Contributors

Monday, August 19, 2013

Hometown Epiphanies

I just got back from a visit to the town where I grew up in Wisconsin. My mom still lives there and has since we moved there from Missouri in 1973. Forty years...wow...where did the time go?

I spent most of the weekend with my hometown buddies and, as is usually the case, had a political discussion with my childhood chum named Paul. I love Paul like a brother and have known him since we were both kids but he is, without a doubt, the poster child for the Tea Party. He is loud, quick tempered, weighs 300 pounds, has a pathological distrust and hatred of the federal government, and lives with his mother.

I mention the last bit because someone somewhere needs to commission a study on conservatives regarding the following hypothesis: the political emotion of your modern day conservative is fueled by unresolved issues from adolescence stemming from a fundamental breakdown in their relationship with one or both parents. This, in turn, leads to massively irrational behavior that quite frankly helps to exacerbate the problems we have in this country largely by the blunt force of inaction but also by them being...well...assholes.

I've been talking about this for awhile but as I sat and listened to Paul's mouth foaming about the federal government "worming its way into every aspect of our lives" and our country falling apart (any day now), several ideas coalesced for me. I started to think about all the people I know who are conservative and, as I have stated previously, all behave, in many ways, like they are 12-14 years old. This is especially true when they talk about politics. It's one long adolescent temper tantrum and stomp down the hallway because "they don't wanna!" Since I now have a teenager in the house, it's all very familiar.

But I knew all this before so quickly moving on from that, I realized how many of the conservatives I know (as well as many that I don't know personally) clearly have very serious mommy and daddy issues. I started to count how many still lived at home with the parents and went over the list with my wife in the car on the way back to Minnesota. She laughed as the number got higher and higher. It didn't matter what age they were...far too many did.

Science tells me, however, that this is merely anecdotal, hence the reason why a study needs to be undertaken. Unlike my colleagues on the right, I'm not going to fall prey to the logical fallacies of hasty generalizations or misleading vividness. At this point, it is merely an observation. Consider how the ensuing study and results would be fascinating. They could ask for volunteers from the comments section of The Smallest Minority (I wonder how many of them live at home with their parents) or my own comments section:)

So, the mommy and daddy stuff lead me to the idea that your modern day conservative is very insecure about themselves and their lives. They are probably pissed off about their perceived lack of control in their lives (I say perceived because no one is forcing them to live at home with their parents) and the federal government is the perfect whipping boy with which they can spew all their unresolved life issues upon. Suddenly, everything is the government's fault, not their own. Ironically, they scream about victim culture when they themselves behave in the same way. Further, they have not come to terms with the fact that they are not in control of everything that happens to them and, like your average adolescent, don't take too kindly to being told that there are rules that we have to follow in society if it's going to be a decent place to live.

People like Paul also bring new meaning to the word stubborn. Compromise is the filthiest word in their language and when they don't wanna, they really don't wanna! In fact, Paul told me that he, along with the rest of his fellow Tea Partiers in Wisconsin, don't care if they ever win the White House again. They more or less have a lock on the House and will do everything they can to keep it that way. This jibes with what I have asserted previously. They don't care about winning elections as long as they remain pure.

In many ways, the whole conversation with him made me quite sad because a very key assertion of mine was finally confirmed. Conservatives are so afraid of irrelevance that they are now hysterical. We went down the list of all of the problems we have in this country and his answer to every one was basically do nothing. Clearly, he was frightened of any sort of success by Democrats and other liberal types as massive demonization went on throughout the entire conversation. Doing anything meant the apocalypse.

What a way to view the world...


31 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

I love Paul like a brother and have known him since we were both kids but he is, without a doubt, the poster child for the Tea Party. He is loud, quick tempered, weighs 300 pounds, has a pathological distrust and hatred of the federal government, and lives with his mother.

Wouldn't it be funny if Paul was a real person?

I think it is kinda childish to still have imaginary friends at your age.

Mark Ward said...

I write from my heart, juris, and I don't make up the people who I write about. Sadly, they are real. I know you don't want them to be real because then you'd have to admit a few things but they are.

Juris Imprudent said...

I just don't believe you, that's all. Every "person" you write about is a caricature. It is of course possible that such people actually exist, it is even possible that you honestly know each and every one.

Is it likely?

Now, even if these specific people are real and not just literary figments of your imagination, does it say anything more in general about OTHER people that you DON'T know? No it does not. All it says is that you are a fucking bigoted little toad with too little ability to think and much too much ability to feel smug and superior.

Nowhere does it involve me in the slightest.

Mark Ward said...

I'm not going to expose people's personal lives on here, juris. That matters more to me than your belief that these people aren't real. I assure they are and if there is every any embellishing done, it's to make them look better, not worse. They, along with most conservatives, do a fine job of being complete shithead all by themselves.

Juris Imprudent said...

I'm not going to expose people's personal lives on here, juris.

I love Paul like a brother and have known him since we were both kids but he is, without a doubt, the poster child for the Tea Party. He is loud, quick tempered, weighs 300 pounds, has a pathological distrust and hatred of the federal government, and lives with his mother.

So, I guess because you don't mention Paul's last name, address and SS#, you haven't actually described his personal life.

Once again, if you were at all reflective, you might wonder at how it is that you assert such personal superiority over all of those people. I can rest assured that you won't lose a minutes sleep over the matter.

Mark Ward said...

So, I guess because you don't mention Paul's last name, address and SS#, you haven't actually described his personal life.

Yep, that's right. I would think a libertarian like you would want to preserve privacy.

Juris Imprudent said...

Yep, that's right.

Childish and dishonest, as usual.

Larry said...

Actually, juris it's very likely that Paul's privacy is assured. If he's real, there's probably no one who actually knows him that would recognize him from this Picasso-like caricature. Although it really has the feel of a Stephen Glass character to me, but written as a Bulwer-Lytton entry.

Mark Ward said...

Another thing that was really sad was how much he sounded like a TSM commenter when I talked to him. The pathological hatred of the federal government makes no sense to me.

Larry, your biggest problem is not caricatures. Your biggest problem...the Achilles heel of the Right today...is that you actually are that fucking bad. To quote a recent Reuters piece on the GOP voting to control their debates...

"Republicans do have a debate problem. Debates often expose their candidates as outside the mainstream on issues like climate change and evolution and contraception and immigration and rape and safety net programs. The reason for that is that many Republican candidates are outside the mainstream on issues like climate change and evolution and contraception and immigration and rape and safety net programs.

It looks like Republicans are trying to hide something. But the debates are not the party’s problem. The party is the party’s problem"

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/20/but-can-the-gop-revise-the-party/

This will be a post soon...

Juris Imprudent said...

The pathological hatred of the federal government makes no sense to me.

You have accused me of pathologically hating the federal govt as well - so perhaps that isn't terribly meaningful coming from you.

...is that you actually are that fucking bad.

You really have no basis for judging anyone, you do know that, right? I'm not even talking about your Christian duty - just you're actual social competence.

But keep up the concern trolling about the Republican Party - it is actually pretty damn amusing.

GuardDuck said...

And waiting for some meat to that accusation of 'pathological hate of the federal government'.

But as usual he just throws out shit and hopes it sticks.

Mark Ward said...

waiting for some meat to that accusation

Another comment meant to frustrate me due to its obviousness.

GuardDuck said...

No. Really.


Can you produce even one quote from anyone who comments here that shows, and I quote, "Pathological hate of the federal government"?

Not distrust, not dislike, not lack of love - but PATHOLOGICAL HATE.

No, you can't.


That's the frustrating part - you throw out shit that bears no semblance to reality and everybody has to spend efforts to counter your verbal spam.

Mark Ward said...

No, you can't.

Any of the comments at TSM would do just fine. They are up daily. You can start with anything DJ writes. In fact, Kevin's entire raison d'etre is a pathological hatred of the government. You guys all came from there and echo all the same things here.

Since I made an accusation, the appropriate response would not be game playing but, instead, to defend yourself and say, "No, I don't and here's what I do think about the federal government." In short, prove that you don't. I'd like to see you illustrate the benefits of the federal government.

Larry said...

Horseshit. To you:

Government is too big == pathological hatred of government

The Federal government is overstepping the bounds of its Constitutional limits on power == pathological hatred of government

That the Federal government is spending too much and should be reined in == pathological hatred of government

That the Federal government is inefficient, wasteful, and not very responsive to citizens' concerns == pathological hatred of government

You really are a first-rate asswipe, Markadelphia. No one here has ever said that the Federal government doesn't have a job to do: the job it was set up to do under the limits of the Constitution. No one heere has said it has no benefits except for you lying your ass off putting words into other people's mouths. What a pathetic little weasel you are. How many times have we corrected you on your fucked up assertion that libertarians are anarchists? And how many times do you just keep spouting the same shit? Are you brain-damaged? Do you know what the inside of the windows of the short bus taste like? What's your excuse?

Quite honestly, your behavior reminds me a lot of that of racist and religious bigots that I've argued with over the years who would repeat any lie that reinforced their notions of Catholics, Jews, blacks, whites, Siberian-Americans, Muslims, etc. Even when forced to concede a point one day, they'd be right back the next day as if they had no memory of it at all. You're just a political bigot and eager fluffer of the almighty state, as long as your political tribe holds the whip.

Mark Ward said...

Government is too big == pathological hatred of government

Fine, the government is too big. What entity or entities should take up the slack when the government shrinks?

The Federal government is overstepping the bounds of its Constitutional limits on power == pathological hatred of government

Been going on since Day One. Washington and Hamilton are traitors then, I guess.

That the Federal government is spending too much and should be reined in == pathological hatred of government

Again, who is going to take up the slack? We have a bigger economy now and the world economy is much different. We wouldn't be spending so much if we had more revenue.

That the Federal government is inefficient, wasteful, and not very responsive to citizens' concerns == pathological hatred of government

Hasty Generalization and, quite frankly, a lie. The government does many things quite well.

Your list more or less proves my point, btw.

Larry said...

Umm, I think the boundaries have been stretched quite a lot further in recent decades than could ever have been conceived by Washington and Hamilton, Mr. Living Constitution. And may I remind you that I am not calling you or them a traitor. YOU are accusing us of Pathological Hatred of Government. By definition, a pathological hatred of the institution of government itself cannot be present without also having a pathological hatred of the founding instrument of government in this country: the Constitution itself. And of course any actions taken in those beliefs would be necessarily treasonous, wouldn't they? You really aren't able to think very well, are you? No more than half a step ahead, and rarely able to conceive of necessary preconditions, corollaries, or consequences of any ideas or principles. By your reasoning, the anti-Federalists who disagreed with Hamilton must have been pathological haters of government and traitors. But lets watch you double down on the stupidity. This should be entertaining in the way FAIL videos on Youtube are. Take it away, you little Nimrod...

Mark Ward said...

Mr. Living Constitution.

Yeah, we're not operating in that paradigm. I reject your reframing of the argument to make it seem like anyone who doesn't adhere to YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is a traitor. These ideas have been debated from day one with the same ideas being contested. Going all tribal, as your side is wont to do, is complete bullshit.

If we start with historical precedent and leave out the mouthfoaming, we might get somewhere. Obviously, your ideology falls in line more with Madison and Jefferson and mine with Hamilton and, perhaps, Adams. Certainly, Lincoln. Moving through the years, it's easy to see that as our country grew, the notion of heavier state power seemed less effective.

In short, the libertarian fantasy is about as much BS as the socialist one.

GuardDuck said...

Still not presenting any evidence of pathological hatred.


Soooo, does this mean you are still lying?

GuardDuck said...

Oh, forgot to add.

In short, prove that you don't

You want us to prove a negative? Is that your tactic? Were you absent the day they handed out logic?


Mark A. Doofus
Genius

Since I made an accusation, the appropriate response would

...be for you to provide evidence to back up your accusation. Otherwise it's hollow. It's unfounded.. It's a lie.

Mark Ward said...

Soooo, does this mean you are still lying?

I'd say Larry's comment above is evidence enough...sort of like a pile of shit that you guys claim isn't shit and doesn't even smell. He listed four great examples of a pathological hatred of the US government.

Since this likely will not be enough evidence for you, take a few minutes to answer this brief questionnaire.

Is the federal government stealing people's hard earned money?

Is the federal government giving away free shit?

Does the federal government want to take away your guns?

Is the federal government engaged in an ongoing plot to take away your guns?

Is the federal government wasteful, bloated and inefficient?

Does the federal government regularly break Constitutional law?

Does the federal government break Christian morals and values?

Do you trust the federal government?

Is the federal government out to get you?

Do you hate the federal government?

Your answer to all of these questions would be a "Yes," correct? If I am mistaken, please explain how.

GuardDuck said...

Doesn't matter Mark.

Even a yes answer to almost every one of those questions does not prove a pathological hatred.

Lets delve deeper.



path·o·log·i·cal
[path-uh-loj-i-kuhl]
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to pathology.
2.
caused by or involving disease; morbid.
3.
caused by or evidencing a mentally disturbed condition: a pathological hoarder.

4.
dealing with diseases: a pathological casebook.



ha·tred
[hey-trid]
noun
the feeling of one who hates; intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility.


hate
[heyt] verb, hat·ed, hat·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2.
to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
verb (used without object)
3.
to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
noun
4.
intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5.
the object of extreme aversion or hostility.




You claim Larry presented four great examples of pathological hatred. Did he?

Government is too big = Thinking the government is too big does not evince hatred of the government, let alone a pathological version of it.

The Federal government is overstepping the bounds of its Constitutional limits on power = Thinking the government is overstepping the bounds of the Constitution does not evince hatred of the government, let alone a pathological version of it.

the Federal government is spending too much and should be reined in = Thinking the government spends too much money does not evince hatred of the government, let alone a pathological version of it.

That the Federal government is inefficient, wasteful, and not very responsive to citizens' concerns = Thinking the government is all these things does not evince hatred of the government, let alone a pathological version of it.

On to your examples.

Is the federal government stealing people's hard earned money?

Is the federal government giving away free shit?

Does the federal government want to take away your guns?

Is the federal government engaged in an ongoing plot to take away your guns?

Is the federal government wasteful, bloated and inefficient?

Does the federal government regularly break Constitutional law?

Does the federal government break Christian morals and values?

Do you trust the federal government?


A yes answer to all these questions still would not evince hatred of the government, let alone a pathological version of it.

Is the federal government out to get you?

A yes answer to this would still not evince hatred let alone a pathological version of it, but if the answer were yes and was also true then hatred may very well be appropriate and if it were appropriate then it could not be pathological.



Do you hate the federal government?

A yes answer to this would, by definition, show hatred, but as I've shown does not necessarily mean that hate is pathological.

Mark Ward said...

From your continued comments about government on here and on TSM, it's my view that you do have hatred and a mentally disturbed condition when it comes to the federal government. Take solace in the fact that you aren't the worst (that would be DJ and Kevin with juris a close third).

I'm sure you'll mouth foam about evidence but there's a very easy way to illustrate what I am talking about that you may not see. From this point forward every time you make a comment that supports my point, I will simply type PHG (Pathological Hatred of Government).

I'll let you know what the monthly tallies are...:)

GuardDuck said...

It's easy to tally up whatever you want when you get to make up your own definition of hate and pathology. Not so easy when you have to exist within the bounds of reality.

Mark Ward said...

Well, we are taking about an opinion here, right? I don't understand why mine matters so much to you. Certainly, it's one shared by more people than just myself. And, since I don't see you expressing the various things you like about the federal government...things that would show my opinion to be full of beans....I'd say it's pretty valid. Can you name three or four things you like about be government? That would mitigate the hatred part. How about an admission that the government is not always trying to take away your guns? Or that Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme? That would mitigate the pathological part.

GuardDuck said...

That would mitigate the hatred part.

No. Do you not understand that you have not shown anything to be hatred to begin with? Mitigating something that you have not shown to exist. That doesn't make any sense does it?


I don't understand why mine matters so much to you.

Don't flatter yourself. You made a statement, you were challenged to back it up. And like so many other times, you cannot do so.

since I don't see you expressing the various things you like about the federal government

Think about the dynamic of our relationship for a bit. Is it one in which I pontificate upon various sundry topics and you reply to them, or do you pontificate and I reply? You are in the action position and I am the reaction position. Since I can only react to your posts the breadth of subject matter is limited by those that you post upon. Therefore any expression about things I like or do not like about the federal government is constrained by the posts you make.

But since you asked.

Can you name three or four things you like about be government?

Sure. I like the government as an impartial mediator for contract law. Establishing and maintaining standard weights and measures. Defense. Law enforcement. Patent law. Criminal and tort courts.

There's six. And I can still like those things while saying the government is too big, oversteps it's constitutional limits, spends too much and is inefficient.


an admission that the government is not always trying to take away your guns?

Here we go again. Challenge - find one comment by me that the government is always trying to take my guns. Exact.

Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme

Nope. No functional difference. I can't help it if you can't do math and are incapable of seeing logic patterns.

Well, we are taking about an opinion here, right?

No. We are talking about the definitions of words. Whatever your opinion is you still can't just make up your own definitions for words. If you use the word hate - you must show what you are referring to fall within the definition of hate. If it doesn't then it isn't. Either you are using the wrong word or you are making stuff up.

Mark Ward said...

I'm happy to see that you think the federal government does a good job at the things you listed. So why do you get so pissed off at the other things they do well? I don't get it.

Take Social Security, for example.

1. There is no intent to deceive
2. By law (which is available for anyone to see for those that don't know), Social Security can't take in more than it pays out which is how the problems with the program began. Any overage is used by the federal government and a special treasure note is put in its place.
3. Ponzi Schemes have a short life span. Social Security has been going strong for nearly 80 years and has worked quite well. There is no "get rich quick" hook as the benefits are modest at best.

More information...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-social-security-ponzi-scheme/

"The reason that this is a scheme and not an investment strategy is that the geometric progression it depends on is unsustainable," the government post says. "You must continually get more and more new people into the system to pay off the promises to the earlier members."

In contrast, the administration says, Social Security is more like a "pay-as-you-go" system transferring payroll tax payments by American workers to American retirees. Its web post closes: "The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days."


Geometric progression, GD. I think we're done with you lecturing me on math. Note Zuckoff's three points on the difference between SS and Ponzi Schemes.

This is a great example of PHG. You hate the fact that the government has been very successful at this social program and it's made you irrational, making false claims such as this.

GuardDuck said...

Geometric progression, GD. I think we're done with you lecturing me on math

Scale Mark, scale.

But you are impenetrable. So. We've had the discussion on SS before - it went nowhere and I'm not going to beat my head against the wall doing it again.

so why do you get so pissed off at the other things they do well? I don't get it.

Maybe those are things the government shouldn't be doing at all. Maybe your definition of doing well and mine are different. Maybe you have a problem actually defining what 'success' is supposed to look like for a government program. Maybe whatever it is doing well creates unintended consequences in other areas. Maybe even doing something well is too cost prohibitive. Maybe the cost of doing something well just doesn't add up for whatever is being done well.


You hate the fact that the government has been very successful at this social program and it's made you irrational, making false claims such as this.

Hate? Where? Really Mark, where? Define the hate. You can't make up definitions as you want. If there is hate you should be able to show actual HATE. Not the pseudo psychology crap you've been spouting. You are using circular reasoning - you think I hate the government so any disagreement with the government is an example of hate that you use to prove that I hate the government. Round and round it goes. If you want to show hate - you have to show HATE, not disagreement.

Notice that I posted a long post with a very, very short and not even on topic part about SS and that is what you ended up focusing on with your reply.

Mark Ward said...

I'm just using SS as an example of PHG. Completley irrational, inmoved by facts.. You are the same way about guns. Registration means mass confiscation and internment csmps, right?

GuardDuck said...

How many times do you need to be told that is a straw man?


And irrational? Again, show it.

Mark Ward said...

So you don't think that registration will lead to confiscation? I stand corrected.