The Only Exception

"American Exceptionalism," the very phrase that adds an air of mystique to U.S. culture and politics. But just what exactly constitutes such exceptional qualities that sets our nation apart from all others? Apart, of course, from the fact that we're on the Western Hemisphere?

According to Wikipedia's uncommonly comprehensive entry on the very subject, American Exceptionalism has gone by several different definitions by several different personnages throughout history, but the theme is still the same; it is merely a theory. No different from the "American Dream," it is a thought-up, made-on-the-fly and ham-handed pretense for our successes and in this century, our failures; much in the same spirit as the term Manifest Destiny, which (unironically)is mostly responsible for the virulent propagandist mantra that nearly wiped out the indigenous Americans of this country. But is such an abstract concept a detriment to the mindset of the American public?

I set out to analyze the theory of American Exceptionalism in lieu of how often it had been bandied about by political pundits, and have since been sorely disappointed. To my findings in this, it amounts to little more than a rhetorical formula not unlike how Pascal's Wager (in the realm of lame excuses) is thrown at religious skeptics like an impotent spitball at a granite wall. A reason to "not play ball," an idea that had only been enforced over the centuries by people who are not even American-born, but still hold in awe the potential strength of our nation.

So, can it be said that other nations see that there is so much more the United States are capable of than we ourselves can see? Perhaps so, as our nation's credit rating immediately tanked, as foreign investors are wary of the nation that used to produce but produces no more. The country that went from being the world's supermarket, to the world's police precint, to the world's hospitality suite in our growing role as a "service-based economy." It is no wonder to this writer that foreign investors have pulled out.

Instead of this flimsy pretense for not accepting our respective roles as world citizens, perhaps it's time to accept our spot in the global economy as an alternative to barking back and forth across the aisles? Or, do we keep drinking the Kool-Aid of American Exceptionalism?

You know, this stuff is starting to taste more and more like Nationalism as of late.

Representing More Than a Law School Reunion

If you were watching the informative and decidedly left-wing hilarity of Real Time with Bill Maher (aired Friday, 8/5/2011), you undoubtedly noticed the presence of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and a rather astute observation he made.

The observation regarded the fact that from 540 current members of Congress, 236 hold law degrees (58 Senators and 178 Representatives). That means 44%
of people in congress are, essentially, lawyers by trade. He went further to ask "Where is the rest of life?" or why more scientists, economists, entrepreneurs and basically people from other areas of expertise don't take on postings in public office; people that can give a more rounded representation of the American public's goals and necessities? To paraphrase Dr. Tyson's remark, given the nature of law and the courts it is an arguer's forum. He whose arguing skills are superior will win the favorable ruling and not the one with the superior argument. Therefore, the facts are null and void unless in hands of the appropriate, purple-faced loudmouth with a law degree.

Long story short, he made me think.

Precisely why is it that more of the aforementioned scientists, entrepreneurs and economists don't apply their expertise in a leadership role? A role so significant, a "second pair of eyes", that can provide insight on how the government can better serve the public? Are the able, decidedly, unwilling to participate? Is it acceptable to stay in their positions as academic leaders, but not political? Ain't that a damn shame?

With the recent drop in the U.S. credit rating, despite all the valid and pertinent facts that the Democratic party argued, 98% of the debt deal sided with the Republican Party's wishes. Now, suppose actual businessmen who know that to make money you must spend money, made up the greater majority on both sides? Even if there was a compromise, would it not have been a 50/50 split? No one can say for sure, but given the actual result, would it be so wrong to have a different type of professional in congress? A more diverse base of knowledge from which the decisions that shape the future of the nation could function?

Well? What's so bad about that?

Overworked and Underfucked

Sorry ladies and gents, but as some of you may know this is merely a side gig for me in addition to being a government wage-slave (who probably won't be getting paid this month, thanks GOP) five or six days a week. So as you have no doubt noticed, I'm without updates, and without time as they've got me pretty hemmed up and slammed.

Ahh...all the responsibility of an HNIC, with none of the authority...

Anyway, standby for sporadic updates both to this site and it's associated YouTube channel. In the meantime peep out Subnormality. It's a genius piece of work both hilarious and insightful, but be warned, it will make you think.

Hopefully the writer of the comic will give me the go-ahead for a piece based on his work, but we'll just keep our fingers crossed, won't we?