Hannity, Beck Savage New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 10-05-04 Junkie Nation III
If you can not defend America at $17.25 an hour then you can not defend America.
I was listening to Tammy Bruce discuss the Los Angeles grocery store strike. Now that she is a conservative she is uncomfortable taking up the worker’s side but she did not want to take up with management either. (The strike was over a slight increase in the portion of the health insurance costs the workers would pay. Though the amount was not large the union leadership judged it a bad precedent that the workers should be made to pay more. (Health insurance is an interesting example of where all the lies and hypocrisy of the political establishment are shown up for what they are.))
So Tammy Bruce took a middle position by pointing out that the average worker’s wage was “only” $17.25, under the contract. The wage was not in dispute in the strike, but she wanted to know, “Why would you settle for only $17.25?” She demanded of her audience, “Don’t you want anything better? Are you going to settle for that?” she mocked.
This is a line we get from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Weiner, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, but most of all Don Imus, discussing his limos and jets and mansions. The ‘How come you are not rich like us?’ challenge.
Now dears, $17.25 is slightly above the national medium. True, half the workers earn more, but also half the workers earn less. And here you have the reason why these imposters are not really conservatives, or even the “patriotic” Americans that they claim to be.
They are, with their superior ability, drive, ambition, (or was it just luck?), contemptuous of the rest. They defend the Free Enterprise System only because they have millions.
There is nothing wrong with striving. Strive! An individual can always strive to “get ahead.” Even whole societies can try to better themselves. But for all your effort you can not undo the laws of the universe. There will always be a top and a middle and sad to say a bottom. (This is why none of them will discuss the Bell Curve or even the general topic of the genetic origins of cognitive ability. They can not admit that there are limits on what can be achieved. As noted earlier, (See Clones 2nd Edition at the Max Weber Institute), it is typically American to insist that “All men are created equal,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.)
In other words there will always be a medium wage. If you can not justify living in America at $17.25 an hour then you can not justify America. And saying, ‘OK, that is fine for starters but to get ahead . . . or yes, but the opportunities are really what make America great, etc. etc.’ are all merely evasions. Some individuals may rise up above the medium, but by definition there will always be a medium. (This is why Economics is a tautology.) That America can be justified for ordinary citizens living decent ordinary lives at $14 an hour, or $11.25, or $5.75, etc. would simply not occur to them. Just as admitting that the national average I. Q. is 100 seems Un-American so too “settling” for an “ordinary” job making an “average” income also seems vaguely unpatriotic.
The problem with these carnival barkers and hucksters is that their “patriotism,” their “conservatism ,” is phony. Their insistence on the “American Values,” of “success,” “achievement,” and “American optimism,” has been bought. One suspects that if they were not multi-millionaires they would not feel that “America is the greatest country in the world.”
Some of them are clearly ill at ease discussing ordinary Americans, and their ordinary concerns. Bruce’s incomprehension that half of America would not only “accept” $17.25 but would rejoice over it, revel in it, spend the weekend celebrating that they had reached a point in their lives that they could make so much, is an example. Michael Weiner found himself, (when he was still a “compassionate conservative,” before he became an “independent nationalist”), trying to defend the minimum wage. He was apparently aware that as a conservative he should be against the minimum wage but like Bruce, (both former leftists, homosexuals, looking for a niche in the radio business), he could not bring himself to oppose it.
He could only ask his conservative listeners to have “some heart.” He simply could not think through the problem on any other level. “You know, you conservatives, it is not all with your head . . .” he whined.
How might a real conservative defend the minimum wage? If you were really a conservative and not just pretending to be one to get a radio gig, you might start by recognizing that conservatives are not libertarians. We recognize that the state may have to interpose itself to restore balance in society. This is especially so when the state has interfered in society and disrupted the social balance.
Unlike libertarians we do not have religious scruples about using the power of the state. We have time and again pointed out all the ways the elites have taken over the power of the state for their own ends. They have used the state to block entry into markets, created monopolies, erected barriers to the entry into the professions, and even ordinary occupations such as beauticians, and street cart vending. Regulations have been piled up on every area of life and the tax code is annually churned just to guarantee its utter incomprehensibility. Actual traffic barriers have been erected to keep the vulgar mass out, and zoning codes guarantee the elite control over not only their property but everyone else’s property as well.
School districts are tightly regulated to make sure stray students do not cross over the boundaries that the zoning codes are indented to establish. We do not want our little darlings to go to school with the wrong sort! Still we call them “public schools.” For generations they were unequally funded not withstanding the claim of “public” and our conceits about free, open and equal, etc. etc. Even now no one would claim these “public” schools are equal and the bureaucracy and unions maintain a strangle hold to prevent innovation.
Well, one could go on, . . . suffices to say that the powerful have manifold control over all the organs of society and the combined effect is to stifle the market and limit the freedom of the people. Therefore, simply setting a minimum wage, an admittedly small counter balance, a pitifully small counter balance, is hopefully only a step to redressing the injustice wrought in the abuse of state power for the special interests of the elite.
But to make these arguments Michael Weiner would have to have genuinely thought about these social political economic issues. But Michael Weiner is a fraud. He just wanted a right wing radio niche. So he used the argument he might have used when he was wooing Ginsberg, “heart, man, you got to have heart.” He could not make these arguments because he really does not care about any of these issues. He is lost in his own “fat relentless ego.”
Alan Watts said that Americans insisted that all men are created equal because if it should turn out that they are, in fact, not equal, America will feel disappointed. They would feel humanity had let them down. As we have explained this is certainly true of Bill O’Reilly, but it is even more so true of Hannity and Beck.
Both have public humiliation days when they hold ordinary Americans up to ridicule. Hannity does a “Man on the Street Interview,” and Beck has his “Moron Jeopardy.” Both seek to demonstrate how stupid people are, with Beck usually shouting, “And these are the people who will decide the election.”
All the hosts have segments where they demonstrate the stupidity of the human race by reading the answers to questionnaires. Typically they conclude by saying, “and 20% didn’t even know that . . . etc.” High School students are a common source of amusement. Yet these repeated, boringly repeated segments all arise from the same source. They all simply refuse to accept the bell curve distribution of cognitive ability just as they reject the distribution of income.
Limbaugh has often used the teacher competency test as an example of the general stupidity of mankind. (Mr. Limbaugh has it in for schools, which he pronounces “screwools” as in “screw” the schools. He has many times explained that he acted out in school and appears never to have established a respect for, or appreciation of, learning.)
But teacher competency testing perfectly illustrates the problems that arise if one is unwilling to accept the limitations of human existence. My understanding of conservatism is that to be truly called a conservative one must firstly recognize reality, and the limitations reality imposes on the policy maker.
Question: If the teacher competency test were designed so that only the average student in the graduating college class passed the exam, how many of the teachers would have passed?
Answer: Almost none.
Why? Because teachers are all most all of them drawn from the bottom third of the graduating college class. The tests have been “dumbed down” because of this reason: you would not have any teachers if the test were more difficult.
This failure to comprehend the reality of the human situation is not limited to radio carnival barkers and hucksters. The high school diploma suffers for the same reason. The average I. Q. of 100 is not sufficient to be competitive for college. This is a fact of human existence. But the stupid American insistence that “All men are created equal,” utterly confuses the public discussion. If you prepare the students for college, 75% will fail. If you have a curriculum for the middle 50%, still 25% will fail and the top 25% will not be challenged. You need a different curriculum for the different, may I say unequal?, students, may I say human beings?
But the point I want to leave you with is this: Can you not see that the same egotism of the carnival barkers that caused them to ridicule the average wage, also causes them to ridicule the average I. Q.? 100 is the average. You need to be one full standard deviation above the mean, 115, to qualify for even being considered “marginal college material,” according to Dr. Charles Murray.
Counselor: So you were lucky?
Boy, don’t I know it ------ Yvonne!
Counselor: What?
This stuff is confidential.
Counselor: Oh, sorry.
Only 25% of the population is above 115. Again, I say, if you can not justify America for people with I. Q.s between 85 and 115, that is 50% of the population then you can not justify America. Can you not see that it is the same issue?
Whose country is this? For whom are we arranging things? The top 25% or the bottom 75%?
I know I over used this word, but you are hypocrites.
Your smarmy smirking about your own “success,” your gloating pride in your “achievement” at “this point in my life,” etc. etc. is hucksterism, because you will not recognize the reality of the situation ---- out – side – your – fing – egos.
And this is why you are not really conservatives. . . . .
full text at www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 10-05-04 Junkie Nation III
If you can not defend America at $17.25 an hour then you can not defend America.
I was listening to Tammy Bruce discuss the Los Angeles grocery store strike. Now that she is a conservative she is uncomfortable taking up the worker’s side but she did not want to take up with management either. (The strike was over a slight increase in the portion of the health insurance costs the workers would pay. Though the amount was not large the union leadership judged it a bad precedent that the workers should be made to pay more. (Health insurance is an interesting example of where all the lies and hypocrisy of the political establishment are shown up for what they are.))
So Tammy Bruce took a middle position by pointing out that the average worker’s wage was “only” $17.25, under the contract. The wage was not in dispute in the strike, but she wanted to know, “Why would you settle for only $17.25?” She demanded of her audience, “Don’t you want anything better? Are you going to settle for that?” she mocked.
This is a line we get from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Weiner, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, but most of all Don Imus, discussing his limos and jets and mansions. The ‘How come you are not rich like us?’ challenge.
Now dears, $17.25 is slightly above the national medium. True, half the workers earn more, but also half the workers earn less. And here you have the reason why these imposters are not really conservatives, or even the “patriotic” Americans that they claim to be.
They are, with their superior ability, drive, ambition, (or was it just luck?), contemptuous of the rest. They defend the Free Enterprise System only because they have millions.
There is nothing wrong with striving. Strive! An individual can always strive to “get ahead.” Even whole societies can try to better themselves. But for all your effort you can not undo the laws of the universe. There will always be a top and a middle and sad to say a bottom. (This is why none of them will discuss the Bell Curve or even the general topic of the genetic origins of cognitive ability. They can not admit that there are limits on what can be achieved. As noted earlier, (See Clones 2nd Edition at the Max Weber Institute), it is typically American to insist that “All men are created equal,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.)
In other words there will always be a medium wage. If you can not justify living in America at $17.25 an hour then you can not justify America. And saying, ‘OK, that is fine for starters but to get ahead . . . or yes, but the opportunities are really what make America great, etc. etc.’ are all merely evasions. Some individuals may rise up above the medium, but by definition there will always be a medium. (This is why Economics is a tautology.) That America can be justified for ordinary citizens living decent ordinary lives at $14 an hour, or $11.25, or $5.75, etc. would simply not occur to them. Just as admitting that the national average I. Q. is 100 seems Un-American so too “settling” for an “ordinary” job making an “average” income also seems vaguely unpatriotic.
The problem with these carnival barkers and hucksters is that their “patriotism,” their “conservatism ,” is phony. Their insistence on the “American Values,” of “success,” “achievement,” and “American optimism,” has been bought. One suspects that if they were not multi-millionaires they would not feel that “America is the greatest country in the world.”
Some of them are clearly ill at ease discussing ordinary Americans, and their ordinary concerns. Bruce’s incomprehension that half of America would not only “accept” $17.25 but would rejoice over it, revel in it, spend the weekend celebrating that they had reached a point in their lives that they could make so much, is an example. Michael Weiner found himself, (when he was still a “compassionate conservative,” before he became an “independent nationalist”), trying to defend the minimum wage. He was apparently aware that as a conservative he should be against the minimum wage but like Bruce, (both former leftists, homosexuals, looking for a niche in the radio business), he could not bring himself to oppose it.
He could only ask his conservative listeners to have “some heart.” He simply could not think through the problem on any other level. “You know, you conservatives, it is not all with your head . . .” he whined.
How might a real conservative defend the minimum wage? If you were really a conservative and not just pretending to be one to get a radio gig, you might start by recognizing that conservatives are not libertarians. We recognize that the state may have to interpose itself to restore balance in society. This is especially so when the state has interfered in society and disrupted the social balance.
Unlike libertarians we do not have religious scruples about using the power of the state. We have time and again pointed out all the ways the elites have taken over the power of the state for their own ends. They have used the state to block entry into markets, created monopolies, erected barriers to the entry into the professions, and even ordinary occupations such as beauticians, and street cart vending. Regulations have been piled up on every area of life and the tax code is annually churned just to guarantee its utter incomprehensibility. Actual traffic barriers have been erected to keep the vulgar mass out, and zoning codes guarantee the elite control over not only their property but everyone else’s property as well.
School districts are tightly regulated to make sure stray students do not cross over the boundaries that the zoning codes are indented to establish. We do not want our little darlings to go to school with the wrong sort! Still we call them “public schools.” For generations they were unequally funded not withstanding the claim of “public” and our conceits about free, open and equal, etc. etc. Even now no one would claim these “public” schools are equal and the bureaucracy and unions maintain a strangle hold to prevent innovation.
Well, one could go on, . . . suffices to say that the powerful have manifold control over all the organs of society and the combined effect is to stifle the market and limit the freedom of the people. Therefore, simply setting a minimum wage, an admittedly small counter balance, a pitifully small counter balance, is hopefully only a step to redressing the injustice wrought in the abuse of state power for the special interests of the elite.
But to make these arguments Michael Weiner would have to have genuinely thought about these social political economic issues. But Michael Weiner is a fraud. He just wanted a right wing radio niche. So he used the argument he might have used when he was wooing Ginsberg, “heart, man, you got to have heart.” He could not make these arguments because he really does not care about any of these issues. He is lost in his own “fat relentless ego.”
Alan Watts said that Americans insisted that all men are created equal because if it should turn out that they are, in fact, not equal, America will feel disappointed. They would feel humanity had let them down. As we have explained this is certainly true of Bill O’Reilly, but it is even more so true of Hannity and Beck.
Both have public humiliation days when they hold ordinary Americans up to ridicule. Hannity does a “Man on the Street Interview,” and Beck has his “Moron Jeopardy.” Both seek to demonstrate how stupid people are, with Beck usually shouting, “And these are the people who will decide the election.”
All the hosts have segments where they demonstrate the stupidity of the human race by reading the answers to questionnaires. Typically they conclude by saying, “and 20% didn’t even know that . . . etc.” High School students are a common source of amusement. Yet these repeated, boringly repeated segments all arise from the same source. They all simply refuse to accept the bell curve distribution of cognitive ability just as they reject the distribution of income.
Limbaugh has often used the teacher competency test as an example of the general stupidity of mankind. (Mr. Limbaugh has it in for schools, which he pronounces “screwools” as in “screw” the schools. He has many times explained that he acted out in school and appears never to have established a respect for, or appreciation of, learning.)
But teacher competency testing perfectly illustrates the problems that arise if one is unwilling to accept the limitations of human existence. My understanding of conservatism is that to be truly called a conservative one must firstly recognize reality, and the limitations reality imposes on the policy maker.
Question: If the teacher competency test were designed so that only the average student in the graduating college class passed the exam, how many of the teachers would have passed?
Answer: Almost none.
Why? Because teachers are all most all of them drawn from the bottom third of the graduating college class. The tests have been “dumbed down” because of this reason: you would not have any teachers if the test were more difficult.
This failure to comprehend the reality of the human situation is not limited to radio carnival barkers and hucksters. The high school diploma suffers for the same reason. The average I. Q. of 100 is not sufficient to be competitive for college. This is a fact of human existence. But the stupid American insistence that “All men are created equal,” utterly confuses the public discussion. If you prepare the students for college, 75% will fail. If you have a curriculum for the middle 50%, still 25% will fail and the top 25% will not be challenged. You need a different curriculum for the different, may I say unequal?, students, may I say human beings?
But the point I want to leave you with is this: Can you not see that the same egotism of the carnival barkers that caused them to ridicule the average wage, also causes them to ridicule the average I. Q.? 100 is the average. You need to be one full standard deviation above the mean, 115, to qualify for even being considered “marginal college material,” according to Dr. Charles Murray.
Counselor: So you were lucky?
Boy, don’t I know it ------ Yvonne!
Counselor: What?
This stuff is confidential.
Counselor: Oh, sorry.
Only 25% of the population is above 115. Again, I say, if you can not justify America for people with I. Q.s between 85 and 115, that is 50% of the population then you can not justify America. Can you not see that it is the same issue?
Whose country is this? For whom are we arranging things? The top 25% or the bottom 75%?
I know I over used this word, but you are hypocrites.
Your smarmy smirking about your own “success,” your gloating pride in your “achievement” at “this point in my life,” etc. etc. is hucksterism, because you will not recognize the reality of the situation ---- out – side – your – fing – egos.
And this is why you are not really conservatives. . . . .
full text at www.NewRuskinCollege.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home