Issue 2: Whining

I don't want to harp on the financial news, but its toxicity is not limited to the markets; our discourse is in jeopardy as well.

But we cannot avoid this boring recession or boring-recession, so I will take a different tack and attempt to smear and defame a large group of people using raw recessionary materials. The video above, of the illustrious Dr. Paul, for example. His squealing, inarticulate repetition of economic terms he picked up on last night's Kudlow aside, there is a beautiful moment, right there at the end. After attempting to educate these fools on the basics of economics, on the rule bound structures they are attempting to circumvent with their "collectivist" politics, Chairman Frank cuts him off at his five minutes, and he whines, "Oh Geez, Mr. Chairman, YOU are touuuugh."

It's irresponsible, prejudiced and inaccurate to apply this to all sticklers for rules, but I'm doing it anyway. Isn't this attitude something prevalent in these types, a demand that everything go according to a master plan, but with a little leeway for them and their foibles? And doesn't this reveal some other expression, where their whining and shrill voices are heard, not to ask for the rules to be followed, but for their expectation of the world that is rooted in these rules? He doesn't want capitalism anymore than anyone else can "want" an abstract structure, he wants his world to match the hypothetical plan he's got laid out. The rules are just one weapon to achieve this result, but so is his whining, so is his cheap populism, so is his racism and his dishonest campaigning all to the end of the great vision of society, held only by him. Is Ron Paul the only totalitarian in this bunch, or is it the ultimate circumstance where totalitarians are made? Or is this too far, totalitarianism, and the real answer is much smaller, they're just incredibly selfish goons? And what do we do about it? Should we embarrass them, confident in the knowledge that they are a strain too virulent to be eliminated by argumentation or logic or thought, should we instead ignore them, and ignore all the anger they manufacture, or should we accept their wonderfully idiotic opinions into our pantheistic, discursive society and have actual conversations with them?