Exploring the Social Imagination

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Soylent Green will be for Everyone, eventually!

Probably not too many of you out there know anything about the film "Soylent Green". Of course, it is of a dystopian theme for the future. Yet, when we look at the world today, that dystopia looks plausible future utopia. Why? Consider the growing population as well as the aging population. The current administration just commented that the greatest part of our debt is due to health care and the aging population. Yet, that same administration wants to expand health care for seniors in order to accommodate them and somehow bring down debt.

Well, it is certainly a strategy which has the agenda or goal to show how impossible that is and or will be. When young people (those under 65 or even 55) have had enough in terms of working to pay for that expansion  they will claim it is more humane to eliminate those that have lived and had jobs in order that the younger generation have their chance. This is even attractive and seems righteous but who is calling the shots on this, who is really in control and moving forward this agenda/goal?

Those that have money and power and want to remain as such in the future as they very well know it is impossible to sustain the current system let alone a future system with an aging population. The ruling class, the elites, will likely see such practice as humane and even civil; but, they couldn't be among them nor their children. Why? Because, someone or special group has to remain awake, alive and in control. They have reason or justification to live and that is to ensure the process of progress - what they know to be and deem the progressiveness of mankind.

Do you think it could not happen? Well, the beginning stages already appear at our doorstep. A content analysis is vital in illustrating this event on the horizon of a soylent green future.

CNSNews Feb . 23, 2016~ "The real problem that we have when it comes to debt is very simple," the President told the nation's governors on Monday. " It is that our population's getting older, and we use a lot of health care.

"Some of it is because -- the accident of how our health care system evolved means that we got private-sector involvement, and they've got to make a profit, and they've got overhead, and so forth...essentially, we spend about 6 to 8 percent more than our wealthy nation counterparts, per capita, on health care... is our debt."

You can get rid of all that discretionary spending. It won't matter, because the big-ticket item is Medicare, Medicaid, and in the private sector, the big-ticket item, that's where the inflation is, is on the health care side." Yet, Medicaid expansion is a "smart" way for the states to save money over the long-term.

Really, by expanding Medicaid to serve an aging population you can save money? The private sector cannot have any part in this because they have overhead; so, what does the government have... control? 

What will the progressives suggest next?

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Who is the 'true' Socialist? And, What is their Agenda?

Who are they? They are the ruling elite who today call themselves Progressives who used to come under a different name- limousine socialists/communist elite. They have been around a long long time. To recognize them today one has only to look at the now seniors 1960's college graduate flower children - their control group. They were taught to be progressive as were their teachers. They were taught that they could bring about a new world without conflict, without diversity, without class. They were taught that in order for that to come to fruition they would have to be in control.

Who benefits? The ones who educated this? The ruling elites. The ones that have the most to lose. They have class and prestige and position and power which they don't want to give up. So, they had to find a control group - a naive group (students) which they could educate for themselves and promote their dreamed up utopia. They graduated them and renamed them - Community Re-Organizers ~ The Engineers of Civil Rights for All! Which is a false hope, an unreal agenda that all people can have what they 'the ruling elite' have - everything ...when they want it!

The ruling elite's agenda, way forward was and still is to divide and conquer. They pretend to have a benevolent agenda (as they teach tolerance and equality) but their social agenda is to retain their positions of power; as they are somehow 'the' enlightened. They use people by first determining which are expendable or need regrouping. They use young people, they employ them as their soldiers on the ground. They give them orders and the first orders (received in places of higher education) were to rid the world of the poor which sounds good at first but that agenda has only been to make them poorer.

Here in the US, it has been accomplished using revolving credit cards, higher property taxes which led to government housing and entrenched welfare that only the poor could qualify for. Why? Because, for the elite agenda the poor had to get poorer and stay there. They make it appear as providing equal rights but it was and is a means a way to keep the poor poor and worse to make them poorer. It has had the same effect abroad as the ruling elite exploited and exploit people elsewhere which continues their control over them and continues their agenda for a new world order.

But still there isn't enough room for the elites and their vision of the new world order. Now, with the poor out of the way and or in their back pocket, they go after the middle class, the ones with some smarts, some know how or ingenuity and sense of self determination who for some time stayed out or were kept out of university. Why? Because, they 'the middle class' are the greater threat. It was easy to take down the poor and now that it is a done deal the elite have the time to spend on the greater and harder task but it is coming to fruition. It was necessary to keep them out of university but now they want them there and for their purpose and its sold as a way to have it all and yet be fair about it. Really?

Yes, that is why their agenda and or strategy had to change. Change, change and change!!!! Yes, we can. Why change? Because, the middle class has too much power and wealth and this is not part of their grand scheme. So using economic labeling now has become fruitless. They (the ruling elite) go after the middle class today using some of that labeling by making them think that they are/were all along the ones better off than most and that they should feel guilty for their hard work and wealth after all the poor exist; look there they are (the elites know as they put them there).

But, the information for change had to be more than just economic. They had to engineer a more destructive social agenda in such a way that the middle class under attack could be and is led to believe that even their children are part of the problem, that if they don't hear this new agenda, they will be the ones to continue this terrible crime against the poor and the minority. Yes, they need more minorities to wage war against the middle class. Why? Because, the task to take down the middle class and its offspring is much bigger. But why? Aren't the middle class the backbone of this country? Yes and thus the greatest threat to ruling elites.

Now, the ruling elite engineers of the new world order (their world) have to prepare as they lift for the final blow. They have to convince the middle class and their children (in college) that its not just the poor and people of color that have been denied liberty but also women, homosexuals, the elderly, the handicapped, the sick or unwell, mothers, families and the cognitively impaired. They 'the ruling elite' engineer and or create with their control group (their educated graduates) social crisis in the minds of the minority such people mentioned in order to come to their rescue and gain their confidence for future control (s).

By being the heroes for this much larger labeled group of minorities, the elites will have their eternal voting block and eternal control over world order. These minorities are the 'new' people who will look to the socialist for help reorganizing their community. And, believe me the ruling elite 'socialist engineer' will only be all to happy to do just that.  

Just remember who they are and try to imagine if they could possibly have your best interests in mind. Most people would not be socialist unless they had something they wanted to control or keep others from.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Misleading the Social Imagination in America

The use of misleading statistics...
In 2011, The Williams Institute, at the UCLA School of Law, estimated that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.  Yes, that was 4 years ago. But four years in statistical analysis is not huge difference. If it were, there would be chaos considering that near radial change would be part of our daily existence. 
Why is this number an estimate?

The number of LGBT persons in the U.S. is subjective. Studies pointing to the statistics are estimates at best. The most widely accepted statistic is that 1 in ever 10 individuals is LGBT; however some research estimates 1 in 20. Of course, this all depends on one's definition of gay (which may vary by study) and the participant’s willingness to identify as gay, bi, lesbian or transgender. So, why can't the actual number of GLB people be counted? 

What do the experts say?
When asked about GLB population statistics, Gary J. Gates, a Senior Research Fellow at The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, says:

"That's the single question that I'm asked the most. The answer is unfortunately not simple. I'll respond with a question. What do you mean when you use the word 'gay'? If you mean people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a survey, then the answer is that it's likely not one in ten, but closer to one in twenty.  A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.' 

If that is a truer statistical sample, then why do Americans think that same sex marriage should be legal? Does it mean that they are likely to be gay or that they just sympathize? Rather the later. Why?  In a political year, more Americans are more likely to identify with causes that will affect them or sympathize with minorities who seem to be under the foot of the majority and their rights being somehow squashed. This causes sympathy toward a minority.  

If you were to ask the question, “Do you think that same sex marriage is immoral” what would be the stats in this country given that somewhere around only 4% are gay or lesbian? Perhaps, there would still be sympathy bias (sympathy toward a minority) given it is an election year. Why do political surveys of this kind or topic pop up at this time of presidential election? It is about winning favor with groups of people including minorities and if one can get all the minorities then you will have a new voting bloc. 

Yes, Gallop poll is now showing (during this election year) that about half of all Americans (52%) believe that same-sex marriage should be legal in all states while 43% are opposed. These stats reflect minority group sympathy and do not reflect a moral position regardless of election year bias.Why/How? it is based on the social imagination tendency to be part of the perceived - in group!

The other problem with this Gallop poll is that we don’t know who they polled and or how many in real numbers. The question being, do their percentages actually represent all Americans? Rather not. 

Why? Firstly, there cannot be found actual numbers that show Gallup actually polled 330 million people which is the fair total population of the US as of today. Half of that number would be 165 million. Did Gallup actually poll that many people? Not likely. Social researchers do not have time or the funding to personally ask that many people their opinion. They rather paint a broad stroke in order to get a sample. That is all. Why? Because they are being paid by a certain group as in funded. So, they chose a path or portion of the population that they suppose will best reflect their agenda in a positive light. 

Pew Research suggests that opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in public opinion polls. In a new study, political scientist Richard J. Powell found that pre-election surveys consistently underestimated opposition to these laws by 5 to 7 percentage points. Blame “social desirability” bias—the tendency of people to give what they believe is the socially acceptable view rather than disclose their true feelings about sensitive topics, wrote Powell in an article to be published in the journal American Politics Research. 

However, detecting social desirability bias in surveys is difficult. Social desirability bias in polling comes in many flavors. Perhaps the most well known is the “Bradley Effect,” named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a black man, who faced Republican George Deukmejian, who was white, in the 1982 California gubernatorial race. Bradley held a substantial lead in most pre-election polls, only to lose narrowly. His defeat fueled speculation that some white voters had given misleading answers to poll-takers, saying they supported Bradley or were undecided but really favored Deukmejian.

But it wasn’t until 2007 that Harvard political scientist Daniel Hopkins confirmed the existence of the effect – social desirability bias. Funny it took so long, guess some never heard of” monkey see monkey do”. That expression came along before most social theorists. Of course, one could say that more people would declare to be gay or support a gay lifestyle but are constrained by the social bias knowing that homosexuality is frowned on. Going with that, we should then take into serious consideration that there was and still likely exists within society the understanding that homosexuality is wrong as there is an awareness of it being frowned on by the majority as the individual fears they would stand out in the majority knowing the majority rules. Of course, the argument would be “yes”... this is the problem/case. 

Perhaps, many sympathetic people would argue that more people would come out of the closet if it weren’t for the majority. Recognizing that they themselves are part of the majority and hence they sympathize. They should ask why do they or why does anyone else have a problem with the majority that is an important question too? 

In respect of the majority, the number of marriages between a man and a woman has remained close to steady and births to those couples still enough to keep baby doctors and diaper manufacturers in business, along with the 'women's' wedding dress and wedding venue industry up and running (remember that only 4% of the US population declares to be gay/lesbian).  One could agree that the majority of people prefer marriage between a man and a woman. And, yes, those same people could be sympathetic toward same sex couples especially when asked in an election year. 

No one has asked this question this year - “Do you think that homosexuality is immoral”? For that matter, unnatural could be used. I am sure the stats would reveal a different social reality. 

At least Gallup did provide their target audience ~ Younger Americans are more supportive of same-sex marriage, and this will likely continue to drive overall support at the gradual pace it has increased over recent years. And, they do acknowledge that in the South traditional marriage advocates still hold a majority of support.

 *This is not an anti-homosexuality nor pro homosexuality post, it is to show how so called expert research and outcomes are skewed or have bias. Can we ever know the real social imagination? That is a very good question.

One could argue from the Christian perspective that homosexual union is not one of the ten commandments. That is true. Marriage is not about sex. It is about two people coming together to glorify God, the Creator. Is it a sin, yes it is. There are many sins that are not on the ten commandment list: alcoholism, mental and physical abuses to others, gossip, petty theft, slander, etc. What it God does say clearly... "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial" ~ 1 COR 10:23. We can understand that as our choice and at the same time made to be mindful of the repercussion.