Above: Moo-oo-oo!
Dear American Journalism,
We need to talk.
Please don’t think this comes from someone who doesn’t really care about you. This relationship hasn’t been just a flash in the pan thing, you know. I’ve given over thirty years of my life to what we have going. Seriously — I used to watch the news with my folks when I was a little girl. I remember having a little-girl crush on Chuck Scarborough when I was about six. And I’m not talking about quitting on you now, either. You might want to think of this as — an intervention of sorts.
Would you mind telling me what the hell this is?*
I think it’s time you admitted the truth about something shameful you’ve kept secret for far too long: You got your high school diploma from one of those diploma mills. Don’t bother trying to deny it; we all know. And you didn’t even make the halfhearted effort to get through the civics portion of the “diploma,” did you? You just randomly bubbled in answers on the multiple choice “final exam” civics test and squeaked through. And it’s time you ‘fessed up to the real reason you did this — a real reason we all know already as well.
You can’t read.
It’s not like it’s a secret. That stack of books you keep by your bed? Nobody thinks for a second you’re actually reading any of them. In fact, there’s a bet going on between some of us as to whether you’re using that stack of books to hide your porn stash or your weed stash. Don’t worry; I’m not in on that. I think better of you than that. Still, it should bother you to know that not everyone does.
But this last bit, this magazine “article” (using that term quite loosely here) — well, it’s just the last straw in embarrassment. Because everyone else in the world who isn’t functionally illiterate (like you are) already knows what “Socialism” means. And it’s not some sort of innate knowledge, some magical genetically coded information they were born with. They know what “socialism” means because they can read. And you can’t. It’s just that simple. See, when the rest of the world wants clarification on the definition of “socialism,” they turn to any one of a myriad of (unfortunately for you, written) sources to get a definition. And they find things like this:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.
Or this:
socialism: Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.
Or this:
Socialism: The view that the government should own and control major industries using the dollars earned to provide benefits to citizens.
That last one is especially embarrassing for you, American journalism. It comes from a website created especially for journalists to use to help them in understanding complex concepts and terms. There’s no need to act surprised – we all know the reason you didn’t consult that website before writing this article is that (once again) you can’t read.
Do me a favor — go find someone to read this letter to you. It’s okay; no need to be embarrassed. We’re past all that now. I’ll wait.
Are we good? Wonderful — because it’s important to me that you understand this next part.
You see, nothing that Barack Obama – or, indeed, any Democrat – has proposed in response to our current economic crisis is in any way, shape, or form even the slightest bit “socialist”. “Socialism” is a word that actually means something. I know this is hard for you to understand, mostly because the gaps in your education caused by your total functional illiteracy have led you to believe that “socialism” is some sort of diabolical swear word that means something like “baby-raping” or “kitten-eating”. But have your friend who’s reading this letter to you read those definitions I gave you above, and take a minute to actually think about them.
Now, I’m sure some of the terms within those defintions will be confusing to you, so let’s take a moment to break some of them down to your level. I promise I’ll use lots of analogies to Paris Hilton and professional wrestling. Don’t be scared! We’ll get through this together.
“Means of production” is a term that refers to the actual productive industries in a society that make things which people buy. McDonald’s is an example of one of these productive industries; they make hamburgers. Now, there has been some talk about the government nationalizing the banking industry. But, American journalism, what I want you to understand is that “banking” – according to socialists – is not a productive industry. Banks don’t produce things – they don’t produce physical things that you can buy like you can buy a McDonald’s hamburger. Now, it’s not that socialists don’t have a lot to say about the nature of finance as an industry, but we’re not going to go there now – there’s a lot of big, scary, hard to understand words involved in the concept, and we’re going to start small. Just trust me that even if our government does completely take over the financial sector of our economy, that’s still about as far from “socialism” as you can be. When the government starts talking about turning the burger flipper at your local burger joint into a state employee, I’ll be right there with you calling it a “socialist takeover”, but until then – not so much.
“Egalitarian” is another one of those big, scary words. But don’t be afraid – it just means “equal”. So, when Barack Obama proposed to cap income at financial industries receiving government TARP funds at a half million, he wasn’t making an egalitarian proposal. I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but very, very few Americans make anything even close to a half million a year. So don’t worry – there’s nothing even vaguely egalitarian about this proposal.
Just to help you out, here’s a friendly little checklist you can use to see if an incoming POTUS might secretly be a socialist. Does he/she
- Call for the immediate incarceration/execution of all hedge fund managers because they are “enemies of the people”?
- Demand that all CEOs be fired so that all companies can be run by democratically elected employee representatives from each sector of a company’s business (bonus points if he calls those representative councils “Soviets”)?
- Tell all stockholders that henceforth, unless they actually work for the company they own stock in, all dividends they earn on their stock will be taxed at a 100% tax rate?
- Arrest all wealthy Americans who attempt to move their assets to accounts in other countries?
- Put those arrested Americans on trial in an overly public venue designed to make them look really, really bad?
- Grow a big, bushy black mustache?
- Have an inordinate fondness for brass band marches?
If you answer a significant number of these questions with a “yes,” then chances are your newly elected president is secretly a socialist. If not, then you are probably confused (yet again) about what the world “socialist” actually means.
Now, my friend, you’ve got a birthday coming up. This year, I want you to be able to celebrate your birthday with pride, so I’ve gotten you an early birthday present. It’s a gift certificate for your local Sylvan learning center. Do the whole rest of the world a favor and use it now. Learn to read. Then when you come back actually able to process basic written information, we’ll have a conversation about your total lack of contextual knowledge about the world around you. One step at a time, baby.
Remember – this comes from a place of love, not a place of judgment.
Be well.
Your friend,
Jillian
*Apologies for the crappy low-res image. If someone has a sharper one and they send it my way, I’ll fix the wretched corneal abuse this image represents
Gavin adds: Ah, a chance for me to be useful. (Image fixed up a bit.)
