Re: Perfect PC Election

Because it is a "Perfect PC Election", the application of Political Correctness Calculus will perfectly predict who is going to win!

Step 1:  Throw out the Straight Christian White Male Republican.  This is one party California.  He'll be lucky if he doesn't get rounded up by the PC police,  sent to a re-education camp and water boarded.

Step 2:  Throw out the Guilty White Liberal Progressive un-White guy.  He will realize that he doesn't deserve to win the election because of his "white skin privilege", and will confess that he's not sure that he is NOT a racist.

Step 3: Throw out the Black Female Nuclear Engineer Democrat Activist.  Without doubt, she will nail down the Black Female Nuclear Engineer vote in the district, but beyond that, what's left.  Planned Parenthood aborted half the black babies in the district years ago, so they won't be showing up at the polls.

Step 4: Throw out the Hispanic guy.  Hispanics won't go to the polls because those "wascally wepublicans" shut down the government, refused to pass immigration reform, and will be patrolling the polling stations looking for Hispanic illegal immigrants.

Step 5: The last man standing is the Asian guy. Asians know how to get to the front of the line.  They know how to squeeze the tomatoes at Whole Foods, and leave the soft squishy ones for the meek white people who have been told that tomatoes that are too good cause global warming, which is another reason that white people don't deserve to win elections. 

The winner is:  Kansen Chu!

Who needs polls?! Who needs thumb sucking endorsements by newspaper editors who fret about the racial insensitivity of Washington Redskin football fans?

Ground hogs can predict the coming of spring.  Political correctness predicts California elections.

We actually don't need voters anymore.

The Perfect PC Election

The Perfect PC Election

Oh, great!

The perfect PC election.

One Asian.
One black.
One Hispanic.
One Guilty White Liberal Progressive un-White.
One Actual Authentic Straight White Male Christian Conservative.

I predict that a "minority" will win.

Speaking of Global Warming

It seems that there have been a rash of intellectuals declaring that the debate over "Global Warming" is over.

Not the least significant is the Los Angeles Times letters to the editors page.  They have recently declared that they will no longer publish letters from global warming "deniers".

The reason, or course, is that it is (take your pick)

a. settled science

b. the consensus finding of 97 percent of scientists

c. proven by the decline in polar bear population

d. a gusher of tax money from "carbon taxes"

If there was an official debate over global warming.  You would have thought the newspapers would have reported on a contest so consequential for the future of the planet.

But, no.  Nothing in the newspapers.  Nothing in the internet archives.

No stories about "Raucous Crowds Supporting or DIssing Global Warming Debaters".

Only, second string copyists reporting, after the fact, that a debate on global warming was held, and the Warmists won.

You would have thought that, in the day of televised, competitive everything -- Football, Wrestling, American Idol, Spelling Bees -- someone, somewhere might have thought of making a television buck on the great global warming debate.

But no.  The intellectuals decided to have the debate in a closet, and then report to us that the people who agreed with them won -- and require us to send them money.

The fundamental “paradigms” that distinguish “Left” and “Right”

The “reality paradigms” of "left" and "right" are definitely different, but generations of discrediting, and counter-discrediting have really obscured the fundamental “realities” and premises of each side.

The “reality paradigms” of left and right are VERY, VERY ancient and are rooted in the emergence of civilization.

The primal reality of human civilization is the “hunter – gatherer”.    People lived in small bands and made their living by supplying their immediate needs by killing or taking what was at hand in their unbounded hunting grounds. 

The key elements of this paradigm are:

• The fundamental survival group was the small band, often “ethnically” related
• They made their living by “taking” from the surroundings
• The surroundings were “common” and perceived as unlimited
• Successful hunting required a degree of teamwork and cooperation
• The small band looked to an “alpha male” to lead them in successful hunts
• Purportedly, successful hunts were shared “equally” among the band
• Other bands were often looked at as hostile competition and even as “prey”. Wikipedia remarks that there is evidence of widespread cannibalism among pre-historic “hunter-gatherer” cultures.
• Successful hunting often required deception, camouflage, and surprise

At some point in time, ancients mastered agriculture and herding, which gave rise to a different "reality paradigm": “farmer – herders” .

 

The key elements of this paradigm are:

• The fundamental change was “deferring current consumption for future benefit”, i.e setting aside seed corn and breeding stock
• This resulted in the notion of “private property” because farmers needed to own fields and herders needed to own flocks
• They made their living be multiplying their assets within the domain of their “private property”
• The fundamental survival group was the “family” because accumulated property need to be passed on
• Successful farming and herding required bartering and trade to dispose of surplus production
• Each family unit probably had a “patriarch” who determined inheritances
• The patriarch undoubtedly made decisions about how much production to consume, how to share it, and how much to set aside for the future
• Other bands or groups were looked at as potential trading partners rather than prey.
• Regulating trade and barter inevitably required customs and rules about “fair dealing” and “honesty”

I think these two very different “survival and reality paradigms” endure to this day under the guise of “politics”.

 

If you map these traits to the traditional understanding of “conservative” and “liberals”, there seems to me to be a distinct alignment between ancient culture and current politics.

My supposition is that this will ultimately be useful, especially for conservatives, to understand these paradigms because it will help them realize that there is a real difference between conservatives and liberals in their grasp of reality, and that intellectual persuasion isn’t going to change the appetites of those who look at you as “prey” and look at your property as part of the “commons” and theirs for the taking.