Tolerance vs. Respect; a Classic Conundrum

With the politically correct (or ‘PC’) movement in full swing in the Western Freeworld one would thing we’re coming to a turning point in handing off the crucible of disunity; people are people are people.  What could be more intrepid than the gov’t and media’s stride to unit our blustering populous than with song and cheer?  Everyone is tolerated because it’s fair humanitarian practice to hold that we were all created equal.  God, I don’t know where that one came from, but it is nevertheless the noble truth of humanity.

The real problem begins with tolerance itself.  We can tolerate someone without respect… in fact we can tolerate someone or something despite sheer hatred for the entity or institution.  My question is, then; what’s so great about “tolerance”?

I’d rather be respected than tolerated… respect can’t be imposed.  Whatever miscellaneous establishment can preach tolerance until they’re blue in the face, and surely people will follow, but more and more each day I feel the collective rancour swelling in the bowels of British society.  Good, honest people would never opt for the kind of discordance this might portend, but we then see scurrilous groups such as the England Defense League and the National Front picking up the slack.

What might the problem be, you ask.  Perhaps the fact that we’re trying to change the national dialectic, one faux pas at a time.  People aren’t ‘mentally retarded’ anymore, they’re ‘developmentally challenged’… or perhaps just a little slow or special as it goes.  I personally have no problem with this, but, on the other hand, we’re not doing half as much as we could to educate people about diversity in society while still keeping everyone happy and healthy.

While the job market is in a slump we’re bringing more and more people into the country and saving even more disabled Britons with benefits.  I’m all for immigration and disability benefits, however, what’s missing is the societal substrate of equality and just over all balance.  While the gov’t has its back turned to one group in helping another, they often don’t turn around and think to themselves “okay, now that we’ve got a problem with mass immigration we should take radical measures to solve the radical problem of mass immigration choking the job market,” but they seem to by paying about as much attention as the Catholic Church paid to allegations of child abuse.

Surely, many Brits also have to change their ideas about working and finding work, but this upheaval is incumbent on a financial system in flux, and periods of adjustment are often enough painful periods of adjustment.  Each side needs to think then rethink they stance on love, life, and loyalty.  Absolutes lead down narrowing roads.

USA: The Buffett Rule & Taxes

In the US senate today, one key piece of legislation stands out from the rest; this comprises what is being know as ‘the Buffett Rule’.  It states that families earning over a million dollars per annum should pay no less than 30% of that figure in taxes.  Sounds fantastic, doesn’t it?  The equilibrium of American affluence shall be restored!  Will it, however?

Harken back to the 1980’s and the days of ‘Reaganomics’ — one of the key principles in president Ronald Reagan’s idea that he termed ‘trickle-down economics’ was to introduce massive upperclass tax cuts in order to stimulate the economy into a bustling fiscal titan of activity — the idea being that the lower income brackets would benefit financially from a strong economy.  This has surely proven fruitful; America has long been an economic mega-power in the global economy, but what does this mean for the financial future of the mega-state’s economy and subsequent politics and the incumbent social climate?

Well, for one, the problem with having so much of the national wealth circulating is, indeed is does stimulate the economy, albeit the populous in the lower brackets must invest their hard-earned money back into the financial infrastructure from whence it came.  Americans are taught to buy into Americana to keep the blood circulating in this massive bovine money machine.  As far as anyone can tell, this is what locks the Americans into rampant consumerism which is a knock-on to their “fastfood culture”.

Now shall we assume the mass media and the gross multinational corporations were not having their dues thrown back at them willingly?  American commerce could well be taking the direct financial blow it needs to see the world economy even out and have the rest of the world find balance with them.  China is another matter all together… but will America be forced to throw in the towel — will they throw down the gauntlet? — time tells all tails.

All this having been said, American cultural supremacy may well be a thing of the past.  Coca-Cola, Nike, Starbucks, Time-Warner, Walmart; what will they amount to without the United States as a financial haven?  We know Swiss banks and offshore holding corporations are here to stay, but imagine a world without Product America… perhaps they’d finally get along with the Canadians (and everyone else, for that matter).  I’m looking forward to seeing how tipping the balance of power will go, for the USA.  I for one wish them all the luck, and due praise for Warren Buffet and Barack Obama.  The world may become a very different place.

Have You Heard about Jesus?

Well, I’ve just shut the door in the face of my first Jehovah’s Witness of the season.  I was so hoping for a Mormon missionary… but I ain’t in Canada no more!  I generally do have a better time with the British cultists — er, evangelists.  She seemed like such a nice little old lady, as well… but therein lies their hook, and when it comes right down to it they’re all pretty much vitriolic little miscreants — I can’t imagine a different sort of character taking moral dollops of self-righteousness from the Watch Tower and serving it back to the rest of we heathens unabashedly.

I am reminded of a quip from myself to the vicar of a local church, on my way past church grounds.  “If not for the love of Jesus, what is this life for?” was the question he posed to me; to which I aptly replied “I don’t know, I’m a little preoccupied with trying to build a miniature Hadron collider from an old hoover and an industrial floodlamp.”

In a lot of ways, I tend to find these people at the height of their own arrogance, when they’re sounding off about their “philanthropy” as if we were all their moral lesser.  In the end, they may not be assuming authority themselves, but even by the grace of God they’re still assuming the moral high ground over the rest of we heretical pests.  It’s a strange kind of narcissism-by-proxy: they’re not telling me they’re better than me, just that Jesus favours them.  In a lot of ways, the arrogance is rife in as much as Christians in general tend towards ideological superiority in thinking they understand the Bible better than I, or anyone else, does.

True, they’ve been coddled through divine mandate and the lot, but how do they know they don’t misunderstand the “divine message” any better than the next biblethumper?  I’m still awaiting Rowan Atkinson’s vision of purgatory “…sorry, the Jews were right!”  The idea that any of us are going to burn in eternal damnation is one of those things I’d just like ask them if they know for sure that Jesus was an alcoholic; last man I saw perched atop a precipice of his own moral superiority proclaiming to be the son of God was a pseudopsychopathic schizophrenic.

So what?  Praise Jesus, give a portion of your estate, make sure the wife doesn’t find your plethora of pornographic bookmarks?  The really, really fun part is that God supposedly gave us freewill so we could choose not to use it — that’s a little like having a wife and never sleep with her save for procreation… and if God created all men equal, what’s the difference between the ones who started up YouTube and the ones who started up RedTube?