The Stoopids

This election cycle has exposed the depths of stoopid in this country.  Hiw else can you explain the two major parties putting forth candidates that both poll negative?

In the end, however, the party faithful will line up behind their respective candidates because the idea of the other party winning the election is awful.  It doesn’t matter which party you support, that’s going to be the bottom line thinking.

There’s also the stoopid that runs the corporate media.  For example, I turned the TV to CNN this afternoon  (against my better judgement), and they’re deeply covering Donald Trump blasting the media for critically covering him.  If he doesn’t like media coverage, then quit covering him.  The media is part of the reason why Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee in the first place.  They basically became his campaign ads through most of the primary season.

I seriously hope this is the death throes of stoopid in America, but my instinct tells me that the first Tuesday in November is simply going to be the coming out party for the next generation of stoopid.  God help us all.


31 thoughts on “The Stoopids

  1. The altruist morality and anti-reason philosophical ideas have been leading people down wrong paths for centuries, and the results are getting more and more bizarre.


      • It may be that no one has all the correct answers, but Ayn Rand has all the fundamental correct answers.

        Part of the problem is that statism results in too much tendency to try to impose one size fits all solutions. But before we say there are NO one size fits all solutions for ANYTHING, it might be a good idea to consider more carefully what we mean by a “one size fits all solution”.


        • A one size fits all solution is exactly what it says. It’s one one single solution that solves all problems across the different groups, whether they’re financial, socioeconomic, gender, age based,or whatever other designation you’re looking at.

          A one size fits all solution may indeed work if you’re targeting a small or specific group. Such an approach would never work when you’re dealing with country wide issues.


          • If the Bill of Rights is a one size fits all solution, you’re saying it will never work.

            If the Bill of Rights is NOT a one size fits all solution, you need to make clearer what you mean by “one size fits all solution”.


          • The Bill of Rights is not a one size fits all solution. If it were, there wouldn’t have been a need for 18 additional amendments to the Constitution.

            Individually, each amendment addresses an issue and fleshes it out in such a broad spectrum that it’s capable of being seen as a one size fits all solution, but they are not. Even within the individual amendments, there are exceptions that have been carved out over the years. In addition, we haven’t seen what the full impact of modern technology will be in regards to the Constitution.


  2. Reply to Brosephus says:
    June 1, 2016 at 9:26 am

    Maybe it would help if you give a few examples of things you consider one size fits all solutions.


    • A one size fits all solution would be like issuing a citizen an ID card at birth or naturalization that can be used to prove citizenship and provide automatic voting registration at the appropriate age. All citizens get their ID proven, verified, and are legally registered to vote. Combines this with repealing laws that takes a person’s right to vote away, and you get rid of the voter ID and voter fraud arguments.


  3. Reply to Brosephus says:
    June 1, 2016 at 10:24 am

    All of these are imposed by government. Are there any examples that are not imposed by government?


    • After a bit more thought, the best example of failed one size fits all solutions not imposed by the government would be political ideology itself. The idea that one ideology has the solutions for everyone and everything is foolish at best.

      The notion that right-wing, left-wing, or even libertarian ideals are the one best solution for America is laughable. Each ideology may have good ideas, but none of them have all the right answers as there are no simple solutions to complex problems.


      • It might help to dig deeper into how the problems became so complex.

        It definitely would help to ask which problems we should be trying to solve with politics.


        • If the problems are capable of being solved without government intervention, I am of the belief that they will be solved in that manner.

          Government sometimes jump the gun on issues, but overall, government tends to be the problem solver when no one else wants or tries to solve them.


          • One problem here is that government interference can prevent non-government solutions and can create problems that are difficult to solve. Another is that government can do more than is necessary to solve a problem, with destructive consequences.


          • That rings true for the private sector as well. The idea that either “can” do something doesn’t necessarily mean or prove that either one does.

            It’s all subjective and based on personal perspectives as a government decision that’s bad for you could be great for me. Likewise, a private business decision could be equally the same or work in reverse.

            That’s just life.


  4. Reply to Brosephus says:
    June 2, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Government, with its control over physical force, can easily be far more destructive than the private sector can ever be.

    Problems solved by government tend to be problems originally created by government.


    • Government can be far more destructive, but the private sector is just as capable of wreaking havoc.

      The pen is mightier than the sword. What the private sector lacks in physical capacity is made up in intellectual capacity. Government is bound to act within guidelines and rules. The private sector is not.


  5. Additional reply to Brosephus says:
    June 2, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    It’s a mistake to evaluate government actions solely on the basis of their immediate impact on us. This kind of short-range, narrow-context thinking fosters excessive dependence on government and stimulates pressure-group warfare. We need to consider the full effect of government actions on the society in which we live, and in which we and our descendants will continue to live as long as no catastrophe brings it down.


    • “It’s a mistake to evaluate government actions solely on the basis of their immediate impact on us.”

      Why? Oftentimes, when government acts, it acts as the action of last resort. I don’t recall any time where the government has acted preemptively on anything in my lifetime. Your statement could be stated for the private sector as well, but we live in an instant-gratification society that lives for the immediate impact.

      You’re conversing with someone who would likely still be a second-class citizen in my own country if it was not for the government actions back in the 50s and 60s. Sure, government was responsible for mainstreaming racism in this country. There was no major backlash or major attempts to reverse racism in this country from the private sector. Only when the government acted to do away with legalized discrimination did things happen. And, as always, the private sector dragged its feet along.

      You should consider viewpoints beyond your own while forming opinions. That’s the problem with Libertarian thinking. It’s selfish to an extent and doesn’t consider that we’re all different with our own different viewpoints and experiences. I’d much rather have an active government that tries to protect people as opposed to living in a society that doesn’t give a damn about others beyond themselves. That’s just my view though.


      • I gave a reason why.

        I approve of the federal action against state and local governments that were violating the rights of blacks by imposing segregation and discrimination because the actions of the state and local governments were physical aggressions. The federal government should have acted much earlier. The private sector is not in a position to force reform when government is malfunctioning as the state and local governments were in this matter.

        Government should try to protect people, but against direct or indirect physical aggression, not against anything and everything.

        Ayn Rand does NOT say we shouldn’t give a damn about others. She says we shouldn’t subordinate our own interests to the interests or desires of others. She has no objection to “giving a damn” about others. She even says that there is nothing wrong with helping others as long as we can afford it and they are worthy of the help. She also says that the appropriate approach to others is that of the trader who seeks to exchange value for value, neither giving nor seeking sacrifices. This applies to both personal and economic relationships, but in different ways.

        Just because many different viewpoints exist, it doesn’t follow that all are equally valid. We should evaluate ideas on their merits, not on whether someone agrees, nor on who agrees, nor on how many agree.


        • The private sector could have forced reform even if the government was not functioning properly. The government does not operate in a vacuum. It acts and responds to the people who empower it. The government didn’t put a gun to the heads of Americans and demand they subjugate Blacks. Americans who acted in that manner did it of their own actions.

          The purpose of the Constitution is to allow the local and state governments to do their jobs without interference from the feds. The feds are quite deliberate in taking action and will only do so when all else fails.

          Your statement from Ayn Rand basically says that my needs come before yours. That is textbook selfishness, which translates to not giving a damn. You don’t see it that way because you believe in Rand. I don’t believe in her words, so my perspective is different from yours. As to viewpoints being valid, what criteria is used to decide? Viewpoints are generally based on personal experiences and knowledge. They can all be equally valid, but being valid doesn’t mean they’re correct.


          • Are you talking about the private sector, or are you talking about people acting as voters? It’s not the same thing.

            When state and local governments deliberately and systematically violate rights, federal intervention is clearly called for. The federal government was much too “deliberate” about Jim Crow.

            The word “selfishness” is commonly used in a loaded way which seems to be confusing you.

            You seem to be taking the word “valid” to mean something similar to what I take the word “sincere” to mean.


          • There were people who ignored Jim Crow even though it was the law at the time. Had the people who benefited from Jim Crow rose up in civil disobedience, federal intervention may not have been necessary. Those same people also elected the very governments that enacted and upheld segregation.

            I use selfishness to mean someone who is only concerned with their self interests and well being.

            I use the word valid as legitimate. Just as religion gives people different beliefs, so does experience. What may be a truth for me doesn’t have to be one for you. That it’s not a truth for you doesn’t change anything from my perspective.


      • Even when we seem to need a last resort, we need to be careful about that last resort.

        If we desperately need food or drink, we won’t do ourselves any favors by eating or drinking something poison.

        If we desperately need food, and we eat our seed stock, we get a short-term benefit at the expense of very destructive consequences later.

        If we desperately need food, should we kill another human being in order to use him or her as meat?


  6. Reply to Brosephus says:
    June 13, 2016 at 3:00 am

    You didn’t address my point about the distinction between the private sector and people acting as voters. It would be very surprising if people who consistently voted for a system then turned around and rose up in civil disobedience against it. How people act as voters is the key. This is different from the private sector.

    I don’t believe anyone really benefited from Jim Crow, although a lot of people thought they did.

    Ayn Rand does not advocate selfishness in the sense you define it. She says we should serve our own interests and should not subordinate these to the interests and desires of others. This is NOT the same thing as saying we should ONLY be concerned with our self interests and well being. One relevant point here is that there are no true conflicts of interest between rational people in a properly free society.

    You are using “X is true for A” to mean “A believes X”. This is not helpful in understanding the issues or the significance of disagreements. The actual truth is something we are all trying to find. Obviously, since there is so much disagreement, a lot of people must not have been successful at this. It does NOT follow that no one has been successful.

    I certainly don’t expect anyone to change their minds just because I disagree. Indeed, I would disapprove of their doing so. But if we have enough thoughtful discussion of what different people think and of specifically WHY they think it, this should help us eventually reach a point in which more and more people find the truth and it becomes clearer and clearer what it is.


    • I beg to differ on people who benefited from Jim Crow. There are companies in existence and quite profitable that made money from slavery and Jim Crow.

      The people acting as the private sector didn’t have to exclude people from their business if they desired to do so. Private sector businesses could have also hired whomever they desired. Black unemployment has always been twice the national average since it was tracked in the 1940s. The government didn’t dictate who could be hired nor did voters.

      Exactly how do you serve your own self interests and not subordinate them to the interests and desires of others without being selfish? To not subordinate my own interests to those of others is being selfish, especially considering that it’s completely possible to serve my own self interests while serving others even if you put their interests before yours. If their achievement of their self interests enables you to achieve yours, then why would you not help them achieve theirs before your own? You would place their interests before yours knowing that you would ultimately achieve your own.


      • If a person makes money in a way that dehumanizes him or her, that’s not true self-interest.

        Can you give an example of a company that made more money from Jim Crow than it could have made under a more rational system?

        If serving someone else’s interests is an effective way of advancing one’s own interests, then doing so does NOT constitute subordinating one’s own interests to the other person’s. For example, most jobs involve doing things that primarily or exclusively benefit others, with the primary reward being pay and benefits that are received later. (There may be other rewards that are icing on the cake.) This does NOT constitute subordinating one’s own interests to the interests of the people that benefit directly from one’s doing the job. Rather it is an example of the principle I have already mentioned, that the rationally self-interested approach to others is that of the trader who seeks to exchange value for value, neither seeking nor giving sacrifices.

        You seem to be equating concern with others’ interests or well being with sacrificing one’s own interests or well being. That does not make sense.


  7. An interesting article in today’s Washington Post, which I found on another site, might shed some light on people’s political reactions, and in particular on the Trump phenomenon.

    My comment: It may be OK for emotions to predominate when we are choosing from a restaurant menu, although even there we should let reason enter in concerning the prices and any advice we have received from our doctor or nutritionist. It is a very bad mistake to let emotions predominate when choosing whom to vote for. Perhaps it is not surprising that people do so, considering some of the messages our society sends and considering that most people don’t have clear political principles to guide them.

    Whom are you voting for? This guy can read your mind. Really

    Jacob Bogage
    By Jacob Bogage The Washington Post
    Published June 24, 2016



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s