Washington's Greatest Fear - A Nation United

hartwig • August 1, 2023

We are a nation divided from within

Progressives, as well as a number of Democrats, some Republicans and the majority of mainstream and social media, have taken great pains to point out that America is a nation divided between the "haves" and the "have nots." And, that the "haves" are those of European descent, while the "have nots" are minorities, particularly those within the Black and Latin communities. This narrative has been hammered home on an almost daily basis, wielded like a chisel used to create, then deepen and widen the cracks in the cement that should bind us as Americans. The problem is that while the first aspect of the narrative is true, the latter pronouncement is not. Indeed, more than fifty percent of all Americans, Blacks, Whites and Latinos, are not earning sufficient incomes to meet the costs of providing for their needs.


According to the US Census Bureau, in 2016, some 40.6 million Americans were deemed to be living in poverty. The problem with this statistic, bad as it is, is that it takes the archaic position that poverty is defined as a single person earning no more than $12,228 per year, a family of four on no more than $24,563 and a family of six is capped at $32,928 per year. The reality paints a much starker picture. For example, Pew Research and the Economic Policy Institute reported in 2016 that in order for a family of four to meet its needs, not wants, it would need to earn at least $60,000 per year on average. That number has since risen to about $68,000. Hence, for a single income earner, needs could only be met with an income of about $17,000. and for a family of six, this requisite would rise to about $102,000. And, therein lies the rub. While acknowledging that the average family of four requires $68,000 to meet its needs, the government, meaning Congress, continues maintaining that even though this is the case, those not earning sufficient incomes to meet those needs in present economic terms are not defined as being "poor," or in the poverty class. Instead, government touts the notion that those earning more than the "official" poverty designation, up to the amount needed to meet their needs, are in the "middle class." This is not a partisan issue. Both parties are party to, and perpetuate, this fraud, while also portraying the majority of Americans as being in the so-called middle class.


The reality is quite different. Logically, any one person or family that is not earning enough money to meet their needs, is poor. Period. In this context, the majority of Americans, more than fifty percent, are not in the middle class,. They are in the poverty class. And, as the cost of living increases more rapidly than incomes, coupled with the impact of the pandemic on jobs and small businesses, this circumstance is only worsening.


There is no doubt that the numbers of minorities in the poverty class, particularly Blacks, are disproportionately higher as a percentage of their populations. However, in terms of sheer numbers, there are more poor White people than anyone else. Ultimately, there are unconscionable numbers of people, of all races and ethnicities, who are poor. And what our politicians, pundits and Jeff Bezos' of the world do not want to see happen, is for all of these groups to come to the realization that they are in the same boat; that poverty and the inability to make ends meet is the thread that binds them. Or worse, that they coalesce and act in political unison to force government to realistically reassess the definition of poverty in this country and act, among other possibilities, to eliminate the corporate welfare system that has largely led to a 28 trillion dollar national debt, roughly $80,000 for every person in this country, and is bleeding us dry. Instead, our ruling classes seek to manage our frustrations by dividing us and pitting us against one another through race baiting and creating blocs of voters who are both opposed to each other and dependent on the State for their survival. 


There are, of course, a myriad of other commonalities that should serve to allow people to set aside their differences. That said, perhaps an appropriate starting point would be for people to look at one another with an eye to recognizing the economic plight they all share, rather than the superficial differences between them that provide fodder for a ruthless and calculating establishment.


By hartwig February 23, 2025
Censorship in the tech industry, particularly social media, has become a glaring problem in this country. Unfortunately, or fortunately, as many believe, social media platforms have become an integral part of not only expressing ideas, but for the purposes of marketing goods and services. In fact, it would be safe to hazard that absent the use of social media, it has become almost impossible to conduct commerce in the US and elsewhere. Thus, for all intents and purposes, social media have become quasi-public utilities. In practice, these platforms have employed algorithms to manage the exposure people get on these platforms; some are given wide coverage, while others are throttled, all for a variety of reasons. These include, though are not necessarily confined to, whether users are paying for subscriptions, whether they are "celebrities," or endorsed by these; and, as has been most egregious, for expressing their political and social views and/or levying criticisms at the platforms and/or their owners. Hence, an expression of opinion, if contrary to the chosen narrative of the platform, leads not only to censorship of the author on that basis, but also results in direct curtailment of the author's commercial purposes. Every one of the social media platforms are guilty of these practices. And, while the Zuckerberg outlets have deservedly gained notoriety for therefore, the propensity of Mr. Musk, vis a vis, X, is no less inclined to these. While Musk and Zuckerberg and the rest will tend to allow some dissent from those with millions of followers, for the lesser popular users, any variance from the dominant narrative or criticism of the platform or its owners invariably leads to isolation. I have experienced this on both Instagram and X, to my economic detriment. The difference between Musk and Zuckerberg et al, is merely a matter of Musk's propensity for superior public relations and spin. The net effect of their respective algorithmic censorship is exactly the same. Dissent is squelched. Censorship has always been a bad idea. The expression and/or exchange of ideas are vital to the notion of democracy. That said, there are certainly bad ideas expressed in the public forums represented by social media; however, the suppression of these, rather than allowing them to be openly challenged, will lead to an underground network of the disenfranchised who, absent a forum for self-expression, will, once down the rabbit holes of their beliefs, only emerge, often violently, when their beliefs have festered and demand expression at any cost and in any form. Of course, the issue of suppressing "bad" ideas also begs the question: who is the arbiter of what constitutes a "bad" idea verses one that is "good." An example of this is found on the left of center social, televised and print media, both here and abroad, which, over the course of the last decade, have managed to brand as "far right" those ideas that were deemed to be moderate twenty years ago. Should truly far right media gain dominance, the same risk will appear - that political moderates will be demonized as "far left." In addition, as is certainly the case in Europe, but is also gaining popularity among our political and media elites, is the notion that criticism and dissent should be branded as "hate" speech and criminalized. Again, the question abounds as to who gets to determine what speech is allowable. Obviously this will depend on the dominant groups and their respective, preferred narratives. All of the foregoing requires reactive and proactive redress. First and foremost, transparency in the algorithms utilized by social media platforms ought to be public. These should be re-written, or the governing AI's programmed, to allow only organic growth on social media. Users, who find offense in certain rhetoric or interaction, need merely be given the option to opt out of further contact with the authors thereof, though civil debate ought to be encouraged. As for criticism of political leaders, tech tycoons and the like, if this must be suppressed, then perhaps there is truth in the criticism that bears investigation. It seems logical, given the importance of social media and tech, in our society, and our dependence thereon, that the "big stick" the government carries, as it tries to invoke change, is that it could readily legislate that these platforms are not merely de facto public utilities, but that they are such as a matter of law and as essential essential public utilities, they may be governed accordingly.
By hartwig August 1, 2023
It Ain't What You Think
By hartwig August 1, 2023
Zombie
By hartwig August 1, 2023
Another Discourse On An old Subject
By hartwig August 1, 2023
A Missive For Travelers and Why The TSA Is Utter Bullshit
By hartwig August 1, 2023
The Implications Of Technology On The Re-emergence Of McCarthyism In The 21st Century
By hartwig August 1, 2023
New Title
Share by: