
Main Entry: ig-no-rant
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a: destitute of knowledge or education <
source: Merriam-Webster Online www.m-w.com
I will be using the word ignorant a number of times in this post. I just wanted to get that definition out in the open so that no one would be confused should they mistake my use of the word for its more modern denotation, which for some reason has made it offensive. Which leads me straight away into what I believe is at the root of the political rift in this country that seems to be growing at an alarming rate. Indeed it seems to be growing in tandem with the degree of ignorance to which our society seems to know no end. But is that so bad?
I am ignorant. There, I said it. I lack knowledge in countless more things than I could ever hope to be educated. I will never fully grasp string theory physics or the wonders of the nervous system. I will never be able to walk into a rain forest and start spouting off the Latin botanical names of every plant around me. I will never be a virtuoso cellist, and I will never be an economist. I don't even know how they get the bubbles into cola. These things don't bother me. I accept my own personal limitations. I know there are people who have studied these things and have worked hard to become professionals and they are gifted at what they do. Conversely, I know that I excel in areas where others do not, and that knowledge gives me solace.
That is one kind of ignorance. It's one that is the result of personal limitations and time constraints, as opposed to an utter lack of curiosity for discovering the wonders of the world around you. It is far different than an ignorance that stems from sheer indolence, such as demonstrated by the fact that one in four Americans did not read a single book last year, but the average American watched over four hours of television a day. In a country where those who are educated are called "elitist" with contemptuous fervor, one can only call this new fad of ignorance "Simpleminded Chic".
This is why I don't understand why conservatives are in City Hall, red faced and with spittle in the corners of their mouths, screaming about a universal health plan, the intricacies of which they cannot begin to grasp. Every day since the domestication of agriculture, the world has become an increasingly more complicated place. These complications are at the root of how capitalism began. We specialize in things because we cannot possibly acquire the knowledge to do them all ourselves. Not one of these confused angry people would ever go to the construction site of a new suspension bridge and tell the engineer how to save money or how to better build the structure. Why are they fooling themselves into thinking they understand the workings of the financial, medical, or insurance industries any better than they understand the physics of building a suspension bridge?
So to this I say it is they who are the real socialists. That's right. They are interfering with the very fundamentals of capitalism; the diversification of the workforce. To prevent the real dismantlement of capitalism they should all just get back to work There is nothing more capitalistic that they could do than to get back to the factory and start putting the bubbles into the cola again.
i was following you until the last paragraph: i don't how government sponsored health-care is capitalist. a capitalist work force diversifies to the extent that the market demands it. a government providing healthcare is creating "artificial" demand, ergo is not true capitalism and driven by other motives (altruism, etc.). can you expand a little?
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that government sponsored health-care is capitalistic in nature. I said that people who are not educated/qualified to do a job tring to interfere with those who are educated/qualified to do that job, is socialist behavior in that it is impeding that very diversification you mention. You also mention that the work force diversifies to the extent that the market demands it. Well, the market does demand it. Over 70% of Americans want a public option. Does the fact that the private sector is corrupt and has failed, thus leading the public to demand a government option, make the public option socialist? I don't know, but by your definition it still sounds pretty much like capitalism.
ReplyDeletei'm personally annoyed at the level of attention these "mobs" have gotten at the town hall meetings. I expect they do not constitute a majority opinion, but by kicking and screaming they've gotten just what they wanted: attention. The squeaky wheel gets the grease I guess...
ReplyDelete