What a rich source for thought opposition is. Expressed resistance is either factually based or emotionally manipulative. Sorting through and assimilating those multiple vectors of incoming information is a good base from which to launch further advances. It is Sun Tzu philosophy as an improvement dogma.
Nancy Fairbanks (letters, Sept. 3), rabbling to rouse the unwary, made a couple emotive claims to score points with those already converted. Great! Hooray for partisan maneuvering and manipulation!
Who said Nancy “does not understand math”? Not I. Her distortions were called out and her own words indicate that she willingly engages manipulations and an incapacity for scaling problems. She is stuck … shouting at clouds.
Nancy does seem to understand arithmetic. Hooray. But mathematical topics like algebra, calculus, topology, etc. were not in evidence or necessary in any of her or my text. She may or may not have understanding of calculating the volume of a cone or the why the area under a curve is a useful concept in calculus. We just didn’t get into those details of financial calculation. It was all just plain numbers, and comparing their magnitudes and ratios (dividing two numbers).
So, when Nancy “felt” compelled to rebut my position, she did in each case hang her hat on either emotive or speculative positions (“unfounded by precipitated fact”) like, “they keep paying more and getting less,” without scoping that claim. Anyway, Nancy, we’re all in that same big boat. It’s just that some adjust and some cannot … or do not. This is deeply American: capitalism and the rugged individual.
When I gave a number of relevant — arithmetic — reductions relatable to common consumer experiences, Nancy resisted such “common-sense” perspectives. We witness her emotive appeal for Californians who might be in over their heads who “feel the squeeze in rent, groceries, utilities and gas, and are tired.” Again, capitalism anyone? It’s the downside that nobody likes but we are obliged to accept.
If being a dyed-in-the-wool believer in American capitalism and explaining its grinding moves Nancy to mischaracterize me as “defending dysfunction,” I think I can remain comfy with that position, because, (insert Spooky Halloween Sounds here) AAAAAGGGH! — SOCIALISM!
It is impossible to enumerate here ALL the instances where Republican columnists, local conservatives, and others opine about the superiority of capitalism. Yet, when push comes to shove, suddenly the will to stomach its downside effects is absent.
There is truly no good answer for Nancy and her ilk whose political dissonance and willingness to sacrifice clarity for emotion leads into a doom loop of dissatisfaction.
Then there is emotive mischaracterization, claiming that I was “calling the deficit insignificant.” No such words were found in what I wrote. The deficit is an artifact that exists because we in California obey that holy grail of conservative fiscal management — a mandate to balance the budget.
The budget is based upon yearly income to the state that is not controllable by the state. It varies uncontrollably, capisce? There are a number of state-level emergency funds that try to give some wiggle and year upon year “backup” for intolerable shortfalls. Yet, Nancy does not delve into those nor acknowledge them.
Failing to be objective about an uncontrollable artifact of good fiscal policy, and instead conflating it to something else: That’s shouting at clouds.
Nancy will continue her ways, and I will never ask her to change. To her, “Good on ya.” As I stated in the opening, opposition is a rich source.
It was not a feel-good moment, though. Being mischaracterized is disappointing, and the willingness to do so is rising among conservatives right up to and including their leadership.
An incapacity for objective evaluation based in common sense, and backed up by a relative scaling of problems, rather than panicky rhetoric about fearsome unseen ogres, or “the enemy within,” are scare tactics Americans don’t need.
Yet, here we are: Chicken Little rules!
Christopher Lucero
Saugus
