Thursday, February 2, 2012
Mitt Romney, Poor People, and the Myth of Team Chemistry
So, Mitt finally said what all Republicans since 1960 have secretly thought - they don't care about poor people. The fact that Mitt had the chutzpah to get on national television and say that there is a safety net for the very poor shows that, on a positive note, he has the grapefruits to sit in the oval office but that he is completely out of touch with not only those who are living in poverty but also with millions upon millions of Americans who find themselves teetering closer and closer towards poverty on a daily basis.
Further more, to say that he's not worried about the very rich because they're doing just fine displays an equal amount of apathy for the plight of the 99% and a willingness to defend the status quo, a status quo that has in part caused the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history. The recent bank and automotive bailouts (which were passed by those Democrat fuckers too so don't think I'm just hating on Romney and the Republicans) made the Dutch Tulip mania of the early 1600's look like a lemonade stand going under.
I'm a Libertarian politically and Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, informs my opinions. I believe wholeheartedly in the efficacy of individual liberties. However, no matter how much those sociopaths in Washington and Hollywood blabber on about free-market economics and capitalism, they have all made exorbitant amounts of money by sucking on the tax-payer's nipple. When it comes to a social safety net for the very poor, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander, right?
That's the thing, though!
The very rich and the very poor both have a social safety net but that's where the similarities end. The social safety net for the very rich is the ability to get unlimited amounts of taxpayer money and other resources to bail them out of their bad investments, hide money in tax-free off-shore subsidiaries, and lower their taxable income significantly by making charitable and/or political donations.
On the other hand, the social safety net for the very poor includes food stamps (under attack by Republicans as an "entitlement" program), Social Security (raided by Democrats and Republicans to proffer wars), Medicare/Medicaid (an entitlement program that Republicans won't acknowledge is what it is because they'll lose the elderly vote), and Unemployment Security (Barack Obama practically had to blow John Boehner to get an extension to unemployment benefits).
If you call this a safety net, the ground must not be too far beneath it.
The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, the Clinton's, Kennedy' s and other political figureheads and families ACT like they are just like us but are far removed from the plight of average Americans. They are living in a self-effacing bubble. Politicians are like that ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend that don't want anything to do with you until they're close to getting blue balls (don't know the female equivalent of that). They know that you'll still put out if they remind you enough about the good times you had together and how you can have all of those moments back if you'd just (fill in the blank).
Washington, D.C., Wall Street, and Hollywood are the next bubbles that need to burst
On a similarly ridiculous note...
On the latest episode of Where In the World Will Superman Go, Orlando Magic All-Star center Dwight Howard added the Chicago Bulls to his list of desired landing spots as he continues to (unsuccessfully) coax his way out of Florida. Howard originally left the Bulls all his short list of desired destinations but then he realized that the Bulls have one of the best records in the NBA along with arguably the league's best player so he changed his tune like the Black Eyed Peas.
Now, there are people on both sides of this debate.
Some people feel that Bulls are fine as is. While they think that Howard is a fantastic player, they are worried about how the team chemistry would be affected by the loss of core players such as Luol Deng and Joakim Noah. People who are for keeping the team as is draw parallels to those late 80's and early 90's battles between Jordan's Bulls and The Bad Boys of the Detroit Pistons. It took the Bulls three tries before they finally upended the Pistons dynasty in 1991, en route to the first of 3-consecutive championships for the Bulls.
My question is...what the hell is chemistry aside from a high school requirement? Chemistry?! Give me a break! I can hear the sycophants of this chemistry concept lining up with their typical rebuttals such as "if chemistry isn't important, why doesn't the team the best talent always win" or the opposite rebuttal of "if chemistry isn't important, why do dysfunctional teams fair worse than teams with camaraderie"?
The fact of the matter is that teams with the most talent win WHEN everyone is in the right seat on the bus to make the greatest use of their talents. The fact of the matter is that what we readily identify as chemistry is a psychological effect that is the sum total of one thing - WINNING! Ask the Indianapolis Colts or the Cleveland Cavaliers where their chemistry went. If the Bulls have the opportunity to acquire a guy like Dwight Howard, you have to pull the trigger on the deal no matter who you have to give up (with the exception of Derrick Rose). Howard would fill the void that Carlos Boozer makes deeper on a nightly basis for a consistent low post scorer, he is dominant on the defensive end (just like Coach Thibs likes it) , and it would give D.Rose the Robin to his Batman as they look to contend with Los Tres Amigos in Miami for the foreseeable future.
Fans get caught up in the personalities on a team. Winning cities and organization look for value and talent. Not only will Howard bring personality, he will also bring value and talent.Don't worry, the Bulls will be able to find another Luol Deng in the draft. They will effectively replace Joakim Noah. God forbid they seek to replace Carlos Boozer with more than a bunch of orange safety cones!
Chemistry?! Get the flip outta here. The only chemistry I'm concerned with is the type that puts those two Hydrogen atoms next to that single molecule of Oxygen.