The Complexities of Race in Schuette v. BAMN

 Let me break down the main ideas of both the majority and the dissenters so as to avoid any misconstruction of my analysis or to allow any hyperbolic oversimplification of what I have to say.

 Main arguments:

• Whether voters can EVER remove racial preference policies in the university admissions process.
• Whether that reversal can EVER be a valid political process OR whether de facto segregation is present whenever a reversal occurs because it burdens the minorities who were disadvantaged at the time of the original admission policy's creation.
• Whether NOT using a racial factor in an admissions policy places a special burden on certain races.
• Whether it is possible to change an admission process through democratic means.
• Whether or not Supreme Courts "are fooled" when political processes are altered that disfavor minorities as found verbatim in Sotomayor's dissent (2). 

Recently, the Supreme Court decided an important case about the issue of admissions policies based on race.  Schuette v. BAMN concerns the legality of using race factors in admissions.  Specifically, the Michigan voters approved a law removing race as a consideration for admission to undergraduate colleges.  Lower courts reversed this law as violating the political process doctrine.  This process is used to determine if changing a law can lead to negative impacts on certain groups of people.  Because the law's reversal would take away race as a factor, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that this would put an undue burden on racial minorities whose access to university admissions would be affected.  The Supreme Court struck the law down as unconstitutional.

However, they narrowly reversed the lower court's decision and stated that there was no reason to overturn the democratic decision of voters because there was no instance of blatant segregation to favor one group over another.  Basically, the majority's view is that they are unable to force a population to include race as a factor and the democratic process is not itself automatically suspect when it addresses racial issues if no instance of a violation of equal protection occurs.  If voters can NEVER decide issues related to race, because they can never reverse a race-based policy and only courts can, then the value of "democracy" in America is diminished.

  Democracy and Race

People exercise democratic principles and may bypass public officials.  In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor believes that people have many opportunities to express themselves politically, but if they oppose a policy of ending racial preference, they can never have that viewpoint become ensconced in law by popular vote.  She believes that violates the "political process doctrine," which by extension from her opinion forever keeps racial preferences.  

However, the main issue resolved by the majority is that the Michigan law does not inflict injury on those previously preferred (4).  The key question goes back to Hunter v. Erickson, Mayor of Akron, et al. in 1969.  Courts must use a different approach when looking at political decisions that are nonneatural or having a racial element.  The question is whether the Michigan law is nonneutral.  I believe that no racial preferences is neutral and that secondary effects of that change do not constitute segregation or legal racism.

As precedent, Hunter barely applies to the Schuette case.   Sotomayor places too much emphasis on this precedent.  In Hunter, the City Council of Akron passed laws to desegregate housing.  They were elected officials who passed through the political process and were seeking relief for minorities adversely affected by discrimination (Kennedy 7).   However, voters passed an amendment to overturn the ordinance that would desegregate, which then altered the process so that similar laws could not be passed again.  This manipulation of the process had discriminatory intent and was declared unconstitutional because it changed politics.  

The Hunter case overturned the voters opinion NOT because voters could never change the law in racial matters, but because the supporters of the amendment had created a law with the specific intent of targeting minorities.  Elected officials had acknowledged the unfair and discriminatory practices of landlords and acted.  By overturning that action to perpetuate inequality, the amendment was unconstitutional because it violated equal protection.   Another way of summarizing it is that removing the authority to address a racial problem has practical effects.  That may lead to a special burden on a minority group, which means the public can't take away the authority to address a racial problem from existing decisions.  It also means that advocates must seek relief for a denied service.  The most abstract implication is that demonstrated injury as a result of a change policy because of state encouragement or participation means that a racial problem could be made worse (Kennedy 7).

Seattle School District

Another key precedent to this case was Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U. S. 457. 
Then, it was decided that one level of government cannot take away authority from another part of government to resist desegregation IF the desegregation policy is still deemed necessary to achieve equal justice and integration (4).  The NAACP sued a school board in Seattle, Washington.  Seattle responded with the court-mandated "Seattle Plan," which used busing and mandatory reassignments to reduce racial imbalance (Kennedy, 9).  A state initiative seeking to overturn the Seattle Plan was determined to be unconstitutional.  Busing students to achieve racial balance was a valid remedy (Ken 10.).  Passing a law to overturn a legitimate remedy is unconstitutional.  Therefore, even a democratic initiative can be unconstitutional if it violates a court specified remedy.

As a precedent, Seattle seems to favor Sotomayor's line of reasoning as a democratic initiative was struck down because of the burden it placed on minorities that had successfully sought relief.  However, Sotomayor misreads Seattle as much as she accuses the majority of doing the same.  Unlike Seattle and in Shuette, remedial action in college admissions policies required "a showing of de jure segregation," meaning specific actions that Sotomayor calls  "invidious" and a "reallocation of power whose practical effect was condemned in Hunter" (Sotomayor 14).  

Kennedy rejects this broad reading of Seattle because there is no principled limit, no principle requirement for the court to determine the interests served by political policies of  a specific racial group according to Seattle (Kennedy 11).  Using the broad interpretation would allow "the creation of incentives for those who support or oppose certain policies to cast the debate in terms of racial advantage or disadvantage.  He believes this furthers "racial antagonisms and conflict (Ibid).  Seattle could be used expansively to gain benefit or even that certain interest groups could demand an equal protection ruling where decisions could be kept from voter review or participation simply of the possibility that a decision could be made on race" (Kennedy 13).  In the end, Kennedy decides that voters must be given the power to determine IF race-based preferences will be adopted and the court may "not dis-empowers the voters from choosing which path to follow" (Ibid).  Maybe they will vote for race-based preferences.  But, the court can't overturn that unless a violation exists.  

Kennedy also strikes at Sotomayor's assertion that the voter's decision should be overturned.  He states that Hunter and Seattle are not valid precedents, therefore rejecting Sotomayor's claim that the majority violates stare decisis (Kennedy 10).  He rejects the precedent that in this case the government can be instructed not to follow a course that defines racial categories and then one that grants special consideration to some races and not others (Kennedy 18).  Voters thought such a categorization and preference system was unwise. 

 

The Hunter-Seattle cases "direct courts to determine whether the challenged act "places effective decisionmaking authority over the racial issue at a different level of government"" (5).  Kennedy also exposes a contradiction in how courts have made decisions because states get almost limitless sovereignty as to how their states are structured.  Individuals still have the ability to participate in meaningful political processes regardless of race.  In fact, Kennedy argues that this idea doesn't even apply because voters were given the ability to decide and opponents of the law had the ability to engage in meaningful political engagement to stop it.  The Court can't invalidate 15 years of state public debate on this issue, nor can they pick and choose which policy interests are at stake with regard to the constitutionality of laws forbidding racial preference (Kenn. 15).  They failed, and it is against precedent to take away a mandate just because that outcome was not what the opponents wanted.  Therefore, Seattle and Hunter do not apply (6).  According to Kennedy, no precedent exists that limits racially disproportionate impacts (5).

This opinion is contrary to Sotomayor's characterization of the majority opinion that there was a transfer of discrimination across populations simply because a majority of the population changed its mind.  If that range has a racial component, then the court must scrutinize that decision.  The question remains if any state can address a racial problem by creating laws to remedy discrimination and create a law that helps one race.  If the state is given the power to remedy a situation, can the state EVER reverse its view of the state of race amongst the people it represents? 

To contradict Sotomayor, Kennedy wrote that those changes involved moving the ability to make a decision around the levels of government so that a racial preference could be established (for whites, against minorities).  In Schuette, unelected officials used race in admissions as one factor.  The Michigan law reversed the ability of these officials to use race.  The electorate is not too sensitive to handle the debate of complex issues like racial preference in the admissions process (Kennedy 16).  Furthermore, he argues that you can't simply take an issue out of the hands of voters just because you don't trust their result.  That, he argues, goes against the country's democratic principles. 

"Race-Neutral Laws"

Race-neutral laws CAN be created in states if they do not actively create discriminatory practices.  Kennedy wrote that one BROAD interpretation of equal-protection, like that found in Justice Sotoymayor's dissent, is unhelpful and can actually lead to more racial problems.  Some laws can have language that appears neutral, but when put into action, it can have adverse racial effects.  He and past courts categorically rejected that precedent because laws must show discrimination or the intention of it (5).  In Schuette v. BAMN, opponents of the law were unable to prove that voters intended to discriminate against minorities by altering the Regents board process and rules so race was no longer considered a factor in college admissions.  Basically, one cannot claim that a law violates equal protection only to remove equal protection from others.  

While the reasoning of the majority in the case may not be perfect, the decision was also NOT a reversion to the principle of "separate but equal" or the legal segregation as found in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson.  That leap of rhetoric is anachronistic as it assumes the same level of racism of institutions still exists comparable to over a hundred years ago in areas predominately in the South.   It does a disservice to those who might be convinced that there are factors which disproportionally affect minorities and keep them from attending college at a number consistent with whites.   This slippery slope fallacy has found its way to Justice Sonya Sotomayor's dissent.  She assumes an outcome, a return to segregation, from the propositions provided and automatically suspects race to be a factor in changes to the admissions policy.  She also implies  that any equalization of minority and majority rights in the political process is a deceptive practice on the part of the majority.  But, I believe she is mistaken.

Justice Kennedy and the majority more correctly assess the historical precedent set.  If judges can invalidate any law relating to race, even one that removes a race preference policy, then no democratic decision can be made concerning race at all.  In 2014, Michigan is not a region targeted for the kind of remedial efforts to break segregation in the South in the 1950s.  States with a history of actively integrating students should be able to make judgements about their laws especially if there is no blatant discrimination that results.  

Whether or not minorities will be affected in college is not the issue.  What is important is the ability of voters to engage in democracy even if their decisions are not universally accepted.  We engage in political debate not for some purposeless talk, but to find solutions to problems in a more orderly way than mudslinging or outright violence.  "American democracy" works best when we thoughtfully consider the implications of words, our abstractions, and recognize that even when discussing complex issues like race, where real injustices have occurred and still occur, we must work together to avoid bitter terminology and the oversimplification of the other side.  So please avoid comparing
Schuette vs. BAMN to Jim Crow or slavery.

Source:

 Schuette vs. BAMN.  572 U. S. (2014)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdf

A Sarcastic Art Philosophy: "Atomism Aesthetics"

Is "Art is Everywhere?"  Should we have "Art for Art's sake?"

 

The Sarcastic Answer:  Only if it serves a progressive purpose.

Sarcastic Purpose of this Tract:

To create a unified belief system that properly gives voice to both individual creativity and the oppressed masses.  Aesthetic atomization theory plans society and abstraction in an equitable way while combining modern leftist ideologies.  It is the only way to get the public to have confidence in the truly moral re-ordering plan for society because greedy "right-wing ideologies" are already backwards, simplistic, and incapable of future thinking.  Atomization destroys oppression through emotion and thus, a revolutionary society will emerge because of the DNA and the expressionism of the oppressed worker.  The following theories are infinitely better than the horrors and oppression of the Republic thus far. 

With a diverse fellowship craving for aesthetic unity, atomism theory's stated mission is to reconcile individual creativity, aesthetics, Stalinism, socialism, Trotskyism, modern environmentalism, recent sexual identity trends, anti-Zionism, anti-Republic sentiments, and modern Progressivism.   Through art, feeling, and emotion, this way of life will probably change everyone's world.

Sarcastic Definitions and Grammatical Parts of Speech

•  atom= an individual mind (time + emotion), the subject noun.

• emotion=aesthetic= indescribable activity when you connect with art.  A feeling inside of the physical body of a person because perception is connected to a single person's nervous system and time (passive, internal verb)

• expression= creativity physical action corresponding to an individual's emotion (action verb)

• art=an expression of emotion that is detected by something else (object)

• form= all non sense information, oppressive to emotion, and negative emotionally to humans.

• stimuli= all physical evidence as detected by the senses of a person. 

• shared meanings= words and concepts in a language with the same meaning or definition.  They impose and thus are immoral.

• Revolution= state of flux, of perfection where the individual (atom) has the unfettered ability to express, therefore a never-ending freedom of expression.

• Mob= a group of positive expressionists.

• fascist= all negative expressionists.  A creatively expanded term evolved from its 20th Century origins to define all persons who oppress any expression.  An oppressive and immoral person who imposes formalism.
• bourgeoisie- The fascist Middle Class who seek 1950s conformity, discrimination, and false happiness at the expense of the oppressed masses.

Atomization Theory and Abstract Art:  

An idealist, individualistic, subjective theory where art and creativity are supreme.  Art is no longer a simple function of mass human culture, rather it is the only moral tool available to individuals seeking to enlighten the masses about social justice. 

Art is broadly defined as any expression, any detectable evidence of individual emotion.  It is used to break apart any shared meanings of the prevailing oppressive culture and during this process, revolution can indefinitely be sought.  Art is expression and expression is the tool by which the immoralities of the oppressive culture are purged. It is the act of emoting, of doing art that is indicative of the ongoing presence of Revolution.  Without art or aesthetics, there can be no moral, perfect world.

Revolution is an "atomized" idea inherent in all true individuals.  The true "atom" is opposed by a tyrannical force that resists their idealism and individualism. Art philosophy is therefore meant to be related only to individual expressionism and NOT to trends, tastes, or fashions that are in response to the bourgeoisie or their McCarthyism.  Such responses are legitimate and moral because they seek the annihilation of the bourgeoisie so that the individual owns all forms of his own production, including his expression.  In atomization aesthetics, you're supposed to lack understanding to search for a meaning of your own so you can express yourself somehow.

Sarcastic Implications for Gender Indentity: 

The foremost implication is total revolution and the destruction of the formal, traditional, and fascist way of life.  With total atomization of the prevailing culture, there will be no more shared meanings and thus no further oppression of the individual by the conservative and the capitalist. Common shared meanings of "Marriage," "Church," "common man," or "prohibited drug" cannot exist in an atomization system because people know to interpret these concepts negatively and thus reject whatever restrictions are part of them.  Why be a "church-member," a form, if under atomism, it is impossible to identify your sexual identity because time is variant or your alternating preferences for commitment, desire, or promiscuity shift because of emotions?   Why advocate for anything that restrains emotions if it is immoral to impose sexuality on the individual?

Yet such a horrific "Church" requires you to conform so. Why? In this case, your sexual identity is indefinable, yet oppressed because of a form (heterosexuality) imposed by the "Church" and Christianity and its dogmatic, discriminatory shared meanings.  Thus, you have every right to sexual revolution, to atomization including reverse repression against it to break apart its shared meanings and end its intolerance.   

A further implication is that there is an infinite listing of gender identity because gender language leads to shared meanings and therefore fascism and oppression.  Gender itself is an oppressive construct that limits creativity, places people into forms, and attempts to separate emotion and the subject from their previously labeled "gender" parts, i.e. penis, vagina, breast, etc.   

Past gender oppression is part of ongoing negative stimuli from sexist, homophobic formalists dominating Republic society.  Men were responsible for imposing all oppressive conceptions of gender (its terminology) on the world of unique subjects.  Furthermore, because of one's uniqueness and subjectivity--no one can be in your mind or experience your emotion at the same time  and place--gender identity can never be defined because that places emotion and expression into form, therefore becoming tyranny and oppression.  In order to counter "gender," creativity is required. 

For example, one such expression, (V), may be used by one person in time to express art while avoiding hateful gender forms.  (V) is used to intermingle all physical/mental expressions through art.  However, no one else can express (V) and have the same meaning, otherwise (V) would become a shared meaning and thus oppress.  And, (V) means something slightly different for every true individual (atom).  So, it's not a shared meaning and it helps to atomize the shared meaning of gender because "man/women etc." are removed and (V) expresses something for just one subject no matter how many people share the same body parts used for reproductive sex.  Therefore, body mutilation, (V), sex changing, cross dressing etc. are expressions of a subject's antigender.  Resistance to this art is also counter-revolutionary therefore prejudiced, fascist, and a hate crime, the only acceptable criminal label. 

Otherwise, the "crime" abstraction itself is an attack on the atom. Such forced conformity to gender and to expressionism leads to what oppressors have always called "crime" because laws are forms, those who fail at following shared meanings like gender are labeled "criminal" under that formal law, and thus people's emotions, their aesthetic capabilities are restrained by the dominant and fundamentally immoral culture.  Any form that restrains emotion and the expression of emotion is fundamentally immoral because it reduces ones' ability to participate in Revolution and destroy society's real immoralities.  Because "crime" doesn't exist under an atomistic system, behavior can never be controlled or discouraged in such a way as to make one way of acting illegal.  Thus, under this system, the only recourse is to allow every behavior that imposes nothing negatively on other individuals. 

Emotion Theory:   

A "normal" emotional state is something that cannot be achieved for people.  There is no possible homeostasis for one's mentality. Therefore, the person's mind is in constant change not least of which is the result of the movement of time and the alteration of the physical chemicals which make up the brain and the nervous system.  It is also dependent on the inter-connectivity with other vital life functions. 

Therefore, no mental balance is possible, nor desirable under this system and emotion and the magnitude of its expression can be heightened or depressed from some undeterminable level to achieve the desired creative, aesthetic effect.  

However, emotion is constantly altered because time cannot be frozen completely.  Thus while "under the influence,"  artists can create things of any sort that express an emotion that is only in their head for one moment in time, a duration and sense achieved only by the physical chemicals in the brain or those additives (drugs) that alter perception. 

In fact, atomism theorists encourage mental alteration to achieve maximum creativity.  This can occur because of voluntary actions, like using mood enhancers (drugs of any sort, especially the most psychoactive) or because of involuntary action that is recognized by viewers as being art.   

Therefore, because thought is considered temporal and equivalent to the indescribable emotion in the mind of a single person's head, any thought expressed to another person whose intent is to reduce one person's creativity to some "form," like the political labels "subversive or "communist," should be considered to be a formal thinker, depriving their argument of time and the direction towards a perfect progress of individuality and Revolution.  This formalism is also considered absurd because no person can enter the mind of another person because of inconstant emotional flux.  That means physical expression never exactly correlates to ones' inner emotions.

 

Proper Interpretation of Art:

Past art criticism reduced emotive expressions to symbols which destroyed the emotive moment.  Art therefore can only be experienced individually and understood in time through experience.  Attempting to "improve" art or achieve a similar mentality to the artist at whatever point in time is impossible.  To do so would be anachronistic, amounting to time travel or something like E.S.P./mind reading.  Therefore, it is impossible to interpret art accurately because to do so would make them constructions, shared meanings that bind artist, representing the past, and viewer, representing the present emotion, in progressive sin.  

When questioned about art, the atomistic self-created artist  may say nothing because his emotional moment has ceased.  Or, if this person chooses to speak, they must be creating.  It's not a form ("artist"), it's something a person chooses to create even though it shares some characteristics with other people.  It cannot be the same expression, an immoral form, because humans haven't yet achieved time travel to another person's mind and body (mind reading).  Therefore, separate emotions lead to separate expressions and therefore real art, with its moral effects on other people.  While appearing similar, two pieces of real art are actually different because no two atoms can be the same or in the same place/time and therefore can never create the same exact things.

For example, splattering feces on Christian symbols can be considered art because of the emotion that was involved in defiling those formal symbols.  In this case, the formal symbols of Christian culture are viciously attacked.  This wording alone shows that emotion leads to expression, which then leads to art that serves a moral purpose.  However, defiling Islamic symbols or any other non-Judeo-Christian religion would constitute a hatecrime and thus be worthy of street protests and revolutionary violence in response.  Judeo-Christian sects are responsible for all global religious intolerance because of their oppressive imperialist past.  Therefore, the artist appreciator understands the moral message of attacking Judeo-Christianity and knows by the mere act of symbolic destruction that art has been created.  It is action like this feces defilement that progress the globe towards perfection. 

Likewise, when looking at "traditional" and therefore "oppressive" pieces of what was once called "art," the atomist should throw away any past conceptions of what a physical object means.  For example, the painting "The Garden of Earthly Delights" by the imperialist-supporter Hieronymus Bosch should be attacked as immoral non-art because of its Christian symbology and because of the repression that the Catholic Church has consistently used to silence progressive critics.  Accepting such a painting as a "masterpiece of art" would take the viewer out of their brains and attempt to place them into the emotional state of Bosch during the slavery and repression of the Renaissance.  Without progressive context to educate about the repression of homosexuals, women, other non-Dutch, non-Europeans by the society of that day, a viewer accepting the painting as emotionally pleasing would accept and support Dutch imperial slavery because Dutch art cannot be separated from the immoral Dutch capitalism because of the illogic of time and mind travel.  Failing to act, failing to criticize the immoralities of the art age of Bosch is just as bad and immoral as accepting the atrocities of the age.

Therefore, because of the shared meanings behind such a painting, its value is negative and its impact fundamentally immoral.  Rather, acceptable art would take the right path, the path of individual equality and the emphasis on emotion above all else.  It is the duty of art critics to attack the oppressive culture of formalists like Bosch and deconstruct what they must have meant as their oppressive paint strokes hindered progress then and now.

Liberation Literature Theology (LLT)

For most of human history, trees and papyrus have been butchered to make paper.  Now, computers have alleviated this stress on Mother Nature and allowed the Blog to ascend as the right format for the conveyance of truth and knowledge.  But, let us look at a sample of how literature can be almost anything under atomism theory, how literature is universal and has itself declared its independence from even the alphabet, with all of its vile Western Civilization influences.

Look at the previous format of literature: the printed book on carbon paper.  In the old, backward way, ideas were conveyed on these pieces of paper.  Though important ideas spread in spite of this rustic format, the impact on nature was atrocious. So, what do we do with the remaining carbon paper that sits on this planet?

Well, use the remaining paper reserves for art and art that fits with the morality of the atomism theory. Take for example the average "novel."  571 pieces of carbon paper of an 8+_ by ₉^^& to a 4 $%^ size are the pallet for a self-described pamphleteer or novelist to use as an art canvas.  The altered page dimensions are meant to destroy the imperial form of paper dictated to the people by their overlords.  That form limits the creativity of literature within the bounds of a standardized, and thus non-aesthetic physical object.  

It is unjust and immoral to bound our emotions in oppressive formats or to conform to imperialist culture.

Furthermore, handwritten or spray-painted literature should be comprised of symbols unknown as yet to anyone and so that each copy must be individually hand-made because no corporation-produced printer can achieve true handmade unique symbols.  However, in order to spread the innate morality of atomism aesthetics, we'll suffice with non-formal page measurements in typed courier font on a standardized page for the purposes of conveying a progressive message.

With all copies handwritten, thus the new age creative author achieves a different copy each time art is attempted or so it is suggested to those who'd create as this theory requires.  It is implied that the reader must interpret the work and have their own artistic moment while trying to avoid creating a shared meaning.  Therefore, one should strive to create some new thought because time already dictates that everything a person does will be different (no mind travel).  

 

The moral reader can never recreate the art creation experience, so one can never explain what they created because that would amount to time travel, imperialism, and systematizing emotion.  Instead, art in literature can only be experienced by finding progressive ideals in the art and the magnitude of the non-comforming expression of the artist.  When reader and writer connect ideals, progress is served.

Revolutionary verus History Theory

The purpose of this theory is to connect atomization with social justice, because rather than being some indefinable term of idealists, it is in fact an innate part of every person as they seek to protect their ability to express.  

The act of doing revolution is equal to social justice and therefore the protective response against negative stimuli of the mind in time.  Therefore, revolution is inconstant, nonrestrictive, never-ending, and non-conformist. As with art atomization, you must express toleration, revolutionary expression, and a desire to change society and all of its wrong and oppressive forms.  You must support individualistic expression if you really want to bring about the inconstant state of social justice.

Because history places people and their ideas in a time that atomist theorists think is mentally impossible, traditional historians are expressed against as bourgeoisie formalists.  Marx's theories of historical inevitability still apply because the bourgeoisie class is the group with the shared meanings whereas all other individuals emote in time and follow atomization theory.  

Thus, the bourgeoisie class has the most shared meanings, which it imposes on the creativity of the individuals who choose to artfully entitle themselves as the "proletariat."  
True individuals will only choose liberation like that which emerges from working class people.  The proletariat are also often the most silent of an oppressed, formal society, requiring certain people to speak for them and encourage their creativity during the right moments in time.  Elections are the most opportune time for action because the masses need to be mobilized for a short period of time until responsible progressive leaders gain power and thereafter make the proper decisions for them.

Therefore, individuals (workers) express their outrage individually in a different way than their horrid bosses, who themselves disconnected from time because they dominate.  They act as terrorist factory managers because they won't pay more than the smallest agreed upon wage between worker and boss.  Work is not to be a contract between supplier and demander.  Instead, work is an expression of the individual's emotions and thus cannot be limited.  No price is too small for the art of one's individual labor. 

Bosses limit that price, they restrain the capabilities of the artist by constraining expression within time and pay limits.  But there is recourse for the proletarian.  Maybe the staff supervisor will be decapitated by a rebelling work staff who are really artists expressing themselves against low pay and non-ergonomically correct keyboards?  

However, a violent response is neither a violation of ones' pacifist oaths nor a crime, because "crimes" are constructions.  To violate laws made by the bourgeoisie is the epitome of this system.  The factory owners and capitalists seek to suppress the common man who is paid only minimum wage whilst being given some meager and inadequate state assistance to live a less than completely perfect life.  Overturning this great labor injustice is exactly the goal of atomists and it is something completely attainable for non-oppressors.

Thus with horrible bosses, oftentimes the only response is worker revolt and violent protest.  Mob reaction is a form of group expressionism and thus art.  All persons, through time and circumstance, react against some authoritative criticism of the individual and come to similar emotional moments and express through revolution, mob chaos, and possibly violence.  If violence results because of conflicting expressions, then that should be viewed as art so long as the individuals in the mob are reacting against authority and formality.

A Closing Sarcastic Note on Art Education Theory

How do we move forward with the message of atomization aesthetics?  The answer is educational indoctrination.  Formal culture stifles our message time and again.  But, our theory has an answer for the blocking action of the current terrible educational culture.

Atomization theorists think that there is no reason for organized education in the traditional sense.  In order to overcome the contradictory need to destroy forms while still celebrating everything progressive teachers and universities do, atomism theorists came up with the idea that rather than education imposed as formality, instead, the faculties and their labor unions are mob expressions. A teacher uses their presence in class as an emotional expression, creating art for the required duration of the class period (which is the emotional moment).  The emotional response (expression) is due to the authoritarian university and its limitation of creativity by imposing who, what, where, when, and how creativity can take place (classroom, campus). 
  

Thus the teacher's performance on the classroom stage is the aesthetic moment.  Most emotive revolutionary expressionist teachers sit in class in some place (depends on emotion and time) and may stay silent to not impose authority on the students.  Students for their part are allowed to emote however they wish as long as they feel creation.  

Thus, as the atomist teacher expresses their progressive beliefs to the classroom, morality is served and the individual lives of students who connect with the message are improved.  And atomization aesthetics is spread to another person and the world inches forward one step closer to total perfection.

A Required Imperialist Disclosure: this form of education might lead to a mass breakdown in communication to people with no skills because there can be no formal process of any kind, let alone training, which itself acknowledges authority of experience.  Food would be scarce, starvation rampant.  Also, garbage collection is fascist because no one's creativity seems to want to clean up that which smells and because waste implies that you are exploiting natural resources which violates environmental practice espoused by these theorists.  Most atomist theorists think the individual creator can overcome such conservative oppressions.

   

Let's get Atomization Aesthetics moving today!  (or not)

End Sarcasm.

"Sequester" Is an Abstraction!

Pieces of paper with words written on them are concrete realities, people acting because of what's written on the paper, like a law, means they're following abstractions.  Therefore, the Sequester law is an abstraction and Obama's speech was inaccurate.

  " This is not an abstraction -- people will lose their jobs.  The unemployment rate might tick up again...... And this is not an abstraction.  There are people whose livelihoods are at stake.  There are communities that are going to be impacted in a negative way.  And I know that sometimes all this squabbling in Washington seems very abstract, and in the abstract, people like the idea, there must be some spending we can cut, there must be some waste out there.  There absolutely is.  But this isn’t the right way to do it." "President Obama Speaks on the Sequester." 2/19/13

It has never been my purpose to be reactive to opinion writers or back and forth politics, but, David Firestone writes in the New York Times about a subject very near to my bloggish heart, namely abstractions and what President Obama said about them.  Firestone agrees with Obama's comments that recent "forced budget cuts" or sequestration coming on March 1, 2013 cannot be abstractions because "sequestration" has consequences for real people everywhere.   Obama also said that "Washington squabbles" over nice-sounding abstractions like "spending cuts" because it foolishly and recklessly thinks waste must be out there. But, the sequestration law itself is a piece of paper with writing on it that tells live human beings things they SHOULD do.  Sequestration isn't real because a law can't stand up and tell you you're fired.  It's the people who believe they're the government who've got to make the determination as to who to fire, then take ACTION, and "fire" other people.

First, I disagree with Obama's "Washington squabbles" abstraction, because rather than THE PLACE, Washington DC, thinking and arguing about budgeting, of course with Obama thinking he's far away from the BLAME, the human beings employed by the "American public" are debating over how to manage the resources we send them.  That includes Obama as well.  So, add another abstraction to his speech about everyone else messing around using abstractions when they should be thinking "smartly" like him.  Really, they're just thinking differently.

Second, Obama then declares himself "absolutely supporting" something he just declared was a terrible abstraction that leads to "communities being impacted in a negative way," namely that "there absolutely is" waste out there.  Add another abstraction to his speech.  So, using his logic, abstractions lead to job losses because of believing in forced budget cuts, aka sequestration, but Obama believes that there absolutely are budget cuts that should be enacted.  Therefore, we should believe in abstractions that he won't acknowledge as being abstractions (I don't believe we can avoid abstraction anyways).  However, is his absolute support for finding budget cuts the way or not the way? Logically, what is his approach from this speech and why is his understanding of the sequester abstraction better than the alternatives?  Is his form of rhetoric effective argumentation?

Third, this form of disagreement about who is thinking realistically or not has effects for the PUBLIC.  Obama has separated his opponents as "thinking in the clouds," while he remains firmly on the ground thinking about what is "going on in the clouds."  How can this abstractive approach lead to a realistic agreement on some pretty complex budgeting issues, if he's supposed to come to agree with those who'd hurt communities and affect people's livelihood?  If open budget cutters (not Obama) are that abstractly "bad," would his realistic outreach work anyways, and should he really want to work with those "promoting disaster"?  Should a reasonably thoughtful public buy such abstractions with such little logic or rationality to connect them just because he says so or because the level of cuts seem so ominous and large?  While people's ACTIONS after March 1st will certainly affect "government workers" and the complex workings of the "American economy," I am skeptical of figures who try to remain blameless and use confusing rhetoric to gain public support for life-changing government action. 

Fourth, Obama also discusses the "unemployment" abstraction.  "Unemployment" is a statistic, an imperfect counting of people across the country "who claim" they have no job for a short period of time (See its definition below).  How more abstract can you get than a complex number that merely explains what people offer up to the federal government and its agencies concerning whether or not they BELIEVE they are working or not?  FEELING unemployed is terrible and the concept means to me a lot of awful things.  For example, there are the tangible effects of the abstraction like having no money to pay for food to feed your family or other emotional intangibles like depression or despair that can result.  But, the term unemployment is abstract because it includes both the tangible and intangible effects of believing you're out of a job.

Typing on keyboards is real action, believing you're a receptionist is abstract because it's in your head.  There's nothing stamped in your DNA that says "receptionist."  Likewise, combining all job abstractions together and calling it "employment rate" is even further abstract as is its supposed converse: "unemployment."  As terrible as the unemployment abstraction is, it STILL is an abstraction because human beings believe it to mean a lack of work, while they still have the physical ability for action.  And besides if "unemployment" is only "going to tick up," why are the pesky Republicans and their budget cutting abstractions such a threat to the country's workers?

"Iran Won't Invade Because of Only 90% funding of "American Power" AND 6% More American Preschoolers Won't Become Street Urchins on March 2"

Or, if it's REALLY that bad, the President and Congress better start agreeing!

 

My blog has consistently contradicted the view that some people possess "realism" while others deal in the abstract.  These are human-made dichotomies reducing reality to ideas and then using those ideas to dehumanize those who disagree and supposedly ONLY think in the abstract.  The form of reductionism used by Obama and the false causality from such reductionism diminishes options to solve problems in a better, less conflicting way.

Abstractions are not necessarily a problem of "party belief," rather they are tools that humans use to explain complex ideas.  It happens that there are often harmful and violent effects of abstractive thinking.  According to reporters and most members of both parties,  some degree of "Armageddon" will occur if there are 7-10% cuts of federal budgets of discretionary spending from LAST year's levels.  Untouchable, "Locked box items" like Social Security and public trusts are safe from losing public resources because of the "sequester."  But, in the word games of abstractive politics, it is hard to reach agreement with the other side when you're labeled as "anti-US military" just because you pushed for 9.4 to 10% cuts of an approximately $613.9 billion total budget to counter cuts to your more favorite social programs.  (See See OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act and the "National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2013" 8).  Republicans are using this label quite ineffectively against Democrats because the defense cuts remain as 11:50 on 2/27/13.

Forget that the "defense" abstraction is one of the largest expenditures of taxpayer money, but it must be we need every dollar and more for every sort of duplicate high-tech aircraft that can be provided with those 10% more funds?  If we don't spend it, well, Iran, Korea, and Afghanistan will go up in flames because we spend a tenth less?  And the really important expenditures, like soldier pay and benefits will be eliminated too with the 10% cut?  I'll end the sarcasm because these beliefs are serious.

I want wounded veterans to receive the best healthcare we can afford for our country.  So, if "Republican public employees" share my abstractive belief about providing the best for our soldiers using public money and are really concerned that personnel and the best weapons systems are effective and operable to counter "global threats," they had better do what's necessary to work with Obama and Democrats if he is really going to slash veterans benefits and destroy "America's defense" with his discretionary cutting abilities as "Chief Executive."  Is he really THAT serious a threat to the country's security?  Let's have the Republicans be less guided by abstractive warfare and more focused on preventing further heartache for those serving "our country."  If not, we'll suffer "a tenth more internationally" regardless of how much Republicans have complained about it.

Likewise, many Democrats argue that Republicans want to throw 70,000 kids out of pre-school into the street gutters because the Department of Education's 30 plus offices and programs face a 7.6-8% cut. (See OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act).  Forget that Obama is in charge of distributing the other 92% of funds of $69.8 billion in 30 education offices and programs, a large amount of money that itself is a 2.5% increase in money from 2012 because of inflation.  Or, that 70,000 refers only to a small part of 43% of children who have CENTER-BASED childcare before age 4, meaning they can be in any non-home center and not Head Start or other federally funded programs. And of the rest of the country's under 5-year-olds not in centers, some 57% of preschool age kids who won't be potentially "victimized" at all by these cuts because they are taken care of by parents, relatives, nonrelatives.  And using the administration's 70,000 figure, if Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education cuts funding for preschool intentionally to ensure the expulsion of that amount of under 5-year-olds, he is affecting approximately 6% of the total number of under 5-year-olds in the country (70,000/11,000,000) who may or may not have preschools with federal funding available to them (National Child Care Aware Association).

So, we can conclude it will be terrible for a small percentage of the eligible population who I assume desperately need the program for early childhood education and care for a host of reasons I can only deduce from Obama's abstractions.  I want this program to remain at current funding levels to help poor working class parents.  I also want as much of the education funding to remain as possible.  But like with the "Republicans," if we're really going to prevent more uneducated 3-5 year olds from roaming our streets,  like apparently the approximately 53% of 11,000,000 American preschoolers already do, Democrats better come to some negotiating position apart from their current, failed abstractions if they want to preserve the unprotected from becoming urchin buskers.

Logical Fallacies in the Sequestration Blame Rhetoric: Ad populums, Ad hominems, and Non-Sequiturs

"Cancer researchers are American government, and if Republicans don’t think their work should be supported by taxpayers, they are free to make their case publicly. But they won’t do that, because the various government functions facing cuts are both necessary and popular. Instead they talk in dire but abstract terms about the debt threat, pretending there is no need to ever raise taxes, and hoping that voters won’t remember what their dollars actually pay for."   

"So it’s ridiculous for Republicans to claim the sequester is really Mr. Obama’s idea, as if a kidnapper’s relatives deserve blame for paying the ransom"

"The Sequester Is Not An Abstraction" David Firestone, The New York Times

David Firestone mimics the President's same vein of logical fallacy and dehumanizing reduction to abstraction.  He really does the people who style themselves as the "media" a great disservice by writing so fallaciously that Republicans, all "driven crazy by Obama," should "feel free to defend" his  straw man he has set up for them to the American voter.  Namely, he BELIEVES Republicans do not think cancer researchers are part of the government and that Republicans purposefully try to deceive the American public with their "love of cutting spending" from the shadows.  In the same non-sequitur, he uses the ad populum fallacy to complement his strawman because Republicans must seek POPULAR approval over the merits of HIS characterization of their beliefs.  Furthermore, Obama is the "patient relative of a public held hostage" by Republican "kidnappers" who really should be blamed in the first place, as if Obama had nothing to do with the sequestration debate in the first place.  Most reasonable members acknowledge Obama's prime role in this debate, even if he's not fully to blame.

But let's assume that Firestone is correct that Obama was barely involved in the bad and consistently has done only good....oh and Bob Woodward is completely wrong.  Firestone offers no proof that Republicans do not believe cancer researchers get government funding, nor does he offer what I'm assuming is a figure corresponding to the catastrophic amount of cancer research funding that is to be cut, or that calling yourself "Republican" means you support cutting such research, which by extending his argument, I assume means that when Republicans cut costs that must mean they'll increase the number of cancer victims.  So, what is the evidence that the Republicans are a cowardly, ignorant shadow people who like cutting things they know nothing about?  Firestone's scant evidence is hardly enough.  Firestone offers Speaker Jim Boehner's comments that reflect blame back to Obama as evidence.  But, they are just part of the abstract blame game and not evidence of Republicans as hostage-takers.  And, how is this argument any less abstractive than "cutting spending" anyways?

I may not want the cuts involved with the sequester abstraction, but I also do not have evidence to support the arguments that Republicans are kidnappers who forced the sequester abstraction on America's victimized people.  Nor do I believe that on March 2 more people will die of cancer or that more accident victims will die because of the sequestration budget action effect on first responders.

Can we move to a more logical debate "America" since we're all using abstractions anyways?  The real shadows we can all crawl out of are the places where our eyes are facing the sun  unobstructed by other physical objects.

(Not extending this as a metaphor to describe immoral, sneaky people, but as a literal definition of shadows)

Definitions Useful for This Post

 

Abstraction= a lack of concreteness or the physical (beliefs or ideas)

artifact: a physical object (for example writing on paper like Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012)

abstract consequences:  humans action based on abstraction.

Non-sequitors: "a conclusion that does not follow from its premises." (Dictionary.com)

Ad Populum: "fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude" (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html)

Ad Hominem: "fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."  (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html)

"Sequestration": automatic spending cut ("Glossary of Political Terms")

Intent:  “Intent” expresses mental action at its most advanced point, or as it actually accompanies an outward, [physically with ones' body] act which has been determined to be of ones' will. (http://thelawdictionary.org/intent/


"Unemployed": "Those who were not employed, were available for work, and had tried to find employment during the previous 4 weeks.  It also includes those waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off" (Mankiw 614).

Sources:

Blake, Aaron. "Who is responsible for the sequester?" Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/05/who-is-responsible-for-the-sequester/

"Child Care Aware of America:  State Facts 2012." Child Care Aware of America.

 http://www.naccrra.org/sites/default/files/default_site_pages/2012/full2012cca_state_factsheetbook.pdf

"Department of Education: Funding Highlights FY2013"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/education.pdf

"Fast Facts: Childcare." National Center for Education Statistics
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=4 

Firestone, David.  "The Sequester is Not an Abstraction."  The New York Times.  http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/the-sequester-is-not-an-abstraction/

"Introduction to Logic." http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

Johnson, Paul.  "A Glossary of Political Terms: Sequestration."  http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/sequestration. 

Linden, Michael.  "The Way Out of the Sequester Is Cutting Tax Expenditures"  The Daily Beast.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/27/the-way-out-of-the-sequester-is-cutting-tax-expenditures.html#sthash.MCqyCg3E.dpufhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/27/the-way-out-of-the-sequester-is-cutting-tax-expenditures.html

 Mankiw, N. Gregory.  Principles of Economics 5th Edition.  Harvard UNiversity: Mason, Ohio, 2009.

"National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2013." Office of the Secretary of Defense.http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY13_Green_Book.pdf

 "OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf

"President Obama Speaks on the Sequester." The White House.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/02/19/president-obama-speaks-sequester#transcript

"The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012"
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5872enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr5872enr.pdf

Weisman, Johnathan and Parker, Ashley. "Acceptance of Defense Cuts Signals Shift in G.O.P. Focus."  The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/us/politics/democrats-and-republicans-miscalculate-on-automatic-cuts.html?_r=2&

Woodward, Bob.  "Obama Repeatedly Lied About Responsibility for Budget Sequester Cuts." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

The Surrealism of the “Building That” Debate

Why Must We Thank the Abstract First?  It Can't Say "You're Welcome," but its Employees Can Demand More in Its Name!

 

I waited until after the 2012 Presidential election to write this.  Because he's the victor, I'll focus primarily on Obama's so-called "Building That" speech in Roanoke, VA on 7/13/12:

 

Surrealism:  "having the disorienting, hallucinatory quality of a dream; unreal; fantastic" dictionary.com

I can declare with a great amount of certainty that yes, people are not the only builders of things.  We “live” with the results of past action and that includes the physical landscape and the debris left behind by humans and other natural causes.  Natural forces, like sedimentation, shape the landscape in ways that we can use, that we’re unaware of, or in a way that is a barrier to our physical bodies.  Animals also alter the landscape.  For example, termites construct giant structures with their vomit, beavers dam rivers, or herds of elephants knock down forests providing habitats for smaller creatures.  And maybe a robot society inhabits planets in other universes and individual robots out there build things too.  But, we cannot mind-warp our human selves into termites, beavers, or sedimentary streams.  At least I can't.  And I don't feel the need to credit sedimentation or natural disasters either.

Thus, in 2012 USA, governments and businesses are abstract creations of the human mind, people acting somewhat collectively according to their flawed individual perception of laws, "society," and "tradition." "Governments" or "businesses" can’t really build anything either, it's the people who believe they are part of those abstractions.  I know this is quite surreal, but this is a waste of time debate.

Why do we have the government abstraction? Philosophically, it is so individuals can imperfectly conform their lives to a series of imperfect rules thus making difficult individual lives hopefully just a little better in some geographical area.  We (probably) give the government employees our resources (now mostly currency) to do things for us and they give us imperfect results.  The purpose of government is to do things we've paid it and instructed it to do, though this is not an ideal world, so no abstraction's human-made purposes can ever be entirely met.

Why do we pay taxes?  If you pay, that is because laws have been written to "protect" us and do things for us collectively with pooled money, so we give up some of our limited resources so other people perform these duties/services for us.  If taxpayers are giving their limited resources to government employees to do things like building bridges for us to use, why do we have to give credit to government for planning the construction projects we've paid individuals to complete?  Ridiculous.

OBAMA: “......You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there....... If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

 

My main problem with Obama's argument is one of credit.  Why credit the abstract first over individual success, the rough and tumble hard-work needed to succeed with "business" relationships?  That question can probably be answered first by defining success, something subjective yes, but would you rather credit yourself on what you've accomplished or some word on a page?  Or credit someone who believes they're the "government" because they get a paycheck that,  however small your individual taxpayer contribution, comes from your limited resources?  

Also, Obama fails to separate the public versus private abstractions and then accurately explain the relationship of U.S. citizens to THEIR government.  His criticism is that government programs directly build things, whether physical as in roads and bridges, or metaphorical as in "educated" minds.  Accordingly, he feels what's built  is necessary for citizens to "succeed" and something citizens should appreciate.  Therefore, because of this systems' necessity, more taxpayer money is required for roads, bridges, firemen, and teachers' pay to continue success.

Yet, Federal programs are just creations of the human mind, put into physical action only by human beings.  A program can't build a bridge.  And we can't mind-warp into some concept like "government" to receive the credit Obama wants to take on its behalf!  What Obama misses is that the PUBLIC pays for or already paid for those services and human-built structures! So, why must we credit the success of US citizenry to those public EMPLOYEES we're already paying to complete their jobs?  Ridiculous.  We go into debt as communities.  We sacrifice what we have to pay experts to do this.  Because Obama believes he represents all positive aspects of "government," why does he deserve credit for individual efforts?  Nonsense.


Mitt Romney ran a "corporation," Bain Capital, where a group of people legally agreed to engage in the "corporate rescue business."  Failing "businesses" agreed to pay or give up resources (they're failing because individuals were unable to adapt and out-compete etc.).  Mitt Romney's "corporation" performed its services and received its payments.  Some of these collective groups acting legally were able to sell more "built" things, like staplers at "Staples."  Other businesspeople were incapable of competing and they failed.  With most private "enterprises," you can pay for a service or not, you can seek out a competitive legal relationship, say "Office Max" instead of Staples, or stick with what your businespersons are providing you.  With PUBLIC abstractions, like "government," there are no other LEGAL options.  The only way to seek better results LEGALLY is to vote for people to imperfectly represent your ideas, and as one citizen of millions of others.  And people living in the "USA" have layers of representation where people thousands of miles away may make decisions that affect your resources, and you might disagree with the decision, yet you might have no way to vote or not vote to influence the outcome.

What is the exact "help" a bridge in Washington state provides to someone starting a business relationship in NY to sell staplers?  And if we can't precisely locate that credit without writing a dissertation in economics, why does it make more sense to credit the PUBLIC "abstraction" and not our time-consuming and back-breaking efforts first?

Obama “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.”

 

ME: "Thank us and maybe pay us more or see how you like it without us!"  An important reason we're a separate nation in 2012 from 18th-century Great Britain is that from then until today, people living in the "USA" debate the role of "government," their representation, the amount of resources they provide to "government employees," whether as kings then or public employees now.  We do this as individuals because there are limited resources and we guard ourselves and what we think we possess against others' unwarranted seizure.  Rather than having a Crown telling us what's important, today, we elect or select government employees through a complicated system, and pay them to do things imperfectly, but in a way that I'm assuming most US citizens seem to like better than the way the18th-century British parliamentary monarchy did things.

Today, Obama is an elected President and employee of a "democratic-Republic" and he is quite wrong about who deserves credit for the firefighting service, the difference between the public and private abstractions, and this whole debate in general.  Why do we pay firefighters if we're going to have to fight fires as individuals as he says?  Of course that would "be a hard way to fight a fire," although if you can put a small fire out with a fire extinguisher you'd save scarce local resources. Others argue that if taxpayers don't like the actions of a fire department or think their teachers aren't doing a good enough job, then why don't the questioning taxpayers see how they like it when their house is on fire and no one responds.  Or maybe, how would they like to let their children remain stupid if they don't support higher teacher pay?  Can I have my money back if complaining got my house burned down?  Can I have my child's mind back and the money I've sunk into it?

I also believe that any public employee who does not perform their job deserves termination.  They are OUR PUBLIC employees and we as taxpayers (their bosses) have NO CHOICE to take our services elsewhere because of the Constitution and other laws.  We can't try to contract with the government of China to put a fire out in a municipal district in the USA and to do so, we would have to pay taxes, fulfill the obligations--and certainly get more benefits of Chinese citizenship--to get full Chinese government services.  So, in country with a completely opposite "tradition," why should we be forced to pay for US services  no matter the result, and suffer threats from our employees that we'll have to fight fires on our own? Ridiculous.  Obama has no business suggesting to his employers that services are going to have to be individually managed if he doesn't get what he wants.  He shouldn't be able to fire my house!  Such employees do deserved to be fired themselves!

Credit for "building that" goes to the "taxpayer" before the government abstraction.

Source: 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia