One of my favourite features of the WordPress system by some road is the ability to get a list of all of the search terms used that have led people to this journal. Some of the search times in the list raise an eyebrow, to say the least. One such search engine query in the list reads “images examine my pussy”. No, I am not making that up. But it seems that at least one individual has a poor enough understanding of the world we live in to do searches with the terms “why people expect lunch bought for them”.
Naturally, this got me to thinking. Not just about why some people expect lunch bought for them, but exactly who expects lunch bought for them. You see, when I was a small boy and children were frequently gathered in front of televisions to see “educational” programming, one programme we were shown a handful of times was a science education program called Hunter. This was an Australian-made children’s television series that, as the Wikipedia has it, was aired in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which would be consistent with the time I remember seeing it (the year I was diagnosed with diabetes, no less). The titular character, Hunter (Philip Sabine) would investigate, or “hunt” for information concerning scientific and technical things. I could go on about this show and the sometimes atrocious direction, but the salient point here is the questions asked in the theme music. They impared an important fact about investigation. Namely, that if you only ask one question or type of question, you are not invesitgating properly. “What, why, where, and when, that’s Hunter!”.
It also got me thinking when I saw a graphic on Fudgebook earlier last evening that concerned itself with the difference between parasites in the natural, biological sense, those who are being vilified as parasites in today’s world, and those in Human society who are more deserving of being termed parasites.
One major, major similarity between the first and third group is so simple that a lot of ignorant conservatives tend to miss it completely. You see, if you are up in arms about a person or a particular group of people “leeching” off you, then the person you are up in arms about is not a very successful parasite at all. Sound contradictory? Well, no, not really. You see, Humans, felines, and canines can become host to a number of parasitic organisms, some of which can grow to a length that would give John Holmes penis envy. But irrespective of what type of parasite you invite comparison to, a comparison of similarities can open the eye quite effectively.
For starters, as I have already hinted, a parasite’s rate of success is inversely proportional to the host’s awareness of the parasite’s presence. Once a host becomes aware that it has a parasite, be it through excessive itching of the anus, drastic unexplained losses in weight, or the notice of nutritional problems, the parasite is basically screwed. People on welfare therefore cannot be considered parasites in any sense. No “parasite” gets as much notice in the press, in political waffling, or in general bullshit arguments, as the segment of the population that is in receipt of government-organised transfers of money. None. People who are in receipt of government transfers of money for rent, food, or utilities not only have to register their identities with agencies in order to receive these payments, they often have to register their whereabouts or intentions to move to a different place, too. Leaving aside the parallels that has with certain aspects of governments that are rightly portrayed as bad and evil in the media, I think anyone with a lick of sense can agree with me that this is a level of awareness that no parasite in its right “mind” could ever want.
Nor are the people in receipt of welfare, or even in the lower three fifths of earning power within the civilised world, exactly living well. You see, a real, biological parasite absorbs all of the best nutrients from the host before passing whatever is left to its host. So unexplained iron or protein deficiencies, for instance, can tip a host off to the fact that at some point they may have become host to a parasite. The people who require welfare transfers in order to meet basic levels of sustenance for themselves or their children, on the other hand, get the shit end of the nutrient stick in every conceivable sense. In economist terms, poverty means that one’s total income, regardless of source, is less than half the median income in one’s society. Not only does welfare not pay better than working as some conservative mega-shitheads would like a lot of people to think, it does not even lift the most needy of its recipients out of poverty. With the extent to which the minimum income required to sustain a “basic” standard of living has been rising, it should surprise nobody that with wage stagnation, more and more of the bottom forty percent of earners have been in need of welfare.
All of this leads up to the big question. Yes, there are people who expect their lunches bought for them. In fact, there are people who seem to expect their lunches, breakfasts, dinners, and in-between snacks bought for them. But if you still think that these are the beneficiaries of welfare, of so-called Obamacare, or indeed anyone who makes less than $80,000 USD a year, you are deluding yourself to a degree that justifies anger from the people I have just mentioned.
No, the people who are really in receipt of free just about everything are amongst the top one percent of incomes in Western society. We call them successful, we call them leaders, we call them everything except what they really are. Parasites.
I wonder if anyone, on any side of the political fence, has actually done a count of all of the “breaks”, “favours”, and “exchanges” that the top one percent do for each other. Sure, there have been informal studies of the costs of actual corporate welfare (which I will talk about in due course), but the problem is far more endemic than that. We have a culture in which rich white boys are allowed to have their parents buy them cars, shove them into jobs in their parents’ big businesses, and pass on to them untold sums of money, more than ten of us will ever see in our lifetimes, all whilst waxing on and on about how self-reliant they are and how they did it all on their own. In my ear, as one punk band’s vocalist would have put it.
Nobody here, least of all me, wants to just be sitting in a corner and left to grow old whilst all of their lunches and whathaveyou are bought for them. But fair cop. I do not believe that my mother wanted the resources that could have allowed me to grow to adulthood without a terrible feeling of resentment and anger towards everything I shared a land mass with pissed away so that the Packer or Murdoch estates could buy another fleet of limosuines, either. Both of my parental units, especially the one I will not speak to anymore because he will not man up and acknowledge things like this, have paid untold amounts in taxation. They did this on the understanding that this tax would pay for goods and services that it would be pretty damned difficult to get along in any society without. Things like police protection, military protection, road construction, public infrastructure, natural monopoly maintenence, and so on. But slightly prior to the time I was born, the richest fragment of society decided that they no longer wanted to live up to their part of the agreement.
I cannot emphasise this enough. The richest one percent of society do not make everything within a society. In fact, there is a lot of evidence, evidence that continues to grow the more they are indulged, that they produce nothing of value. Even when the idea was initially proposed, that the wealth that the government would now start redirecting en masse to the richest strata of society would “trickle down”, even the children knew it was bullshit. The historical record is, in fact, so against this idea that the idea of anyone believing in it demonstrates just how far we still have to go in terms of education and the efficient delivery thereof.
In fact, it boggles the mind how much indignation conservative shitheads profess when those a bit more educated than they object to what they call a “user pays” system. What they never seem to get that what they refer to as “user pays” and actual “user pays” are two very different things. “User pays”, in the truest sense of the word, in the sense that it meant when the only options in survival were hunt, fight, or die, means that everyone pays for what they use, irrespective of what that is or whether there is something hampering the individual’s ability to pay. What conservative shitheads call “user pays” is something else entirely. What they mean when they say “user pays” is that everyone pays unless they are rich enough to pay for representation in the government and bilk exemptions for payment out of said government.
Nor is “user pays” exactly a good way to run a society, especially not one as drastically overpopulated as the entirety of Earth circa 2012. When a planet has less resources and resource growth than population and population growth, the result of such a system is inevitably war, murder, and brutality for things as basic as resoruces. And this is all just circling around the main point. Namely, that the conservative shithead brigade’s use of resources is so greedy and voracious that it makes the entirety of the world’s populace that is on welfare seem like competitors in an efficiency race by comparison. Think about this in logical terms. When your bank account’s peak balance is about fifteen hundred dollars or less, how much effort do you really think the professional thief contingent is going to go to to steal the contents of your account (or rather, the portion of the bank’s holdings that it represents)? Not much? Good, you pass the test. Now, think for a bit and try to imagine how much effort your bank is going to go to in an effort to protect that kind of money. As little as they can get away with? Good, you are learning.
Now picture how much effort you would go to in order to protect a bank balance that is millions of dollars when it is in its “troph”. I will give you a hint. Those men you see at banks who have guns and look very much like they know how to use them? They are not there to protect everyday workers’ accounts, or the portion of the money in a bank vault that represents those accounts. They are there to protect the millionaires’ shares of those accounts. That is why such guards increase dramatically both in numbers and armament the further into the central part of a city you go. Because millionaires, billionaires, and what Billy Connolly calls the “super-toffs” might live anywhere they please, but they like to have their investments and property kept in cities. It is also why “cities” like Brisbane have exponentionally less security in their banks than do real cities like New York or Tokyo. Point is, each individual super-toff expends a good deal more resources in terms of having their wealth protected than the collective working class family contingent ever will.
Yet the bank continually insists on having the super-toff’s share of the bill for this service distributed among the working class family contingent. This is why, compared to the era that the baby boomers grew up and reached adulthood in, the total fees that the rich pay for their banking have declined (whilst everyone else’s have gone through the roof).
So the immortal question at this stage is who really behaves as if they expect to have their lunch bought for them. And the sad answer is that the absolute retards who want to be “saved” from “big baaad govmint” are voting for those very same people.