Are we asking the right questions?
Are we? As we throw insults and “insight”; data, contradicting data, and party-line rhetoric around, with, toward, and against one another, are we even asking the right questions? I don’t think so. I’ve been booed down, attacked, or whatever else for trying to explain why I advocate that Heidegger – for each and every one of us - is more relevant to our lives today than 99.+% believe possible. Not only are his ideas relevant and timely, but they are pathways along which we can move; they un-conceal a thought-process and present ideas by which we can live, ideas that can help us approach this election, the national one, the issues regarding sustainability, women’s rights, quite simply – how to live.
I confess that I am a believer in his approach to the creative power of “the word” – just imagine: “Language is the house of Being. In this house man dwells.” A number of you can hear the echoes of St. John, in his Gnostic hymn: “The Word was made Flesh.” Heidegger’s renewal of St. John’s statement affirms that “Language creates world.” The phrase is not metaphoric; it is literal; and, as such, it IS. These gnomic statements quickly alert us, bring into focus the everyday Language in which we are immersed, in which we now abide. Yet we walk away from that-which-is-clear. How many of us consciously create the world we desire with the language of the day?
Have we not the same again with the insistent question: “Was Heisst Denken?” what does it mean to think? Let alone what does H mean, what are his 4 levels of looking at the question? Or, is it any easier to wrestle with his straight-forward, allegational assertion: “what is most thought-provoking in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking.” Heidegger was able to see that language has been deadened metaphorically. As speakers we hear but no longer comprehend. Language no longer brings the thing into presence; today, language is code, simplified, nullified of its essence and insight. Instead it is a short-hand, especially in the world of politics and governing/power. We fail ourselves unless the code is deconstructed, unpacked, and revivified. Lewis Carol played with language to the amusement and edification of millions. We need a poet. For us language is being tending ineffectually and moving towards its own demise - at which point anything could mean everything and everything will mean anything; and, it all will mean nothing.
Why am I trying to bring Heidegger or a poet or Lewis Carol into a patch conversation? It isn’t because I think I’m better or that I’m any smarter than anyone here; I don’t have THE answer to any one question. But I do think we are on a collision course with Freedom – with a capital ‘F’; and, that is why I am trying to answer a question recently asked in the writing of this piece. Now the question came from another patch contributor, one whom I believe holds rational and balanced attitudes as evidenced by his thoughtful (usually) posts. He asked me why I find myself so invested in how we look at this election. It’s easy, Jay. I don’t think we see what remains concealed, what is hidden and not brought into the clearing. In other words, something strikes me as just not right, certainly not kosher, cricket, nor allowable if we just pay closer attention.
I admit: There certainly are those among this intended audience who don’t think so or don’t care seemingly because they believe that this doesn’t affect them - they stand above the rest, above you and me. Now me, I’m “kinda” typical in Patch-ville, USA: I’m a lifelong Republican. Grew up in the Bay. Believe in God. Received a good education. Done ok at times, other times not. Been a sinner and a saint. But this election really disturbs me at my core: something is rotten in Denmark! I think the spotlight has been shone on the wrong openings, the wrong clearings. In fact, I think we are looking at the wrong clearings altogether; and, I think we are not asking the right questions. Moreover, I think we’re selling ourselves short.
One thing that worried Heidegger, one of his pet peeves with the whole of western European man, the educated masses in particular, is the placid, unthinking existence of those of us just carried along by the flow: “…we are still not thinking.” Why are we not asking the deeper questions, the ones that do need to be asked and answered; and, if we are, are we unreservedly attending to the answers; are we then listening authentically, openly to what is in front of us; or, are we already on to the next fleeting thought? Moving away from that which needs to be thought, a movement natural to all humans.
Personally, I believe that we are not asking the right question(s). And, in not asking the right one, or set of questions, we are failing ourselves; and we are failing the generations to follow. I think the most “thought-provoking” elements of the current political situation are being shifted from view, sometimes hidden behind a veil that is embroidered using the vocabulary threads of the “words that work” weavers, who today embroider with the same thread sold by those hucksters, or ones identical to, those who brought ridicule to a certain hapless ruler, in the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” In this case the puppeteer brushing and dyeing the wool is a Republican and Tea Party adviser, the social researcher, Dr. Frank I. Luntz. He’s their “words-smith,” the guy distorting the facts and tricking us with clever phrases.
This election, the one here in Wisconsin as well as the National one, is not about “job creation.” It is about the nature of government. It is about ‘the Good’, about ‘Justice’ about ‘Truth’: the stuff that really matters: society, providing for one another. For me, this election - and, well, it really is the most important election of my life - it proposes to destroy our beloved democratic republic and the ideals upon which our country, our nation, was founded with a verbal misprision of ideas. Concept distortion is all around us and no one is seeing it. One party has become the party of only a few, only some of the people. That is not the American way. If we choose the side pretending to follow this Nation’s founding principles, we will like lemmings following a disembodied the Voice, fall off the cliff and drop into a world ruled by a plutocratic oligarchy, which will have won control of everyone’s life.
For me today, I am trying to detoxify myself from the bitter ads being shot across our bows. But I did hear one statement that I believe should apply more liberally to both sides. Yes, it was made by the President. Mr. Obama was quoted while speaking from the G-8 Summit: “My job is to take into account everyone not just some” – not just the elite few. Why would any one of us follow a path that excludes and only looks out for the few, for some? And why would, or are, we only looking out for the few, for some? By the way: are YOU one of “the some”? Are you comfortable with the underlying belief system that both parties have in fact? (Not what the patcher crowd pretends, by the way). Have you asked all the questions that need to be answered? What questions don’t you want answered for fear of what has been concealed? Sorry if this got a little too ethereal. I hope that it “touches ground” for more than a few careful readers. For me, though, I suppose my conclusion is simple: ask the next question and the one after that and… In other words, whether you like Heidegger’s phrase “Questioning is the piety of thought” or prefer the words of John Fowles’ Magus, “A Question is a form of life; every answer a form of death.” Let’s make sure we are asking the right questions before we sink the ship of state.
The kind of society you desire has tremendous costs associated with it. Saying you'll give everything you can and then some isn't an answer. It's a philosophy. Philosophy doesn't put bread on the table. If you haven't even bothered to think through the costs involved in the Utopian society you desire and how those costs are going to effect the standard of living of those charged with supporting your society, you honestly can't be given credit for having given it serious thought. Deflecting and avoiding questions because you don't want to be bothered with them flies directly in the face of your oft repeated plea that we question, rather than accept. I guess that applies to everyone except you, eh Nick? You we have to accept on face value. To question you is out of the question, apparently
the question you avoid answering yourself, except indirectly is this: do you want to have the United States remain and be strengthened as a democratic republic or have you sold yourself into a slavery unobserved and recognized, government by a plutocratic oligarchy. that is the question at hand. gotta run. kids to love.
The fundamental issue is that we have a President who has no experience at making tough strategic choices and leading groups successfully. It all flows down from there.....
- as in per + luceo/lucere = thoroughly clear. You keep wanting to take the conversation away from the critical point in the debate (although the personal integrity, morality, ethics, and honesty of Scot Walker all are at least suspect and must be questioned). I can multitask very well, thank you. Technology and living on patch.com are not health and life-giving: at least not when there can be no dialogue. And again, your question as posed cannot be answered by anyone. Even Lyle , who in all likelihood has worked out the algorithm to support an Utopia such as Plato's or Thomas Moore's, wouldn't jump in with an answer. nothing is defined. and I won't play the game the way you wanna. It's a waste of time. Answer the real question: Democracy, a democratic republic, or an Oligarchy driven by the Plutes,a government by, for, and belonging only to some, to the chosen Tea Party few, apparently i.e., you and your friends?
I assume you understand that in order to support the kind of government you want in this country, it's going to cost the average citizen more than it does now, whether it be in terms of taxes, or cost of consumer goods, food, transportation, healthcare, etc - or all of them. You don't need an exact figure, other than a percentage you're willing to contribute to have the kind of system in place that you want. You can continue to avoid the question and look like an out of touch elitist who can't be bothered with trivial things like how we pay for your Utopia, or you can step up and say "Here's, specifically, the length to which I'm willing to go to have what I want". Your call, Nick. You're the one making it a "game" by refusing to address the very real considerations surrounding the kind of changes you want to this nation to make.
Tax rate on ordinary income will rise from 35% to 43.4%—(effectively 10% higher than under Clinton); Tax rate on capital gains will rise from 15% to 23.8%—a 60% increase(20% rate under Clinton). Tax rate on dividends will rise from 15% to 43.4%—an increase of almost 200%(39.6 rate under Clinton). The estate tax exemption will drop from $5 million to $1 million and the estate tax rate will rise from 35% to 55%—a 55% increase. No vote by Congress required;no Obama signature required; these rates are the law.
Anyway, the piece was really about the choice of government, and was written to answer your question as to why I feel so passionate about these elections. For me the question we face both in the push to elect Tom Barrett , as well as the one to keep Romney out of the White House, is form of government: today our true choice is between a democratic republic and a plutocratic oligarchy. Either we want an inclusive form of government or one designed by, with, and for, only the few.
Was your tax rate 93% at that time? Better yet, do you write a check to the IRS for 93% of your income whether or not that is your actual tax bracket? Your life would be better off for it. That is the choice of the government. High tax, high government dependence or low tax, low government dependence.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that a marginal tax rate of 93% doesn't mean paying 93% of your gross income.
Perhaps this is why I am so offended by the meaningless catch phrases that define (not only) the Walker persona/"eternal" campaign strategy. "We're broke!" "It's working!" "'We're' Moving Wisconsin Forward!" "Backwards Barrett!" Such phrases, like the proverbial Trojan Horse, deliver lethal misinformation housed within innocuity. In the example of "everlasting"/"eternal," the perfunctory word choice arguably caused impact deflection in the reader. In the example of "It's working!" the "casing" of (false) well-being and security hides a bitter and expensive truth.
Why do you even bother asking us peon simpletons if we're asking the right questions or not when you've already provided us with the right answer in voting for Tom Barrett. A little disingenuous, aren't we? You remind me of Montalban's Khan from Star Trek - only without the Latin flair, charm, or charisma!
Big government or small government -- we have to ask ourselves if the government will represent everyone rather than function as a business model, where only the productive are favored.
That is completely irrelevant. As I am sure you are aware, you and every other liberal in the US takes every advantage of the tax code and doesn't pay a single penny more then what your tax form says. Then turn around, as both you and Nick now have, telling the rest of us the need for higher taxes and the benefits to society. Until you and Nick freely give the IRS the percentages of your income you claim the rich can afford, proving that it has no impact; your words are meaningless. Lets face it, this is a 'do as I say and not as I do' moment.
It is too bad the students at UW M can't sue you for educational malpractice, never have I seen someone so stupid, but it explains your failed business ventures.
1) That someone who thinks deductions are the only thing that affects marginal versus effective tax rates can claim to be a successful businessman. I bet your accountant rolls his eyes and laughs behind your back. 2) That you think you have any clue about my living conditions. Your 'filth and squalor' remarks merely show your contempt for anyone you think is less worthy (makes less money) than you do.
Nick is right. I remember a time when the marginal tax rate was outrageous according to you guys, and the economy was in much better shape. As for your insults about government cheese and vans by the river, you have no clue. I pay for my own food, I own my own property, and I probably carry some of your water.
What is your proof the economy was better because of the tax rate vs. the economy appeared good because of where we came from yet was being held back by the high tax rate?
i don't think the majority of the state have ever been so focused on the politics of this state and the course they want it to go . Let the voters decide theyre own conclusions to the questions that weigh on their own minds. That's Democracy!