our own friends and family and neighbors, and then maybe some classmates or coworkers or church or suicide cult.
Those who exist outside that core group of a few dozen people are not people to us. They're sort of one-dimensional bit characters.
Remember the first time, as a kid, you met one of your school teachers outside the classroom? Maybe you saw old Miss Puckerson at Taco Bell eating refried beans through a straw, or saw your principal walking out of a dildo shop. Do you remember that surreal feeling you had when you saw these people actually had lives outside the classroom?
I mean, they're not people. They're teachers.
"So? What difference does all this make?"
Oh, not much. It's just the one single reason society doesn't work.
It's like this: which would upset you more, your best friend dying, or a dozen kids across town getting killed because their bus collided with a truck hauling killer bees? Which would hit you harder, your Mom dying, or seeing on the news that 15,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran?
They're all humans and they are all equally dead. But the closer to our Monkeysphere they are, the more it means to us. Just as your death won't mean anything to the Chinese or, for that matter, hardly anyone else more than 100 feet or so from where you're sitting right now.
"Why should I feel bad for them? I don't even know those people!"
Exactly. This is so ingrained that to even suggest you should feel their deaths as deeply as that of your best friend sounds a little ridiculous. We are hard-wired to have a drastic double standard for the people inside our Monkeysphere versus the 99.999% of the world's population who are on the outside.
Think about this the next time you get really pissed off in traffic, when you start throwing finger gestures and wedging your head out of the window to scream, "LEARN TO FUCKING DRIVE, FUCKER!!" Try to imagine acting like that in a smaller group. Like if you're standing in an elevator with two friends and a coworker, and the friend goes to hit a button and accidentally punches the wrong one. Would you lean over, your mouth two inches from her ear, and scream "LEARN TO OPERATE THE FUCKING ELEVATOR BUTTONS, SHITCAMEL!!"
They'd think you'd gone insane. We all go a little insane, though, when we get in a group larger than the Monkeysphere. That's why you get that weird feeling of anonymous invincibility when you're sitting in a large crowd, screaming curses at a football player you'd never dare say to his face.
"Well, I'm nice to strangers. Have you considered that maybe you're just an asshole?"
Sure, you probably don't go out of your way to be mean to strangers. You don't go out of your way to be mean to stray dogs, either.
The problem is that eventually, the needs of you or those within your Monkeysphere will require screwing someone outside it (even if that need is just venting some tension and anger via exaggerated insults). This is why most of us wouldn't dream of stealing money from the pocket of the old lady next door, but don't mind stealing cable, adding a shady exemption on our tax return, or quietly celebrating when they forget to charge us for something at the restaurant.
You may have a list of rationalizations long enough to circle the Earth, but the truth is that in our monkey brains the old woman next door is a human being while the cable company is a big, cold, faceless machine. That the company is, in reality, nothing but a group of people every bit as human as the old lady, or that some kind old ladies actually work there and would lose their jobs if enough cable were stolen, rarely occurs to us.
That's one of the ingenious things about the big-time religions, by the way. The old religious writers knew it was easier to put the screws to a stranger, so they taught us to get a personal idea of a God in our heads who says, "No matter who you hurt, you're really hurting me. Also, I can crush you like a grape." You must admit that if they weren't writing words inspired by the Almighty, they at least understood the Monkeysphere.
It's everywhere. Once you grasp the concept, you can see examples all around you. You'll walk the streets in a daze, like Roddy Piper after putting on his X-ray sunglasses in They Live.
But wait, because this gets much bigger and much, much stranger...
"So you're going to tell us that this Monkeysphere thing runs the whole world? Also, They Live sucked."
Go flip on the radio. Listen to the conservative talk about "The Government" as if it were some huge, lurking dragon ready to eat you and your paycheck whole. Never mind that the government is made up of people and that all of that money they take goes into the pockets of human beings. Talk radio's Rush Limbaugh is known to tip 50% at restaurants, but flies into a broadcast tirade if even half that dollar amount is deducted from his paycheck by "The Government." That's despite the fact that the money helps that very same single mom he had no problem tipping in her capacity as a waitress.
Now click over to a liberal show now, listen to them describe "Multinational Corporations" in the same diabolical terms, an evil black force that belches smoke and poisons water and enslaves humanity. Isn't it strange how, say, a lone man who carves and sells children's toys in his basement is a sweetheart who just loves bringing joy at Christmas, but a big-time toy corporation (which brings toys to millions of kids at Christmas) is an inhuman soul-grinding greed machine? Strangely enough, if the kindly lone toy making guy made enough toys and hired enough people and expanded to enough shops, we'd eventually stop seeing it as a toy-making shop and start seeing it as the fiery Orc factories of Mordor.
And if you've just thought, "Well, those talk show hosts are just a bunch of egomaniacal blowhards anyway," you've just done it again, turned real humans into two-word cartoon characters. It's no surprise, you do it with pretty much all six billion human beings outside the Monkeysphere.
"So I'm supposed to suddenly start worrying about six billion strangers? That's not even possible!"
That's right, it isn't possible. That's the point.
What is hard to understand is that it's also impossible for them to care about you.
That's why they don't mind stealing your stereo or vandalizing your house or cutting your wages or raising your taxes or bombing your office building or choking your computer with spam advertising diet and penis drugs they know don't work. You're outside their Monkeysphere. In their mind, you're just a vague shape with a pocket full of money for the taking.
Think of Osama Bin Laden. Did you just picture a camouflaged man hiding in a cave, drawing up suicide missions? Or are you thinking of a man who gets hungry and has a favorite food and who had a childhood crush on a girl and who has athlete's foot and chronic headaches and wakes up in the morning with a boner and loves volleyball?
Something in you, just now, probably was offended by that. You think there's an effort to build sympathy for the murderous fuck. Isn't it strange how simply knowing random human facts about him immediately tugs at your sympathy strings? He comes closer to your Monkeysphere, he takes on dimension.
Now, the cold truth is this Bin Laden is just as desperately in need of a bullet to the skull as the raving four-color caricature on some redneck's T-shirt. The key to understanding people like him, though, is realizing that we are the caricature on his T-shirt.
"So you're using monkeys to claim that we're all a bunch of Osama Bin Ladens?"
Sort of.
Listen to any 16 year-old kid with his first job, going on and on about how the boss is screwing him and the government is screwing him even more ("What's FICA?!?!" he screams as he looks at his first paycheck).
Then watch that same kid at work, as he drops a hamburger patty on the floor, picks it up, and slaps in on a bun and serves it to a customer.
In that one dropped burger he has everything he needs to understand those black-hearted politicians and corporate bosses. They see him in the exact same way he sees the customers lined up at the burger counter. Which is, just barely.
In both cases, for the guy making the burger and the guy running Exxon, getting through the workweek and collecting the paycheck are all that matters. No thought is given to the real human unhappiness being spread by doing it shittily (ever gotten so sick from food poisoning you thought your stomach lining was going to fly out of your mouth?) That many customers or employees just can't fit inside the Monkeysphere.
The kid will protest that he shouldn't have to care for the customers for minimum wage, but the truth is if a man doesn't feel sympathy for his fellow man at $6.00 an hour, he won't feel anything more at $600,000 a year.
Or, to look at it the other way, if we're allowed to be indifferent and even resentful to the masses for $6.00 an hour, just think of how angry the some Pakistani man is allowed to be when he's making the equivalent of six dollars a week.
"You've used the word 'monkey' more than 50 times, but the same principle hardly applies. Humans have been to the moon. Let's see the monkeys do that."
It doesn't matter. It's just an issue of degree.
There's a reason why legendary monkeytician Charles Darwin and his assistant, Jeje (pronounced "heyhey") Santiago deduced that humans and chimps were evolutionary cousins. As sophisticated as we are (compare our advanced sewage treatment plants to the chimps' primitive technique of hurling the feces with their bare hands), the inescapable truth is we are just as limited by our mental hardware.
The primary difference is that monkeys are happy to stay in small groups and rarely interact with others outside their monkey gang. This is why they rarely go to war, though when they do it is widely thought to be hilarious. Humans, however, require cars and oil and quality manufactured goods by the fine folks at 3M and Japanese video games and worldwide internets and, most importantly, governments. All of these things take groups larger than 150 people to maintain effectively. Thus, we routinely find ourselves functioning in bunches larger than our primate brains are able to cope with.
This is where the problems begin. Like a fragile naked human pyramid, we are simultaneously supporting and resenting each other. We bitch out loud about our soul-sucking job as an anonymous face on an assembly line, while at the exact same time riding in a car that only an assembly line could have produced. It's a constant contradiction that has left us pissed off and joining informal wrestling clubs in basements.
This is why I think it was with a great burden of sadness that Darwin turned to his assistant and lamented, "Jeje, we're the monkeys."
"Oh, no you didn't."
If you think about it, our entire society has evolved around the limitations of the Monkeysphere. There is a reason why all of the really phat-ass nations with the biggest SUV's with the shiniest 22-inch rims all have some kind of representative democracy (where you vote for people to do the governing for you) and all of them are, to some degree, capitalist (where people actually get to buy property and keep some of what they earn).
A representative democracy allows a small group of people to make all of the decisions, while letting us common people feel like we're doing something by going to a polling place every couple of years and pulling a lever that, in reality, has about the same effect as the darkness knob on your toaster. We can simultaneously feel like we're in charge while being contained enough that we can't cause any real monkey mayhem once we fly into one of our screeching, arm-flapping monkey frenzies ("A woman showed her boob at the Super Bowl! We want a boob and football ban immediately!")
Conversely, some people in the distant past naively thought they could sit all of the millions of monkeys down and say, "Okay, everybody go pick the bananas, then bring them here, and we'll distribute them with a complex formula determining banana need! Now go gather bananas for the good of society!" For the monkeys it was a confused, comical, tree-humping disaster.
Later, a far more realistic man sat the monkeys down and said, "You want bananas? Each of you go get your own. I'm taking a nap." That man, of course, was German philosopher Hans Capitalism.
As long as everybody gets their own bananas and shares with the few in their Monkeysphere, the system will thrive even though nobody is even trying to make the system thrive. This is perhaps how Ayn Rand would have put it, had she not been such a hateful bitch.
Then, some time in the Third Century, French philosopher Pierre "Frenchy" LaFrench invented racism.
This was a way of simplifying the too-complex-for-monkeys world by imagining all people of a certain race as being the same person, thinking they all have the same attitudes and mannerisms and tastes in food and clothes and music. It sort of works, as long as we think of that person as being a good person ("Those Asians are so hard-working and precise and well-mannered!") but when we start seeing them as being one, giant, gaping asshole (the French, ironically) our monkey happiness again breaks down.
It's not all the French's fault. The truth is, all of these monkey management schemes only go so far. For instance, today one in four Americans has some kind of mental illness, usually depression. One in four. Watch a basketball game. The odds are at least two of those people on the floor are mentally ill. Look around your house; if everybody else there seems okay, it's you.
Is it any surprise? You turn on the news and see a whole special on the Obesity Epidemic. You've had this worry laid on your shoulders about millions of other people eating too much. What exactly are you supposed to do about the eating habits of 80 million people you don't even know? You've taken on the pork-laden burden of all these people outside the Monkeysphere and you now carry that useless weight of worry like, you know, some kind of animal on your back.
"So what exactly are we supposed to do about all this?"
First, train yourself to get suspicious every time you see simplicity. Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.
So reject binary thinking of "good vs. bad" or "us vs. them." Know problems cannot be solved with clever slogans and over-simplified step-by-step programs.
You can do that by following these simple steps. We like to call this plan the T.R.Y. plan:
First, TOTAL MORON. That is, accept the fact THAT YOU ARE ONE. We all are.
That really annoying person you know, the one who's always spouting bullshit, the person who always thinks they're right? Well, the odds are that for somebody else, you're that person. So take the amount you think you know, reduce it by 99.999%, and then you'll have an idea of how much you actually know regarding things outside your Monkeysphere.
Second, UNDERSTAND that there are no Supermonkeys. Just monkeys. Those guys on TV you see, giving the inspirational seminars, teaching you how to reach your potential and become rich and successful like them? You know how they made their money? By giving seminars. For the most part, the only thing they do well is convince others they do everything well.
No, the universal moron principal established in No. 1 above applies here, too. Don't pretend politicians are somehow supposed to be immune to all the backhanded fuckery we all do in our daily lives and don't laugh and point when the preacher gets caught on video snorting cocaine off a prostitute's ass. A good exercise is to picture your hero--whoever it is--passed out on his lawn, naked from the waist down. The odds are it's happened at some point. Even Gandhi may have had hotel rooms and dead hookers in his past.
And don't even think about ignoring advice from a moral teacher just because the source enjoys the ol' Colombian Nose Candy from time to time. We're all members of varying species of hypocrite (or did you tell them at the job interview that you once called in sick to spend a day leveling up on World of Warcraft?) Don't use your heroes' vices as an excuse to let yours run wild.
And finally, DON'T LET ANYBODY simplify it for you. The world cannot be made simple. Anyone who tries to paint a picture of the world in basic comic book colors is most likely trying to use you as a pawn.
So just remember: T-R-Y. Go forth and do likewise, gents. Copies of our book are available in the lobby.
David Wong is the editor of Cracked.com and the author of the dong-filled horror novel John Dies at the End.
What is the Monkeysphere?
By David Wong Sep 30, 2007
"One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic."
-Kevin Federline
What do monkeys have to do with war, oppression, crime, racism and even e-mail spam? You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go Inside the Monkeysphere.
"What the Hell is the Monkeysphere?"
First, picture a monkey. A monkey dressed like a little pirate, if that helps you. We'll call him Slappy.
Imagine you have Slappy as a pet. Imagine a personality for him. Maybe you and he have little pirate monkey adventures and maybe even join up to fight crime. Think how sad you'd be if Slappy died.
Now, imagine you get four more monkeys. We'll call them Tito, Bubbles, Marcel and ShitTosser. Imagine personalities for each of them now. Maybe one is aggressive, one is affectionate, one is quiet, the other just throws shit all the time. But they're all your personal monkey friends.
Now imagine a hundred monkeys.
Not so easy now, is it? So how many monkeys would you have to own before you couldn't remember their names? At what point, in your mind, do your beloved pets become just a faceless sea of monkey? Even though each one is every bit the monkey Slappy was, there's a certain point where you will no longer really care if one of them dies.
So how many monkeys would it take before you stopped caring?
That's not a rhetorical question. We actually know the number.
"So this whole thing is your crusade against monkey overpopulation? I'll have my monkey castrated this very day!"
Uh, no. It'll become clear in a moment.
You see, monkey experts performed a monkey study a while back, and discovered that the size of the monkey's monkey brain determined the size of the monkey groups the monkeys formed. The bigger the brain, the bigger the little societies they built.
They cut up so many monkey brains, in fact, that they found they could actually take a brain they had never seen before and from it they could accurately predict what size tribes that species of creature formed.
Most monkeys operate in troupes of 50 or so. But somebody slipped them a slightly larger brain and they estimated the ideal group or society for this particular animal was about 150.
That brain, of course, was human. Probably from a homeless man they snatched off the streets.
"So that's the big news? That humans are God's big-budget sequel to the monkey? Who didn't know that?"
It goes much, much deeper than that. Let's try an example.
Famous news talking guy Tim Russert tells a charming story about his father, in his book Big Russ and Me (the title referring to his on-and-off romance with actor Russell Crowe). Russert's dad used to take half an hour to carefully box up any broken glass before taking it to the trash. Why? Because "The trash guy might cut his hands."
That this was such an unusual thing to do illustrates my monkey point. None of us spend much time worrying about the garbage man's welfare even though he performs a crucial role in not forcing us to live in a cave carved from a mountain of our own filth. We don't usually consider his safety or comfort at all and if we do, it's not in the same way we would worry over our best friend or wife or girlfriend or even our dog.
People toss half-full bottles of drain cleaner right into the barrel, without a second thought of what would happen if the trash man got it splattered into his eyes. Why? Because the trash guy exists outside the Monkeysphere.
"There's that word again..."
The Monkeysphere is the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number much larger than 150.
Most of us do not have room in our Monkeysphere for our friendly neighborhood sanitation worker. So, we don't think of him as a person. We think of him as The Thing That Makes The Trash Go Away.
And even if you happen to know and like your particular garbage man, at one point or another we all have limits to our sphere of monkey concern. It's the way our brains are built. We each have a certain circle of people who we think of as people, usually our own friends and family and neighbors, and then maybe some classmates or coworkers or church or suicide cult.
Those who exist outside that core group of a few dozen people are not people to us. They're sort of one-dimensional bit characters.
Remember the first time, as a kid, you met one of your school teachers outside the classroom? Maybe you saw old Miss Puckerson at Taco Bell eating refried beans through a straw, or saw your principal walking out of a dildo shop. Do you remember that surreal feeling you had when you saw these people actually had lives outside the classroom?
I mean, they're not people. They're teachers.
"So? What difference does all this make?"
Oh, not much. It's just the one single reason society doesn't work.
It's like this: which would upset you more, your best friend dying, or a dozen kids across town getting killed because their bus collided with a truck hauling killer bees? Which would hit you harder, your Mom dying, or seeing on the news that 15,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran?
They're all humans and they are all equally dead. But the closer to our Monkeysphere they are, the more it means to us. Just as your death won't mean anything to the Chinese or, for that matter, hardly anyone else more than 100 feet or so from where you're sitting right now.
"Why should I feel bad for them? I don't even know those people!"
Exactly. This is so ingrained that to even suggest you should feel their deaths as deeply as that of your best friend sounds a little ridiculous. We are hard-wired to have a drastic double standard for the people inside our Monkeysphere versus the 99.999% of the world's population who are on the outside.
Think about this the next time you get really pissed off in traffic, when you start throwing finger gestures and wedging your head out of the window to scream, "LEARN TO FUCKING DRIVE, FUCKER!!" Try to imagine acting like that in a smaller group. Like if you're standing in an elevator with two friends and a coworker, and the friend goes to hit a button and accidentally punches the wrong one. Would you lean over, your mouth two inches from her ear, and scream "LEARN TO OPERATE THE FUCKING ELEVATOR BUTTONS, SHITCAMEL!!"
They'd think you'd gone insane. We all go a little insane, though, when we get in a group larger than the Monkeysphere. That's why you get that weird feeling of anonymous invincibility when you're sitting in a large crowd, screaming curses at a football player you'd never dare say to his face.
"Well, I'm nice to strangers. Have you considered that maybe you're just an asshole?"
Sure, you probably don't go out of your way to be mean to strangers. You don't go out of your way to be mean to stray dogs, either.
The problem is that eventually, the needs of you or those within your Monkeysphere will require screwing someone outside it (even if that need is just venting some tension and anger via exaggerated insults). This is why most of us wouldn't dream of stealing money from the pocket of the old lady next door, but don't mind stealing cable, adding a shady exemption on our tax return, or quietly celebrating when they forget to charge us for something at the restaurant.
You may have a list of rationalizations long enough to circle the Earth, but the truth is that in our monkey brains the old woman next door is a human being while the cable company is a big, cold, faceless machine. That the company is, in reality, nothing but a group of people every bit as human as the old lady, or that some kind old ladies actually work there and would lose their jobs if enough cable were stolen, rarely occurs to us.
That's one of the ingenious things about the big-time religions, by the way. The old religious writers knew it was easier to put the screws to a stranger, so they taught us to get a personal idea of a God in our heads who says, "No matter who you hurt, you're really hurting me. Also, I can crush you like a grape." You must admit that if they weren't writing words inspired by the Almighty, they at least understood the Monkeysphere.
It's everywhere. Once you grasp the concept, you can see examples all around you. You'll walk the streets in a daze, like Roddy Piper after putting on his X-ray sunglasses in They Live.
But wait, because this gets much bigger and much, much stranger...
"So you're going to tell us that this Monkeysphere thing runs the whole world? Also, They Live sucked."
Go flip on the radio. Listen to the conservative talk about "The Government" as if it were some huge, lurking dragon ready to eat you and your paycheck whole. Never mind that the government is made up of people and that all of that money they take goes into the pockets of human beings. Talk radio's Rush Limbaugh is known to tip 50% at restaurants, but flies into a broadcast tirade if even half that dollar amount is deducted from his paycheck by "The Government." That's despite the fact that the money helps that very same single mom he had no problem tipping in her capacity as a waitress.
Now click over to a liberal show now, listen to them describe "Multinational Corporations" in the same diabolical terms, an evil black force that belches smoke and poisons water and enslaves humanity. Isn't it strange how, say, a lone man who carves and sells children's toys in his basement is a sweetheart who just loves bringing joy at Christmas, but a big-time toy corporation (which brings toys to millions of kids at Christmas) is an inhuman soul-grinding greed machine? Strangely enough, if the kindly lone toy making guy made enough toys and hired enough people and expanded to enough shops, we'd eventually stop seeing it as a toy-making shop and start seeing it as the fiery Orc factories of Mordor.
And if you've just thought, "Well, those talk show hosts are just a bunch of egomaniacal blowhards anyway," you've just done it again, turned real humans into two-word cartoon characters. It's no surprise, you do it with pretty much all six billion human beings outside the Monkeysphere.
"So I'm supposed to suddenly start worrying about six billion strangers? That's not even possible!"
That's right, it isn't possible. That's the point.
What is hard to understand is that it's also impossible for them to care about you.
That's why they don't mind stealing your stereo or vandalizing your house or cutting your wages or raising your taxes or bombing your office building or choking your computer with spam advertising diet and penis drugs they know don't work. You're outside their Monkeysphere. In their mind, you're just a vague shape with a pocket full of money for the taking.
Think of Osama Bin Laden. Did you just picture a camouflaged man hiding in a cave, drawing up suicide missions? Or are you thinking of a man who gets hungry and has a favorite food and who had a childhood crush on a girl and who has athlete's foot and chronic headaches and wakes up in the morning with a boner and loves volleyball?
Something in you, just now, probably was offended by that. You think there's an effort to build sympathy for the murderous fuck. Isn't it strange how simply knowing random human facts about him immediately tugs at your sympathy strings? He comes closer to your Monkeysphere, he takes on dimension.
Now, the cold truth is this Bin Laden is just as desperately in need of a bullet to the skull as the raving four-color caricature on some redneck's T-shirt. The key to understanding people like him, though, is realizing that we are the caricature on his T-shirt.
"So you're using monkeys to claim that we're all a bunch of Osama Bin Ladens?"
Sort of.
Listen to any 16 year-old kid with his first job, going on and on about how the boss is screwing him and the government is screwing him even more ("What's FICA?!?!" he screams as he looks at his first paycheck).
Then watch that same kid at work, as he drops a hamburger patty on the floor, picks it up, and slaps in on a bun and serves it to a customer.
In that one dropped burger he has everything he needs to understand those black-hearted politicians and corporate bosses. They see him in the exact same way he sees the customers lined up at the burger counter. Which is, just barely.
In both cases, for the guy making the burger and the guy running Exxon, getting through the workweek and collecting the paycheck are all that matters. No thought is given to the real human unhappiness being spread by doing it shittily (ever gotten so sick from food poisoning you thought your stomach lining was going to fly out of your mouth?) That many customers or employees just can't fit inside the Monkeysphere.
The kid will protest that he shouldn't have to care for the customers for minimum wage, but the truth is if a man doesn't feel sympathy for his fellow man at $6.00 an hour, he won't feel anything more at $600,000 a year.
Or, to look at it the other way, if we're allowed to be indifferent and even resentful to the masses for $6.00 an hour, just think of how angry the some Pakistani man is allowed to be when he's making the equivalent of six dollars a week.
"You've used the word 'monkey' more than 50 times, but the same principle hardly applies. Humans have been to the moon. Let's see the monkeys do that."
It doesn't matter. It's just an issue of degree.
There's a reason why legendary monkeytician Charles Darwin and his assistant, Jeje (pronounced "heyhey") Santiago deduced that humans and chimps were evolutionary cousins. As sophisticated as we are (compare our advanced sewage treatment plants to the chimps' primitive technique of hurling the feces with their bare hands), the inescapable truth is we are just as limited by our mental hardware.
The primary difference is that monkeys are happy to stay in small groups and rarely interact with others outside their monkey gang. This is why they rarely go to war, though when they do it is widely thought to be hilarious. Humans, however, require cars and oil and quality manufactured goods by the fine folks at 3M and Japanese video games and worldwide internets and, most importantly, governments. All of these things take groups larger than 150 people to maintain effectively. Thus, we routinely find ourselves functioning in bunches larger than our primate brains are able to cope with.
This is where the problems begin. Like a fragile naked human pyramid, we are simultaneously supporting and resenting each other. We bitch out loud about our soul-sucking job as an anonymous face on an assembly line, while at the exact same time riding in a car that only an assembly line could have produced. It's a constant contradiction that has left us pissed off and joining informal wrestling clubs in basements.
This is why I think it was with a great burden of sadness that Darwin turned to his assistant and lamented, "Jeje, we're the monkeys."
"Oh, no you didn't."
If you think about it, our entire society has evolved around the limitations of the Monkeysphere. There is a reason why all of the really phat-ass nations with the biggest SUV's with the shiniest 22-inch rims all have some kind of representative democracy (where you vote for people to do the governing for you) and all of them are, to some degree, capitalist (where people actually get to buy property and keep some of what they earn).
A representative democracy allows a small group of people to make all of the decisions, while letting us common people feel like we're doing something by going to a polling place every couple of years and pulling a lever that, in reality, has about the same effect as the darkness knob on your toaster. We can simultaneously feel like we're in charge while being contained enough that we can't cause any real monkey mayhem once we fly into one of our screeching, arm-flapping monkey frenzies ("A woman showed her boob at the Super Bowl! We want a boob and football ban immediately!")
Conversely, some people in the distant past naively thought they could sit all of the millions of monkeys down and say, "Okay, everybody go pick the bananas, then bring them here, and we'll distribute them with a complex formula determining banana need! Now go gather bananas for the good of society!" For the monkeys it was a confused, comical, tree-humping disaster.
Later, a far more realistic man sat the monkeys down and said, "You want bananas? Each of you go get your own. I'm taking a nap." That man, of course, was German philosopher Hans Capitalism.
As long as everybody gets their own bananas and shares with the few in their Monkeysphere, the system will thrive even though nobody is even trying to make the system thrive. This is perhaps how Ayn Rand would have put it, had she not been such a hateful bitch.
Then, some time in the Third Century, French philosopher Pierre "Frenchy" LaFrench invented racism.
This was a way of simplifying the too-complex-for-monkeys world by imagining all people of a certain race as being the same person, thinking they all have the same attitudes and mannerisms and tastes in food and clothes and music. It sort of works, as long as we think of that person as being a good person ("Those Asians are so hard-working and precise and well-mannered!") but when we start seeing them as being one, giant, gaping asshole (the French, ironically) our monkey happiness again breaks down.
It's not all the French's fault. The truth is, all of these monkey management schemes only go so far. For instance, today one in four Americans has some kind of mental illness, usually depression. One in four. Watch a basketball game. The odds are at least two of those people on the floor are mentally ill. Look around your house; if everybody else there seems okay, it's you.
Is it any surprise? You turn on the news and see a whole special on the Obesity Epidemic. You've had this worry laid on your shoulders about millions of other people eating too much. What exactly are you supposed to do about the eating habits of 80 million people you don't even know? You've taken on the pork-laden burden of all these people outside the Monkeysphere and you now carry that useless weight of worry like, you know, some kind of animal on your back.
"So what exactly are we supposed to do about all this?"
First, train yourself to get suspicious every time you see simplicity. Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.
So reject binary thinking of "good vs. bad" or "us vs. them." Know problems cannot be solved with clever slogans and over-simplified step-by-step programs.
You can do that by following these simple steps. We like to call this plan the T.R.Y. plan:
First, TOTAL MORON. That is, accept the fact THAT YOU ARE ONE. We all are.
That really annoying person you know, the one who's always spouting bullshit, the person who always thinks they're right? Well, the odds are that for somebody else, you're that person. So take the amount you think you know, reduce it by 99.999%, and then you'll have an idea of how much you actually know regarding things outside your Monkeysphere.
Second, UNDERSTAND that there are no Supermonkeys. Just monkeys. Those guys on TV you see, giving the inspirational seminars, teaching you how to reach your potential and become rich and successful like them? You know how they made their money? By giving seminars. For the most part, the only thing they do well is convince others they do everything well.
No, the universal moron principal established in No. 1 above applies here, too. Don't pretend politicians are somehow supposed to be immune to all the backhanded fuckery we all do in our daily lives and don't laugh and point when the preacher gets caught on video snorting cocaine off a prostitute's ass. A good exercise is to picture your hero--whoever it is--passed out on his lawn, naked from the waist down. The odds are it's happened at some point. Even Gandhi may have had hotel rooms and dead hookers in his past.
And don't even think about ignoring advice from a moral teacher just because the source enjoys the ol' Colombian Nose Candy from time to time. We're all members of varying species of hypocrite (or did you tell them at the job interview that you once called in sick to spend a day leveling up on World of Warcraft?) Don't use your heroes' vices as an excuse to let yours run wild.
And finally, DON'T LET ANYBODY simplify it for you. The world cannot be made simple. Anyone who tries to paint a picture of the world in basic comic book colors is most likely trying to use you as a pawn.
So just remember: T-R-Y. Go forth and do likewise, gents. Copies of our book are available in the lobby.
David Wong is the editor of Cracked.com and the author of the dong-filled horror novel John Dies at the End.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
When to move on?
Patch 3.3.2 hit the servers today, and that means Arthas can finally be defeated. All across the world, guild after guild is pushing their way through the citidel to match up against the villianous Lich King and find glory in his final defeat.
Not my guild however. My guild is still ironing out the wrinkles in our raid team. While I show up to main tank every raid, the offtank position is constantly rotating, as well as some healer and DPS positions. We are still learning to work together as a unit and progress through content we haven't yet defeated. All of this means, we are still fighting through Trial of the Crusader. And, no, we haven't successfullly completed it yet.
I admit ICC scares me. We have enough gear for the content, thanks to the Dungeon Finder and Emblem system. We have people who will get nothing from ToC but progression and experience, which is exactly why I am adamant about staying where we are and learning to defeat ToC before we take on ICC. And therein lies the problem.
I've seen many a player jump ship and move on to a guild that was further along progression-wise. They get frustrated and bored with being defeated by the same content week after week. They know they're ready for more and they begin to feel held back by those around them.
As a guildleader, I need to be able to recognize this issue and force a jump in content when it's time. The only problem with that is if the team fails in the earlier content, how successful will they be in the most current content? We made jumps in the past, not quite finishing Naxx before jumping into Ulduar. Not finishing Ulduar before moving into ToC. But now with only five boss fights and no trash, I feel like this needs to be done before moving on.
I know I could be wrong in that assessment and I may have to move into ICC before we finish ToC just to keep people satisfied with their chosen guild. But failure in ICC could then be seen as a sign that this guild cannot complete the content. And that leads to the mist dedicated raiders looking for more dedicated guilds. That hurts the raid team and the guild as a whole. No one is leaving yet. No one has expressed a desire to leave. But Ive been in this position before and people get impatient when they see others successful while they are failing, and can anyone really blame them for looking to better their game experience?
With Arthas now in the game, other guilds will defeat him. The timer is now ticking. Either we get it done now or we have to move onto ICC.
Not my guild however. My guild is still ironing out the wrinkles in our raid team. While I show up to main tank every raid, the offtank position is constantly rotating, as well as some healer and DPS positions. We are still learning to work together as a unit and progress through content we haven't yet defeated. All of this means, we are still fighting through Trial of the Crusader. And, no, we haven't successfullly completed it yet.
I admit ICC scares me. We have enough gear for the content, thanks to the Dungeon Finder and Emblem system. We have people who will get nothing from ToC but progression and experience, which is exactly why I am adamant about staying where we are and learning to defeat ToC before we take on ICC. And therein lies the problem.
I've seen many a player jump ship and move on to a guild that was further along progression-wise. They get frustrated and bored with being defeated by the same content week after week. They know they're ready for more and they begin to feel held back by those around them.
As a guildleader, I need to be able to recognize this issue and force a jump in content when it's time. The only problem with that is if the team fails in the earlier content, how successful will they be in the most current content? We made jumps in the past, not quite finishing Naxx before jumping into Ulduar. Not finishing Ulduar before moving into ToC. But now with only five boss fights and no trash, I feel like this needs to be done before moving on.
I know I could be wrong in that assessment and I may have to move into ICC before we finish ToC just to keep people satisfied with their chosen guild. But failure in ICC could then be seen as a sign that this guild cannot complete the content. And that leads to the mist dedicated raiders looking for more dedicated guilds. That hurts the raid team and the guild as a whole. No one is leaving yet. No one has expressed a desire to leave. But Ive been in this position before and people get impatient when they see others successful while they are failing, and can anyone really blame them for looking to better their game experience?
With Arthas now in the game, other guilds will defeat him. The timer is now ticking. Either we get it done now or we have to move onto ICC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)