47 Percent

Mitt Romney's latest "47%" musings offer a fairly honest glimpse into how he sees the world -- which is straight line Ayn Rand social objectivism. That is, Romney believes in what Rand would have called "rational self-interest." In normal people terms, it's a winners vs. losers sort of thing; the people who are on top are on top because they're better than everybody else, and the losers deserve what they get for being lazy or not as smart or whatever.

Don't believe me? Note Mitt's focus on "moochers," which is the same term Rand used for what she deemed the non-productive classes, people who took forced handouts from the more productive members of society. Forget that some people actually need a helping hand; for die-hard Randians, there is no virtue in charity or community, especially that dictated by the government.

Now, I know a lot of folks agree with the whole Randian objectivist thing. I guess they believe that there are natural leaders who deserve the spoils, and everyone else are lesser beings who don't deserve as much. I see this view as naive, self-centered, and extraordinarily selfish. Yeah, it's good to be on top, but that doesn't always come from being smarter or working harder; there are a lot of other factors that determine where one ends up in life. (Not the least of which is where one starts out -- and Mitt started out pretty well off.) Romney and his pals believe they're better than everyone else; I don't necessarily agree.

I bring up the Randian connection only because I think it's informative as to how Romney thinks and how he has acted in the past and is likely to act in the future. I think he honestly believes what he said at that covertly recorded fundraiser -- that half of all Americans are unproductive moochers that unnecessarily take from the natural ruling class in our society, and to hell with them. I find that cold hearted and selfish, but obviously there are folks who agree with that sentiment. Nobody likes a moocher, after all.

So here's the thing. If you think that it's okay for the rich and the powerful to think only of themselves, and not to share their bounty with those less fortunate and more in need, then vote for Romney. If, on the other hand, you feel that all of us have an obligation to help each other and work for the good of the greater society, then vote for Obama.

Myself, I find no virtue in selfishness. I'm all for rewarding hard work, but also for sharing the bounty and helping those in need. I know how I'll be voting in November.

Jobs

Here's my advice to President Obama on how to solve the unemployment problem. He can use it for free, although it'd be nice to see a little attribution:

Here's the plan: Hire the unemployed as teacher assistants in our public schools. One per classroom, maybe a few extra to help the maintenance staff. Pay them minimum wage, give them free breakfast and lunch and daycare if they have little kids. Let the principals and teachers decide how best to use them -- an extra hand to handle larger classes, extra talent to help reinstate cut programs (music, phys ed, etc.), whatever. Leave the implementation up to the schools, leave the funding to the Feds. It'll cost a little bit, but we're already so much in debt, who'll notice?

Whatever the cost, it's a great investment. Beleaguered schools and teachers get much-needed assistance. Kids get more attention and a better education. Unemployed adults get short-term employment and cash in their pockets. And maybe, just maybe, we inspire some of these short-term teaching assistants to become teachers themselves, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Everybody wins.

If you like this idea, pass it along.

Greatest

VH1, the channel that used to play music videos, recently released their list of "100 Greatest Artists of All Time," as voted on by today's so-called artists. The list is a joke, of course, as by "all time" they mean "the rock era," as no one bothered to mention Frank Sinatra, George Gershwin, or J.S. Bach. Even taking the list as a rock-era list, however, there are some issues. 

VH1's top 10 "greatest artists" were as follows:

1. The Beatles

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bob Dylan

4. Led Zeppelin

5. Rolling Stones

6. Jimi Hendrix

7. Prince

8. Elvis Presley

9. James Brown

10. Stevie Wonder

It's hard to argue against the Beatles heading the list, of course, but there's a lot wrong otherwise. I mean, there' no way Michael Jackson ranks over Dylan or Elvis, and there's really no justification for Prince to be in the top ten at all. It's really indefensible. 

The problem, as I see it, is defining "best." It's just too subjective. My "best" isn't going to be the same as yours. Heck, my own definition of "best" will probably differ from day to day, depending on how I'm feeling about things.

So, given that most of the artists interviewed for the TV show talked about how big an influence a given artist was on them, personally, I'd like to change the criteria and suggest a list I'll call the "Top Ten Most Influential Artists of the Rock Era." Here's who I'd choose:

1. The Beatles

2. Bob Dylan

3. Elvis Presley

4. Chuck Berry

5. Berry Gordy

6. Phil Spector

7.Aretha Franklin

8. Madonna

9. Joni Mitchell

10. Rolling Stones

Note that these aren't necessarily my ten favorite artists, or even the ten I'd call the "best," however that's defined. Instead, these are the ten who I think most influenced the music of the era.

As to specifics, I'd agree that it's debatable whether Dylan was really more influential than Elvis, but that's the way I see it; Mr. Zimmerman really influenced the way songwriters wrote. As to putting Joni Mitchell on the list, while she's obviously not as talented as Dylan and the Beatles, she influenced and inspired several generations of female singer-songwriters. (Without Joni, no Jewell -- which I'll forever hold against her). Same thing for putting Aretha on the list; she inspired the creation of the female vocal diva, which rules to this day. (Without Aretha, no Celene Dion -- again, I hold this against the Queen of Soul.) And the same for Madonna -- I'm not a fan, but it's obvious that Lady Gaga and her ilk are.

I put Phil Spector and Berry Gordy on the list, even though they're not performers, because as producers they strongly influenced the sound of the music of the 60s and beyond. Gordy, of course, helped create the Motown Sound, which led to the Philly Sound, which led to just about all soul and R&B music of the past 50 years. Spector's Wall of Sound influenced everybody from Brian Wilson to Bruce Springsteen to U2, so he gets on the list easy.

The others are fairly self explanatory. The Stones, while not my personal favorites, influenced generations of bad boy rock and rollers, as well as the punk and grunge movements. Chuck Berry pretty much invented rock and roll and defined R&R guitar, so there's no way he's not on there. Dylan, as noted, changed the way songs were written, so he's a given. Then there's the Beatles, who head up any list no matter how it's defined. There was pop music before the Beatles and pop music after the Beatles, and that's just he way it is.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Taxes

Everybody hates taxes. Their taxes, anyway. But we all love what our taxes buy — public schools, police and fire protection, snow removal, etc. We don’t want any of these things taken away, but we also don’t want our taxes raised. It’s a glaring inconsistency. 

Frankly, I like having the snow plows clear my street in January. I like having music classes in our high school. I like having police and fire protection. I’m willing to pay for these things. Now, if those costs go up (and they have and will), then we have to pay more for them — which means increasing taxes, one way or another.

That said, I’m never happy for my own taxes to increase, but as long as everybody’s paying their fair share, I can live with it. What I can’t live with are people much wealthier than I who don’t pay their fair share. Hell yeah, raise the taxes on the wealthy — or at least remove the unwarranted tax cuts that the Bushies gave them during the last administration. 

People who earn two, three, ten, twenty times more than I do can afford to pay a little more in taxes. Try raising those taxes first before you raise taxes on the rest of us. Then, if we still need increased taxes to pay for the necessities that we like and need, then by all means do so. That’s part of our public duty — paying for the services we use.


But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Kindle Update

As if I didn't dislike the Kindle enough as-is, my brand-new Kindle broke just 24 hours into use. (The screen went all wonky.) So I not only don't like how it works, it simply doesn't work. What kind of piece of crap is that? (Or is it simply more proof that Amazon should stick to selling other people's stuff, instead of trying to make their own; they're really kind of sucky as a tech hardware company.)

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.