Let's say that a deteriorated socialized 'republic' came to exist. This would be triggered by public discontent, confusing political statements, journalists behaving more as provocateurs, social chaos, and economic events spiraling into various directions.
In the midst of this chaos, you....the voter...would decide upon radical changes and revolutionary paths to the future. You would go and vote upon leaders who were in simple terms....the least capable of doing the actual job. Maybe they were good at speeches, but you weren't able to determine their real qualifications. Perhaps their resume were just four lines, and these were mostly people doing work that they were not qualified for. Maybe these were gifted bus-drivers, who would quickly progress up the line to be President of Venezuela. Or perhaps they were medium-level investment portfolio handlers who would invent their own political party and run for President of France.
In simple terms, they were the least capable leaders, who had the least favorable plan for moving ahead. But because people were confused, and unable to really get solid answers....the radical path ahead made perfect sense.
So in the days, weeks and months ahead....the chief act of this government (not just one person, but literally hundreds of the least capable)....was to take, confiscate, and redistribute the wealth....mostly to just enrich themselves or the friends who got them elected.
This form of government? It's called Ineptocracy.
Some people have the opinion that we've entered a Ineptocracy in the past two years. Some people have the opinion that we've been in a Ineptocracy for at least ten years. Some people believe for the past fifty years or more, we've been in a Ineptocracy. Some believe that Britain, France, and Germany....are today in a Ineptocracy.
An evil thing? No, Ineptocracy is simply the solution to a rocket-science type problem. It appeared to you that only one individual in the room looked and behaved like a rocket-scientist, so he or she is the logical person to lead the group. It's like some corporal coming out of a war situation.....walking into a pub....delivering a five-star speech, and no one asking what they really did prior to the speech (like that moustached Austrian guy at the Hofbrauhaus in Munich).
In all matters, common sense ought to prevail, but it seems to be in limited or marginal quantities.
Thursday 14 February 2019
Reading the Green Deal
I sat this morning and read the AOC 'Green Deal'. You can view it over at the government site.
My observations:
1. It reads like a first-year college research paper. There is a question about 20 lines into the paper, which is supposed to lead as a question to a paragraph: "Is getting to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society in 10 years possible?" The answer below it.....doesn't explain how to reach the neutral society in ten years....it simply says it's politically possible.
2. It cites a test poll that says 92-percent of Democrats and 64-percent of GOP voters support the Green Deal.....however, it never says who did the poll, or where it was conducted.
3. It talks a great deal about expenditures and investments, but doesn't really say where the money slips into actual programs, to what levels, or where success (an end-result) will be. It does hint that this would all occur in ten years....but why ten?
4. At some point, it says in very clear and blunt language.....a guarantee will exist (one assumes here a right) to: (1) a job with family-sustaining wages, (2) family and medical leave, (3) vacations, (4) retirement, (5) security, (6) High-quality education, (7) High-quality health care, (8) Clean air, (9) Clean water, (10) Healthy food, (11) Safe, affordable, adequate housing, (12) An economic environment free of monopolies, (13) Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.
I sat and that piece several times....you'd have to make this into a Constitutional piece, and right off the bat....you'd start to ask about the economic security angle to those who were unwilling to work. If fifty-percent of society chose not to work....what would happen?
The comment to high-quality health care? Well....this alone would get into the trillions.
Guaranteeing people a vacation? Where? Are we talking about a five-day trip to the Ozarks in a camp-ground? Are we talking about a Hawaii beach front hotel for $250 a night?
Healthy food? Don't we offer via Piggly Wiggly food already? Are we talking about free food? Are we suggesting that Potato Chips be banned because it's not a healthy food?
I hate to suggest it, but it reads like some three-page research paper, that was due on Monday and you were starting this on Sunday afternoon while sipping Bombay Sapphire Gin. It's not really clear where the goals lead onto, how the money really fits into this, and whether or not people would agree to the end-product.
My observations:
1. It reads like a first-year college research paper. There is a question about 20 lines into the paper, which is supposed to lead as a question to a paragraph: "Is getting to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society in 10 years possible?" The answer below it.....doesn't explain how to reach the neutral society in ten years....it simply says it's politically possible.
2. It cites a test poll that says 92-percent of Democrats and 64-percent of GOP voters support the Green Deal.....however, it never says who did the poll, or where it was conducted.
3. It talks a great deal about expenditures and investments, but doesn't really say where the money slips into actual programs, to what levels, or where success (an end-result) will be. It does hint that this would all occur in ten years....but why ten?
4. At some point, it says in very clear and blunt language.....a guarantee will exist (one assumes here a right) to: (1) a job with family-sustaining wages, (2) family and medical leave, (3) vacations, (4) retirement, (5) security, (6) High-quality education, (7) High-quality health care, (8) Clean air, (9) Clean water, (10) Healthy food, (11) Safe, affordable, adequate housing, (12) An economic environment free of monopolies, (13) Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.
I sat and that piece several times....you'd have to make this into a Constitutional piece, and right off the bat....you'd start to ask about the economic security angle to those who were unwilling to work. If fifty-percent of society chose not to work....what would happen?
The comment to high-quality health care? Well....this alone would get into the trillions.
Guaranteeing people a vacation? Where? Are we talking about a five-day trip to the Ozarks in a camp-ground? Are we talking about a Hawaii beach front hotel for $250 a night?
Healthy food? Don't we offer via Piggly Wiggly food already? Are we talking about free food? Are we suggesting that Potato Chips be banned because it's not a healthy food?
I hate to suggest it, but it reads like some three-page research paper, that was due on Monday and you were starting this on Sunday afternoon while sipping Bombay Sapphire Gin. It's not really clear where the goals lead onto, how the money really fits into this, and whether or not people would agree to the end-product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)