Now that We've seen the 13th Doctor ( Jodie Whittaker)...

 

I'll say this up front...I'm no fan of Social Justice agendas.

Not because I don't believe in universal equality and fairness but rather because the so-called social justice "cause" is frequently more important than the people it's supposed to be serving.

Now I'm fairly certain I'm not a sexist.  Considering my upbringing that would be pretty much impossible but there is still some discomfort when I see blatant attacks on my gender.

I suppose that much like the LGBT community (forgive me if I missed a letter, I don't keep up with such things) it's necessary to be outrageous if you want somebody to pay attention.

So it is with the 13th Doctor.  In the 8 episodes I've watched of the new series I can say this...

It's not complete crap but it's definitely got an agenda.  Not in a subtle Star Trek kind of way but in a more overt in your face kind of way.

Most obviously and for no apparent reason other than they could,  the doctor is a woman now.  OK, we've known that for a year but the real question is:  Can the performance transcend the agenda.   Can we learn something without being hit over the head with it.

Apparently Chris Chibnall and the BBC don't think so.  While Chibnall is the show runner he's also taken on writing duties for many of the new episodes.

As such his "essence" is all over the show.

If a TV show has a script then I'm going to be paying close attention to the writing.  Plot, story flow and character development are all things I'm watching for.  Formulas become blatantly apparent and with Doctor Who it's obvious that the story must fit the agenda instead of the other way around which includes the choice of companions.

Speaking of which...

The Doctor's new companions are of course ethnically and culturally diverse thus satisfying the agenda.  A fact were repeatedly made aware of and supported by weak male characters who present as flawed and largely uninteresting.  The first in the guise of an elderly "Graham" still grieving over the loss of his wife in the first episode and Ryan a directionless young man with a condition that hinders his coordination.  Much time was spent in the first episode highlighting the fact that he couldn't ride a bicycle because of it regardless of the cheering section comprised of his Grandmother and Graham.  

Lest we forget the third companion, Yaz, a young and impatient female traffic enforcement officer for whom the world isn't moving fast enough.  Other than the Doctor, her character is the only one that seems to show any ambition or depth.  Depth for a social justice warrior that is...

Here's what I've seen so far:

In the episode entitled "Rosa" A pivotal event in American Civil Rights History attempted to be shoehorned into Doctor Who Canon.   It came close to being relevant up until I realized that instead of a thoughtful historical treatment we bore witness to a parade of stereotypes and agendas.  The message was pretty much, "White people bad."  

Almost every character in the episode that didn't identify as a minority of some type was treated as an antagonist.  From the brutish dullard who slaps Ryan for "touching his wife" to the waitress that refuses to serve "their kind."

It's ironic that the treatment of racism in the episode is so heavily dependent on a plot device that is itself a racist stereotype.  The historical event was less important than the agenda being pushed.  In the entire episode the only white character that didn't seem to have it in for the Doctor was Rosa Park's Husband, Raymond who might as well have been part of the furniture.  Virtually no effort was made to explore anything outside of the desired agenda.  

In the "The Tsuranga Conundrum" we're presented with a dilemma onboard a medical transport ship populated by largely clueless characters whose only purpose is to again push the agenda.  From a female General with "pilots heart" trying to save face by relying on meds to mask the condition to her obedient male android servicing her every need to her less obedient engineer brother who finds himself dismissed at every opportunity.

The threat in this episode is a small ship eating alien that was far more comical than threatening.  Overshadowed by an overtly feminist agenda that included a pregnant male patient giving birth and Graham and Ryan serving as hapless midwives.  Assuming this was a human (and nothing contradicted that assertion) the biological absurdity alone should have been enough to dismiss the premise but of course no explanation was offered.  I suppose this is the ultimate expression of "Gender neutrality."

So we've looked at just about everything but the new doctor as portrayed by Jodie Whittaker.  Bottom line, the writing isn't doing the character justice.

I've got no problem with a female time lord.  None whatsoever.  In fact when the "Master" regenerated into "Missy" for Peter Capaldi's 12th Doctor it was a brilliant turn.  We saw an evolution of the Doctor/Master relationship beyond simple adversary.  There was always a hint that there was a closer relationship between the 2 characters.  A relationship that went beyond the simple good versus evil dynamic.  Relationships are never that black and white.  With "Missy" that relationship could be fleshed out.  The gender change served a purpose.

With the 13th Doctor it's just gratuitous...

I'm not sure who coached Jodie Whittaker on her new role but it seems the instruction probably went something like, " Act like David Tennant with boobs and bad fashion sense."

That's pretty much it.  There's no depth here, nothing endearing, nothing interesting aside from gender and that gets old pretty quick.  The most interesting aspect of the character is its use as a vehicle for revisionist history of the franchise.  It's subtle but it's there.

When we're finally treated to the requisite "wardrobe change" scene found in every new Doctor at least as far back as Jon Pertwee, we find Whittaker's character in a clothing store changing room with varied articles of women's clothing flying through the air.  She utters the line, " It's been a long time since I've worn women's clothes."  

I'm sorry, I'm pretty familiar with Doctor Who Canon and never did I see William Hartnell in a dress.  Jon Pertwee wore ruffled sleeves but that was the extent of it.  So where is this OTHER female incarnation?  Apparently there will have to be one now to fit the agenda.

Jodie Whittaker's Doctor seems destined for a fate shared with Colin Baker's 6th Doctor.  That being poor writing and weak fan support.   Even a SJW agenda can't provide enough material to save this incarnation if things don't change fast.

I'm hopeful that things get better but for that to happen the agenda has to get out of the way.  It's stifling the writing and character development.  After 8 episodes I'm not feeling any better about the current run of the series.  

By comparison, by the time Id' gotten over Matt Smith spitting on the Tardis console somewhere around "Victory of the Daleks" I was pretty much onboard.  Considering he took over from my favorite ( current generation ) doctor ( 10th ) David Tennant, that means something.

As Sean Connery said in the "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" 

Just the Way it is....

People have some deeply held convictions.

Convictions that they allow to influence all they see, know and feel.

I've said before that I live at a kind of crossroads.  People show up who need a shoulder for a little while then they make their way to whatever.

I think my last brush with so-called "romance" was the most stark example of that.

Oh lord!  We're not going there again!  No worries...

But it did show me just how deeply divided otherwise like-minded people can be.  The sin of ideology I call it. 

A sin that takes one small aspect of someone's makeup and inflates it into a lifestyle.  A insular cocoon of circular logic and prejudicial perspectives impenetrable by anything that threatens the ideology.

We are what we are no matter what...That's just the way it is...

No, that's the way you want it.

The saddest part of it all is that the world quickly goes from a wide vista of opportunity to tunnel vision.  Creative thought, compassion, insight is all framed within a narrow view.

I've looked at the other side.  Tried to understand what it was that was so different about me and them.  Spoiler alert, it aint much.

What I found wasn't a pack of rabid savages.  Just fear.  Fear of losing what never really existed.  At least not without acknowledging what the real cost of their utopian vision was.  A vision that wasn't their own by the way. 

We tend to divide ourselves into tribes based on...whatever...

Far more scholarly authorities than I have written a mountain of tomes on the subject.  You've no doubt already seen their work.  I won't bother to rehash it here.

We live in a society that recognizes that we tend to seek out only that which supports our own world view.  The dangerous part is that the media has seized on that premise and eschewed objectivity for a tantalizing revenue stream that preys not on facts but fears.

Conservatives do it.  Liberals are no better.  So long as the other guy is the boogeyman we are sufficiently distracted to cede our own power to propaganda and rhetoric.

The propaganda feeds the machine.  The machine pumps out endless rhetoric and red meat. 

There is no compromise so long as the machine is churning.

Your heroes?  Your pillars of democracy?  They're the face of the machine.  A construct to divide otherwise like-minded people.  To keep poking that sore spot until you wretch and scream in pain.

The drug?  The cure?  Throw a bone to salve the wounds they created.  Just enough relief to keep the faithful working toward their own destruction.

We are in this country literally in the grip of mass scale Stockholm Syndrome.  I don't care what color the map says your state is.  Neither side will ever do anything to upset the machine.

Examples?  Glad you asked...

Obama claimed to fix Student Loans.  Nothing really happened and millions are still indebted to a corrupt system that enslaves borrowers for debt that should never have existed in the first place.

Trump promised prosperity with protectionism the result of which has nearly bankrupted thousands of small businesses and farmers who suddenly find no markets for their goods.  Multinational corporations can care less.  But Mom and Pop?

The saddest thing is that all the time we were waving our banners and wearing our MAGA hats we were surrendering our own power in favor of a fantasy.

A fantasy that will deprive you of life, love and occupation should you identify with the wrong side.

Nothing will change so long as we continue to exist in a fog of ideology political or otherwise. 

This is the true challenge to the evolution of the human race. 

To resist the urges of the lizard brain.  We are where we are because of what we allowed to happen.

This is on me, you and those that came before you. 

But if you're committed to your ideology, have no fear.  Reason has no value and facts are malleable.  Enjoy the appearance of a civil society and the shiny chains you've made for yourself.

Some of us knew but nobody cared to do anything about it.

Ideology...

I did something tonight that anyone that knows me would find shocking...

I went with a friend to see a political documentary, Death of A Nation.

A film that, to be honest, doesn't quite fall within my sphere of beliefs.  Which by the way happen to lie somewhere in the middle.

But...

I'm a strong believer that what we have in common is far greater than what divides.  So as I sat quietly and attentively watching the screen I suspended any pangs of my own ideological leanings in hopes of finding that common ground.

Thing is, strong ideologies tend to dismiss such hopes and this movie ultimately left me feeling like I was watching less documentary and more propaganda piece.

...and I was disappointed.

I was hoping to find that common ground, see an intelligent presentation of an alternative view not colored by extremist ideologies and conspiracy theory.  

That's not what I got.  Instead it was little more than red meat for a political base.  That it was seen in any other light by otherwise well meaning, intelligent people was discouraging. 

I was hoping the overwhelmingly negative reviews that used words like "laughable" and "preaching to the mentally unsound" were unfairly leveled.  

Hard to rebuke such barbs when the core message of the film was that Democrats were aligned with the like of Hitler, Mussolini and ultimately Satan while Republicans walked in the glow of the almighty.  

Not exactly a call to unity...

So at the end when my friend asked what I thought my only response was...

"Interesting"  

Let me be fair here.  If such a presentation had the opposite political bend I'd be just as disappointed.  

I have a real problem with extreme ideology and a strong believer that truth lies somewhere near if not at the middle.

My friend went on to emphasize her belief in the  "truths" portrayed in the film.  My response...

"Truth is malleable"

"I'm sorry you feel that way,"  said she...

I was sorry she didn't understand what it was I was actually saying.  In case you're wondering what that is it's simply this.  I feel that such a work, regardless of its political bend, is less interested in truth than an agenda.

We all have our own agendas even if we don't acknowledge them.  But agendas are inherently selfish things. Existing often for no other purpose than to manipulate others to get our own way even at their expense if necessary.

In the end I kept my opinions neutral.  I'm not interested in throwing away a relationship over one aspect of someone's personality.

Nor do I evaluate the value of a relationship by such a narrow aspect as politics.  

...but many do.

So here we are.  

Embracing ideologies with no more value than dust in the wind.  

Embrace the wind and you're touched by nothing.

Beware False equivalencies - Breitbart and its kind are NOT news

I was reading another ZDNet article this time showing how fake news and siloed information was a danger to U.S. democracy.  The long-winded article went into a treatise, complete with spiffy chart of where on the political spectrum all the various "news" organizations fell.

CNN, AP and Reuters were considered middle of the road, mainstream with Huffington Post and Fox News occupying the left and right of them respectively.  Of course the middle is always under attack as being too liberal by somebody.

Seems the past decade has spawned an outcry for a more "balanced" media view bringing forth what is laughably called Fox "news" and ultimately lending legitimacy to far right wing "journalism" like that purveyed by the likes of Breitbart news (a known proponent of Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist ideologies.)

Folks,  the past 8 years have taught us what happens to a country caught up in in siloed rhetoric.  Men of otherwise good intent are prisoners of the polls and fearful of a vocal minority.  A minority that grows into an immovable majority on both sides sown only with the seeds of propaganda.

We're literally too stupid and too lazy to know any better.

We cherry pick that which we agree with and discard the rest.  You can't help it, the bias is so great, the vitriol so thick that it's nearly impossible to find common ground.

This is not the function of journalism.  Opinions belong on the editorial page not the front page.  But in a world of information overload we don't have time for opposing views especially when they come from those who care to know nothing but their own.

Those who refuse to recognize or even acknowledge the lessons and warnings of history are the real danger.  Degrees don't make you intelligent, being aware of your world does...

"We aren't a democracy - say the Pledge of Allegiance and realize this.  Democracy, as in the Roman Empire, is rule by the mob.  Heaven help us if we get there, as the Roman Empire didn't last as long as the U.S. has."

I'd like to say I made that quote up but I can't.  He's off by at least 300 years and doesn't care to realize it.

So much for "No Child Left Behind."

That quote, by the way, is from the comment section of the same article and sadly it's not alone.  I see it far too often and when the obvious oversight is called out instead of thoughtful reflection there is instead an attack.

Libtard, Butt-Hurt, Elitist.

These are the retorts.  These are the product of faux journalism and if nothing else we need to read the signs.

Is it so hard to form an opinion based on your own views instead of someone else's?

Is that NOT what this grand democracy is supposed to be?

Rhetoric is not governance, it's a campaign and campaigns are about wars.  Warriors are about conquering.  To conquer is easy, governing is hard.

Just ask a Roman...

Crybabies? Time to change the diaper and move on

Look I get it....

Your guy won our gal lost.  I'm OK with that mostly because there isn't anything anyone can do about it now.  Unless you're literally an advocate of the very anarchy that was suggested by the Trump camp if he lost, we really need to move on from this.  

For the most part nobody's voting rights were denied, nobody is even suggesting it.  At least nobody anyone is listening to.  By the way, around 121 million votes were cast for Trump and Clinton combined.  Allowing for around 5 million "protest" votes for the third parties that leaves us about 160 million short.  

Dead serious here.  So, if you didn't even bother then shut the hell up.  You're entitled to your boycott, abstention or whatever you rationalized it as but now you get to live with the trappings of that choice which means I don't care about your opinion as far as this election goes.

That said...

We've got to give the guy a chance even if it means choking down some bile.  Still, I know why they're in the streets.  The reality now is that we're going to have to live through a rubber stamp across 3 branches of government. for at least the next 2 years.  

On the bright side.  Republicans are just as eager to appear relevant as Democrats.  Trump's election was only a mandate for the elimination of the electoral college.  An institution that in the last 20 years  has managed to subvert the popular vote twice.  

Oh, and to those of you out there jubilant in your "victory" I'll say this.  The will of the people has as much relevance in New York as it does in New Albany Mississippi buddy.  

The electoral college was a concession to another group of "crybabies" in the southern states back in 1787.  Those "crybabies" went on to comprise membership in the Confederate States of America by the way.  You know, the guys in the gray uniforms.

Making the Electoral College as outdated and clumsy as the three-fifth's rule.  Google that to see where this abomination of democracy came from.  

So today we have the popular vote functioning as little more than an "also ran" for no other reason than making 200 year old slave owners happy.   The result is that barring Satan himself on the ballot there will always be the same few states that determine who wins the presidency making everybody else sloppy seconds.

That's an argument for another time, however.  Suffice it to say the only other mandate in this election was for whomever occupies the Oval Office to close the chasm of division brought about by 35 years of ideological civil war.

To that end I offer hope...

There was actual support for many of the social and infrastructure programs offered up by Democrats over the past 6 years from a Republican dominated congress.  It was just that one nagging thing that wouldn't let them move forward.  

The guy in the oval office.

They didn't like him because...Who cares, we all suspect what it was and the barbs and birthers all lead back to the realization that the last 50 years may not have been as socially progressive as we'd hoped.  Maybe that three-fifth's rule is still fresh in their minds too...

If the election showed us anything it was that regardless of whom you voted, that shit just had to stop.
Look no further than the images of Trump's face this week.  It's been blank, contemplative and just a bit fearful.  There was no evidence of the fiery threats or xenophobic tirades.

The demonstrations in the streets of America may have been largely viewed as the tantrum of a petulant child but they were something else as well.  An indication that any move toward the fascist dream of the far right would not go unanswered.

Trump does not want to be the president that goes down in history as starting another civil war.

So take heart "crybabies"  It's not as bad as you think.

Despite the rhetoric, nobody is going to allow the US to descend into a 21st century version of Nazi Germany.  For one thing, there's no money in it.  For another, it literally doesn't have "popular" support.

 How long do you think this country would put up with anything that curbed its access to the McRib or 65 inch TV's anyway?

What I'd also suggest is instead of boiling in your own rage that you find a way to make lemonade out of lemons.

One thing I know for sure, especially living in a RED state, is this; The purse strings get a whole lot looser when the Republicans have the White House.  The other is that political rhetoric is just that.  Valueless, baseless diatribe.

Republicans don't want to live in a police state any more than Democrats do so don't expect armies of "Jack booted Thugs" anytime soon.

From my own experience I can tell you that while I supported Obama, My personal fortunes only suffered under his administration.  Still, I had to think of someone other than myself when I voted.

Trump would be wise to do the same... and so would you.

If it's at all true that "Joe Six Pack" made his voice heard you have to address that.  There are far too many living on the fringes to spend any amount of time waiting for the payoff of a "higher purpose."

That's a condemnation of both sides.  Yes, one more than the other but both are to blame.  If the possibility of bipartisanship is dead so is this country.

...and news flash...Canada doesn't want you...

Think about that the next time you fire off an angry tweet.

Thoughts on all the recent violence. Terrorism or otherwise

Nice France

Baton Rouge Louisiana

Dallas Texas

Terrorism, Racial Inequality, Fear.

I wish I had some profound insights to share but I don't.  I'm just a normal guy trying to make his way in the world.  So aren't we all.  

I'm sure you've felt some of the same frustrations as the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes but you dare not express them lest you be labeled a radical sympathizer.

Is Western society far too enamored with money and power?  Does it elevate the inconsequential above social responsibility?

Of course it does.  

Do we judge others based on what we know or the rhetoric we find most convenient to our own bias.

Do the people we trust with our safety view us as their wards or potential adversaries?  Sadly your complexion has an effect on that judgement.

Too  many labels: Black, White, terrorist, racist, capitalist, rich , poor, smart, dumb.

We become prisoners of our cultural indoctrination.  Threaten the construct at  your own peril.  The wrongs of the world are caused by the other guy.  The one that doesn't look like us, doesn't pray to the same god, doesn't see the world the way you do.

It stokes a fire of frustration that becomes a blinding rage.

I'm no better than you.  I have my own biases and prejudices and I confess I don't know as much about the world as I should.  

What I do know is that the more you try to control the world the looser your grip on it becomes.  

When you create a culture of denial your reap what you sow.  When you disenfranchise others for your own benefit civil discourse becomes impossible.  


This is how Dallas, Baton Rouge, Nice and Paris happened.  This is also how 911 happened.  

I shed no tears for Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Micah Johnson.  I see them as bloody opportunists seizing the message of the disenfranchised for their own ends.

It's what politicians do just without the guns and bombs.

When your message is one of exclusion and your world view narrow and unyielding you create an incubator for terrorism and violence. 

Yes, the perpetrators are guilty of their own crimes but we have to take some responsibility for the environment that created them.  

There's always a catalyst, a spark, something that lights the fire.  Ignorance and indifference only fans the flames.  

Even Adolf Hitler didn't rise alone like some biblical Anti-Christ as some would have you believe.  He too was an opportunist taking advantage of the disenfranchised rage of a country on the verge of collapse.  

We're far too content with the superficial.  We want a bad guy to blame so we don't have to take any responsibility for creating him.

Worse, the world we live in thrives on the superficial.  Social media, 24 hour news cycles, news delivered by "personalities" without even the suggestion of objectivity.  

The message is controlled, massaged and pre-packaged.  We're spoon fed copious amounts of useless information.

We think activism is best accomplished by a Tweet or Facebook like. 

As though a click will end hunger, oppression, and economic disparity.

People are not being heard unless they make it into the news cycle and then only the most radical.  Is it any wonder with such low information that we think every Arab is a terrorist, Every Black man a criminal, Every Latino an illegal immigrant.

We caused this.  We created this environment and it will continue unless we acknowledge our complicity in it.  

They say we should create the world we want to see.  Creation requires knowledge.  Unfortunately, what we consider knowledge is often little more than packaged diatribe.  

The way to fix it?  

Ask the uncomfortable questions.  Challenge your mental status quo and see if there isn't a whole world you've been missing.

You can't escape the experiences your life has shown you but you can escape the ignorance.

Yay! you reproduced!

The greatest thing you can do for the world is add to its population...

Or at least that's the message I've been getting.

It shows up in all those "Awww" moments when the talking heads on the morning news feel compelled  to share the baby pics.

Or the defiant rhetoric of the far right proclaiming it's most solemn duty is to protect the sanctity of marriage by limiting it to those with opposing genitalia.  Seemingly to ensure procreation of course...

Even the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage can't escape it.  Those folks want a gaggle of kids too even if the biology of the situation makes the whole thing somewhat difficult.

It seems the endless drumbeat to perpetuate the species is intertwined with the culture.  The bulk of your population may be living in the streets but nothing is more critical to a society than ensuring its numbers continue to grow.  

As though all ills would solved by simply creating more generations.  

Which of course is ridiculous.  More of anything is just more of the same condition.

Hey, I'm not against kids but I admit I don't have any so I suppose that shining moment of achievement will forever be lost on me.  It seems most parents have a belief that whatever personal failures they've had in their own lives will somehow be rectified by their offspring.

Or perhaps it's much simpler than that.  

Paris Hilton

Let's face it, unless you're one of the fortunate few who enjoys a lifestyle of fame and/or fortune there isn't much to compare to participating in the creation of life.  

I mean, c'mon now!  How can you deny the most tangible of mortal accomplishments!  We are no closer to god than when we create a child...

Right?

A point of view I both understand and recoil from.  Sadly, regardless of your religious indoctrination the reaction is purely biological.  Arguably no different than a mother housecat's reaction to her litter of newborn kittens. 

And by the way...Some of you are actually having "litters."  19 and counting?  For such devout piety it seems like you're in competition with the cat.  Supremacy of all those lower creatures is kind of taking a beating here. 

I'm not so arrogant as to believe that reproduction is any great feat.  As the song goes, "Birds do it, Bees do it" etc. etc.  In fact I'd suggest that for humans, it mostly happens by accident.  Once it does, however, somebody's got to step up to the plate at least until junior or little miss gets through college.  

An event that signals to society that a contractual requirement has been fulfilled.  You are now free to die having accomplished successful procreation and taxpayer replacement.
.....

I don't mean to be flippant about parenting or imply that the rearing of a human child is easy.  In fact I'm cognizant of the fact that I'm probably not the best candidate to participate in the practice.  I like kids, I like talking to them, teaching them but then I like to send them home.

I guess I'd be a pretty good grandparent then except for the whole "Parent" prerequisite that is.

But the truth of the matter is that after many millennia of human generations we still judge people on the color of their skin, social station and who they choose to sleep with among other trivialities. 

So much for "fruitful and multiply" being the cure for all our evils.

Ah ha! you say, The children are our future!


No they're not.  In fact I despise that phrase for all its selfish baggage.  Their future is their own and you've got nothing to say about it aside from how badly you screw them up with your own insecurities.

Our children can be nothing but a reflection of ourselves.  Even if they reject most of what you try to teach them, at their core they have you to thank for who they are.  Not just that they...are.

So I'd submit that the only way to ensure succeeding generations be better than their progenitors is to admit that there's nothing divine or particularly unique about having children.  

Until we drop all this religious and cultural pretense, we as a species will never rise above the petty concerns of 30 second sound bite sensationalism.

Saddling  our kids with dogma and ignorance does nothing for the species.  Want to give your kids a brighter future?  Stop thinking the greatest gift you gave them was existence.  Stop falling back on the cop out of ancient religious dogma and prejudice and prove that humanity is more than just the sum of its biology.

That or start scoping out caves, clubs and bearskin boxers.

How Windows 8 is like Obamacare

Let's get one thing straight, this article isn't meant to be an attempt to be flippant about either topic Rather it's about mandates. 

Mandates rarely come without causing someone pain.  Does the pain of a failed operating system rival that of a botched Universal Healthcare mandate?  Unquestionably not but this isn't about equivalence, it's about arrogance.

Windows 8 was launched with great fanfare.  Preceded by not one but two public betas designed to blunt the inevitable shock by a customer base soon to lose their beloved Start Menu.  At the time Microsoft's two Steve's, Ballmer and Sinofsky, touted the gospel of one OS to rule them all.  Even if that wasn't quite true.  

The Windows on your phone wasn't the same as the one on your PC and neither was the one that graced your shiny new Surface RT.

But wait, for some strange reason, nobody wanted the Surface RT or Windows Phone...

Apparently the same went for Windows 8.

It was too much too fast.  A mandate by Goliath to David.  A directive handed down promising an end to our computing tedium and liberation from the evils of multiple platforms.  Remember what I said about not being quite true?

Let's switch from Redmond Washington to the Washington everyone cares about.  The one with D.C. in the name.  The one where the prospect of healthcare for everyone was the dream of Presidents all the way back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  So finally, after years of haggling, backroom deals with insurance industry lobbyists and even a Supreme Court challenge the dream became a reality.

Sort of...

The grand idea came with compromise.  Healthcare for all but still at the whim of a corrupt industry that left the poor bankrupt and the sick unhealed.  It was a mandate after all.  Everyone had to play or be subject to a fine.  There would be websites, exchanges and lip service.  If you liked things the way they were you could continue that way....

except...

You couldn't.  That part about whims of a corrupt industry?  Well, when their policies didn't measure up to the law they simply canceled them.  No warning, no notice, just a curt letter.  The claim was that the policies didn't meet muster and more expensive options were the only answer aside from no coverage at all. 

Oh what political hay was made.  Endless prattle about promises broken and families harmed soon ensued.  Meaningless, all of it.  The bottom line was a mandate executed by the executioners with the blessings of the government via flawed public policy.  It all made for glittering sound bites but the result fell short.

Employers railed against the changes claiming crippling costs to provide adequate care and vows to reduce costs on the backs of their laborers.  Even if it meant reducing the labor force itself, suppressing  wages or cutting hours to do it.  It was true costs were spiraling out of control but not because the concept of healthcare for everyone became law.  It was because the moneychangers collecting the bills demanded more.  Something's got to give and it wasn't going to be the insurance industry. 

Employers claimed an unfair burden of their employees healthcare costs but to those in their charge the employer is the only option.   Nobody making minimum wage could shoulder the costs of an individual policy that often exceeded their month's wages.

We blame the ideology instead of the real problem, the insurance companies.  It wasn't the government, well, actually it was because they let it happen.  Ultimately, however, the blame lay squarely at the feet of the messenger (the moneychangers) and they still wanted their share.  Now they had the law to get it for them. 

Nobody likes a mandate and rebellion will soon ensue either subtle or gross.  Tell someone that touch screens and tiles are how you must use a computer from now on and expect some blowback.

Tell insurance companies that they must cover everyone but do nothing to keep them honest and you end up with the healthcare mess we have now.

The similarities are staggering...

Yes, Windows is just an operating system while healthcare is often a case of life or death but the fumble is the same. 

A change in the way we work with our technology was long overdue, Windows 8 showed us a glimpse of a better future.  So too was Universal healthcare but like the ill fated operating system it was a glittering promise that couldn't deliver.  At least not as it is now.

In the case of Windows you could always just stick with the old version or wait for Microsoft to fix their error in judgment with Windows 9.  Not so with Universal Health care, there's no turning back the clock regardless of what the politicians say.   But just like any version of Windows, expect a slew of "patches" in an attempt to make things better.

The real cost of living

I've been thinking about the price of things and the money it takes to buy them and I've made an obvious but as far as I can tell unrecognized connection.

It's said that the value of the U.S. dollar has been declining for years.  Go over to the Dollar Times inflation calculator (I have it bookmarked) and see for yourself.

As I've played around with it I've happened upon an interesting anomaly.  It appears that sometime around 1942 the value of the U.S. Dollar started declining steadily. This was almost a decade after FDR decided that gold was only useful for jewelry.  1942 was the first full year of the U.S. involvement in World War 2 so considering the economy was on a wartime footing it makes sense that the consumer economy was going to take a hit.  That's what happens when you actually try to pay for the wars you engage in.

What's strange is that it's a trend that's never stopped.  It leveled off for awhile during the "Great Recession of 2008" but continued its decline shortly after.  Most economists will tell you the only reason it didn't plunge further was due to government intervention and a lack of economic activity in general.

Look, economic babble aside, the  truth is that your buying power is continuously eroded over time and there's nothing you can do about it.

Regardless of your political affiliation or whether you care that the money in your pocket has been based on little more than good intentions (Fiat currency) for the past 4 decades the problem is self evident.   With apologies to Thomas Jefferson, the "rights " held self-evident have been little more than political marketing for the past century.

After all, even if it's worth less, it just feels good to have a million of something even if it only has the buying power of your kid's lunch money in a few years.

So if our money is worthless, why do we accept the excuse for higher prices being higher costs of production? 

Does that sound like a stupid question?  Then you're probably a stupid person. 

Sorry, but you were probably already chewing on the arm of your chair by now anyway...

What's really stupid is that we accept the fact that our money is worth less which naturally makes things cost more but don't give a second thought to how badly we're getting ripped off.

Let's go back to our Inflation calculator and stick in some numbers.  Say $40,000 which was a decent salary in 1985.  In fact it was a great salary and in 2013 dollars you could buy $87,217 worth of stuff. 

In little more than a generation our money has lost more than half its buying power.  Yet our wages are still based on those same 1985 numbers.  Somewhere, somebody in HR or accounting thinks that $40,000 will still let you buy a house, feed your family and save a few bucks for a rainy day.

It's perfectly acceptable to raise prices to compensate for a currency with declining value. It's only fair to charge more if it takes more money to produce the same item.

So how is it that demanding fair compensation for slowly killing your soul in some cloth covered cubicle suddenly makes you unreasonable? 

If everyone is getting what they need then everyone should be happy, right?

Thing is, very few of us are and the only relief we get are sound bites and token gestures from politicians crafted to quell the uproar till the next news cycle. 

It's the reason why politicians don't like to run on their records anymore and instead choose to act like bullies in a schoolyard.

It's not about rich versus poor or conservative versus liberal economics.  It's about expecting blood from a stone.  It's simple, if your money is worth less you have to have more of it just to maintain your standard of living.  A cost of living raise isn't a luxury it's a fact of life when you live in an unpredictable economy. 

I don't buy the big business wailing over minimum wage increases either.  If you can't afford to pay for the resources you need to conduct business then you don't know how to run your business.  It's exploitation, nothing less.

In fact, because business has gotten away with economic indentured servitude for half a century they've actually hurt themselves.  It's not the rich who keep the GM's, Chrysler's and Maytags in business.  It's the average Joe sitting in the morning commute 5 days a week.  If he can't buy your goods you're out of business. 

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. 

Why do we accept this? If the value of our money is based on good faith and that faith has been violated then why do we continue to accept the whole premise to start with?

I've often said that the oil companies can charge whatever they want for a gallon of gas just so long as everyone's wages are adjusted to compensate.  Charge $20 a gallon for all I care, just make sure the average income is in the six figure range. 

If it costs you that much to deliver the product then I should be able to meet that demand from the rewards of my labor.  Anything else is economic opportunism on the backs of labor.

In the end , most of us have ended up living one check away from financial ruin while the Suze Orman's of the world chide us for spending our meager resources too frivolously.  I know your heart's in the right place Suze but your understanding of economic theory borders on fantasy. 

Until the slow slide from employment to indentured servitude stops in the developed world we need to stop blaming ourselves for all the economic ills and personal financial woes. 

We need to demand that wages reflect the world we live in now, not the one our grandparents knew.  It's not unreasonable unless you sit in the executive suites counting the millions you steal from your employees every day you don't pay a wage based on what used to be called "the cost of living"

Friends it's simple.  the rich are getting richer not because they're smarter or luckier than us.  They're getting richer because they're benefitting from the fact that you're not getting paid what you're worth.

If you think I'm wrong, well, I can guarantee you're not worried about feeding your kids next month.

Think about it.