“I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Sir, the bible does.”
This is now the third area in which Romney has refused to share specifics on the explicit grounds that so doing would be bad politically for him. Romney has repeatedly said he won’t release his tax returns because Democrats will find things in them to attack. And he has vowed to eliminate whole government agencies, but has confirmed that he won’t specify which ones precisely because his failed Senate bid taught him that getting too specific puts him at risk of losing. As Jonathan Chait has written, this is akin to saying: “One of the things I have found in previous elections is that announcing my plans makes people want to vote against me.”
Do your job, media.
Do your job, reporters.
Do your job, cable news.
Do your job, newspapers.
Inform voters clearly and without the “both sides do it” false equivalency, that the Romney campaign is deliberately hiding what a Romney presidency would mean for the country, because the campaign knows that they will lose if voters find out their actual policy plans.
It is absolutely staggering to me that it is possible in this country for a person seeking to be the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can completely hide everything that person would do if elected and expect voters to be totally fine with that.
The cable news and national network news programs have a responsibility to clearly explain this to voters: Mitt Romney won’t tell you what he plans to do if you elect him, because he believes that if you knew, you wouldn’t vote for him.
That’s just astonishing to me.
The primary difference between North and South Korea
There needs to be an 8bit LOTR.
Ghostbusters, Magneto, Sam & Frodo
Created by J. Castaneda
New pixel prints available at Society6
…where I had a Singaporean Passport. Best dream ever, and totally worth missing my alarm clock for.
In Time is a rather appropriate film for the current world. Its central theme of “For few to remain immortal, many must die” could well have come out of a madlibs brochure for OWS.
Image courtesy of Wikipedia. Go donate to them.
Of course, there are significant differences, aside from the fact that the movie is based on science fiction. For one, being among the 99% isn’t an exact reflection on your right to live, though wealth does bring its perks, and Goldman’s machinations to keep the 99% in check isn’t as blatant as the manipulative reaches of Weis and friends in In Time.
Oh, and someone as gorgeous as Olivia Wilde wouldn’t die in our world. I take great solace in that.
Still, income inequality has some startling parallels to the dystopia portrayed in the film. The few have the majority of the wealth and as a result has powerful ways to retain that wealth; a team of lobbyists, an army of goons, a legion of lawyers, and that magical compound interest that makes discovery of America a negative-NPV pursuit and the Sleeper the owner of the world after a 200-year slumber.
Unfortunately, OWS is far less resourceful when it comes to actions than Justin and Amanda, although actually competent and corrupt police may have something to do with that. Still, in between the electric car chases (I refuse to believe that electric cars would be that loud, especially in the future) and reckless assaults on undefended “banks”, Salas’ realises that his small-time Robin Hoodery accomplishes nothing when the rich can just seignorage it out of poor pockets tomorrow.
But here’s where the movie will differ from the real world. Whereas Bonnie and Clide rob time banks with all the enthusiasm and nonchalance of the US Army, any logical examination of the situation quickly destroys that pretense:
Assume population 1mn in the area concerned for simplicity’s sake, and there’s enough for everyone to live a full lifetime (70 years, say), then 70mn years in total exist for the world.
Assuming top 1% own 35% and bottom 99% own 65% (approx US numbers), then the top 1% (people like Weis and family) have 24.5mn years, for 2450 per person, while the rest get 46 each.
So ask yourself, what is a supposedly “huge” heist of ONE MILLION YEARS going to accomplish, exactly? Everyone getting an extra year (or heck, even 2, 5, 10) will NOT put them on equal terms with the 1% (or heck, 2%, 5%, 10%)
So how could this heist bring down the system? Unless the population of the world or the area concerned was so laughably tiny that this little ”revolution” will bring nary a mention elsewhere. In other words, a big movie with a huge idea about an insignificant action for the grand scheme of things.
Which is much like OWS, nothing material has or will come of it, not even if they start robbing banks, kidnapping heirs and heiresses, or engaging in outright open warfare. What’s more, even if all the wealth in the world is evenly redistributed in a moment of divine intervention (not that likely), such “equality” could only last for a few generations at most before once again the previously rich get rich and richer with ability, intelligence, guile, deception and luck.
As Confucius (contrary to popular belief) once never said: “神马都是浮云。”(All the holy horses are floating clouds ie nothing really matters), the OWS people should really just go home and snuggle up under thick thick sheets (y’know, to save on utility bills). And it’s cold.
Because of global warming, y’know? But that’s a topic for another day.