Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Can I get four quarters for a dollar? Thanks.

September 29, 2015



Can I get four quarters for a dollar? Thanks.

     I read a Facebook post about a friend of mine who tried to make a transaction easier for a cashier at McDonald’s. She was in the drive-through lane, ordered some food costing $ 4.37, and when she arrived at the window to pay, she handed the cashier $ 5.37 as she happened to find the exact change in her car’s ashtray along with a five dollar bill in her purse. The cashier didn’t know what to do. The cashier told my friend that she was paying too much. After replying that this was true but she was only trying to make it easier for the cashier to hand back a single dollar instead of $ .63 (supposedly as two quarters, a dime, and three pennies), the cashier called for the manager. 
     Silly, right? Was the cashier incapable of doing simple math? Unwilling, perhaps, but not incapable. In fact, the computer register probably had a function that told the cashier how much change to return to the customer even in the event that what was handed through the window was not what the cashier said was owed. The cashier simply wanted to keep their job because McDonald’s does not want their employees to think. Thinking creates the potential for mistakes. Mistakes cost money. So, McDonald’s wants their cashiers not to think, not be required to do simple math in their heads, so it is not a part of the job. Thinking is frowned upon and discouraged. The cashier just wants to do a job and be able to pay for food, rent, and all the other things in their life. For some, apparently, the arrangement is a perfect symbiosis. 
     I noticed something else on Facebook the other morning. I noticed a lack of completed thought in post after post from friends and acquaintances. There was even a lack of completed thought in the posts from friends from whom I would have expected much more. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Facebook is a free-form blog where people post whatever they want. It is this idea of “whatever they want” that intrigues me alongside the phenomena of candidates who also promote “whatever they want.”
     To those of you who actually do think, use your brains, and can do simple subtraction and addition in your heads (even those of you who believe you do, but don’t), I think I know why we are witnessing a tsunami of crap from the Republican Party. This tsunami is not limited to the political arena, however. It is also a recent cultural theme elsewhere (such as the publishing and music industries).
     Let’s start at the beginning. This, by the way, is where most clear thought begins, surprisingly. If I were a follower, a fan, or a supporter of D. Trump, why would I be so? What is the attraction? I believe that the two phenomena of D. Trump’s political popularity and the incomplete nature of posts on Facebook share an important characteristic.
     Both give people what they want. It is just that simple.
     Because Facebook lacks any accountability for the quality of posts, through an absence of oversight, they provoke a dumbing-down of content and a reduction to our baseless, irrational, and primal thoughts and feelings; especially if that is what members want to do. No one is required to make sense, or finish a thought, or even have a point. We get to rant out loud without being required to express or declare the real source of our dissatisfaction through personal introspection. We get to muse without ever reaching a point. We get to attempt humor without the potential booing or catcalling from an audience. We get to release the darker forms of our nature without any responsibility for the consequences, because there aren’t any. There aren’t any professors grading your posts, parents correcting your grammar, or pastors wagging their fingers at you. And that is the biggest attraction of all for most of us.
     This absence of accountability is what M. Huckabee, T. Cruz, and D. Trump are encouraging because social media helps them connect to voters on this level and not require any thought or reasoning, or reach any conclusions based on consequence. And connecting with voters is what it is really all about, whatever the message happens to be. We vote for the candidate with whom we can most comfortably associate.
     I have also noticed from political pundits a clarion call to attend to the rising power of social media and an additional question of why the Republican Party does not use it more effectively, along the successful lines used by Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders. I think the pundits are wrong, however. I think all the candidates are using social media very effectively. The strategy of the current batch of candidates is simply too banal to be revealed as intelligent nor is it something that will be grasped by those who want and refuse to stop pursuing an intelligent line of discussion. They don’t recognize it because it is the antithesis of intelligent and well thought out rhetoric. The Republican candidates pander to the baser instincts of an electorate who are intellectually turned off – via the overwhelming noise from TV, Facebook, automated cashiers, personal addictions, and any number of influences that beat them down without any viable defense against it. The candidates want their followers to embrace ill-conceived answers because it promises to make everything simple and understandable. Bring back religious influence to government, some declare. Build a huge wall to keep out illegal immigrates, says another. They promise easy fixes that are based on a purposeful lack of thought. They promise what cannot possibly be delivered because they believe no one wants to be required to weigh and consider the consequences. Promises are rarely kept by politicians, after all, but empty promises have only ever put power-hungry people in positions of authority.
     I have many friends who work in meaningless and otherwise demeaning jobs. How they got there is not important right now. They are otherwise intelligent people, so why do they stay in these meaningless occupations and remain in lives full of drudgery?
     They are overwhelmed. Not with tough and complex decisions, or traumatic events (although this may be the case in some of their lives), but with the force of anti-intellectual propaganda that is everywhere both inside and outside of McDonald’s. Their survival does not require them to be intelligent. Thinking is hard and harder still if you are out of practice or discouraged from doing so regularly. Whether you, as a voter, are trying to make complex decisions about who to hire as President, or simply keeping your job at McDonald’s, thinking takes practice. Doing simple math in your head takes practice. Seeing through a politician’s bullshit is only slightly harder but still takes practice.
     The Republican Party, and also the Democratic Party, know this. Both parties use this strategy of shallow platitudes and promises aimed at inflaming our base and ill-formed thoughts and desires. They give their followers the opportunity to hate without consequence, to marginalize others without repercussions, or to embrace higher, if unrealistic, moral standards which is the easiest thing in the world to do especially if you aren’t accustomed to thinking things through in your own life, continue to make bad decisions for yourself, and end up in a meaningless and demeaning life.
     D. Trump embodies “success” to many in America – but only so far as his public image will allow. Confident, arrogant, and intellectually devoid of merit, D. Trump says whatever he wants. We can identify with a candidate like this who makes the big decisions seem so easy to solve, especially without doing much thinking, as long as we don’t scratch the surface and realize we are supporting something that has larger, more complex issues and consequences attached. The reality of D. Trump’s financial success – the taking advantage of someone's misfortune or weakness (Trump owns or owned casinos where people with a weakness for gambling hand over their money in a rigged game of chance) – is a story of unchecked greed and corruption, arrogance at the expense of others, and cold immorality.  These real factors are too complex, or believed to be so, by those who refuse to practice even simple math without a calculator and therefore are out of practice when important thoughts need to be considered. If we were forced, somehow, to look at these real factors, we couldn’t in our own good consciences support a man like D. Trump, T. Cruz, or M. Huckabee. But we want to because we are out of practice. They let us feel all the negative, selfish and greedy impulses we have in our minds but keep to ourselves. Since no one on the D. Trump side of the political fence is going to have a meaningful conversation about the facts and issues, or the consequences if their plans were implemented, we don’t have to think about them if we call ourselves Republican. We get to remain in our unformed, non-critical thought patterns of disappointment, hatred, and obfuscation. We do so especially when we see D. Trump deflect statements and questions from those know-it-all liberals and lean back in his chair with a satisfied look on his face claiming to have won the argument. They get to say things we wish we could say out loud, and act the way we would want to act. By associating ourselves with them, we get to live vicariously through them and feel some form of power by association (all the while not examining anything too stringently because doubt, guilt, and remorse are things we already have too much of in our own lives).
     To support a candidate like T. Cruz, or M. Huckabee, or D. Trump – or even Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton – means we are safe. They seem to be doing all the thinking for us. We don’t have to think too much to feel we are a part of something. And if we don’t have to think too much, we can’t be wrong, or be burdened with life’s irritating knack for complexity, can we? Life is so much better when we don’t think, especially when we’re so out of practice with it and cannot embrace our own thoughts and work things out for ourselves.

     Let’s see. Two plus fourteen is, what? Give me a minute. I can work this out. Thirteen? No. Wait. That’s not right . . . 

G. M. Potter

email: gmpotterhome@gmail.com
Facebook: gmpotterhome

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Guns, Ted Nugent, and the Endless Debate

September 5, 2015 

Guns, Ted Nugent, and the Endless Debate

Before I tell you that I am an expert on guns and before you begin to doubt my claim, ask yourself a question: Have you ever shot someone? You probably haven’t, so let me ask the question in a different way: Have you ever wanted to shoot someone? You probably have, I would guess, although I hope it was merely a metaphorical fantasy fueled by anger in a given moment. At least, I hope it was.
As a veteran, I see the issue of gun control in a slightly different way than most people. I can see it from the perspective of a civilian, as I have been a civilian for a long time. I can also see it through the eyes of constitutional defenders as I have been a defender of the same. All of us see the tragedies on television or the internet, we listen to the number of people killed, try and discern the truth underneath the media’s coverage of events like Columbine High School, et al.  We wonder at the madness of the perpetrators and feel secure that they are somehow abnormalities and we will hopefully never encounter these types of people ourselves. We feel empathy for the victim’s families, but can’t muster sympathy for the victims themselves that is based on fact and the reality of being shot. We have no basis of experience to make that connection. Let me help you make that connection: they are dead and they died in a very violent way as a bullet crashed into their bodies and tore their flesh beyond repair.
Most people – and I thank God this is also true – have never actually fired a handgun in their lives. Most people wouldn’t know the difference between a Baretta and a HK MP5, much less understand the fact that they shoot the exact same ammunition and are designed for exactly the same purpose. Do you know the difference between an M-16 and an M-4? Most people have never seen someone shoot a weapon out of anger, either. I send thank you’s for this too.
During the next year and some months, the issue of gun control will undoubtedly be present in the panorama of issues bantered about by the candidates in an effort to congeal some sort of following in the voting base of this country. I’ve seen messages and memes on Facebook about how guns don’t kill people and I’ve seen bold, declarative statements that having a gun is protected by the constitution. In a very muddled way, I believe nearly everyone is missing the point. The defense of gun ownership is not about preserving the constitution, or about freedom, or anything else we bestow the quality of nobility upon. Defending the right to own a handgun is about defending people’s right to kill another human being. Handguns are not for hunting. Automatic rifles are not for home defense in the same way that guns don’t kill people. Like it or not, weapons do not make you feel safer. They only make you more afraid that you will have to use one. Call it what it is. There is no other reason to have a handgun than to have the opportunity to kill another person.
Handguns are not for protection, either. Defenders of gun ownership, at least some of them, go so far as to say that their right to own a gun is protection against an oppressive government. Believe me when I say this: an oppressive government would like nothing better than for you or I to try to defend ourselves against them in a gun fight. Special Agents of the FBI live for this scenario. Believe me once more when I say that they have more weapons and people trained to use them than you do, and they are trained more thoroughly than you. Toe to toe, you will die and it will not be heroically. The real protection you enjoy today against an oppressive government is the Law. You don’t need a gun.
I began this piece by stating that I was an expert and that you were probably going to doubt my claim. I probably know more about guns, pistols, submachine guns, assault rifles, shotguns, and crew-served weapons, than you do. This is not a brash statement. This is a fact. And I know more about what they can do than you do. I was trained by the best. Who trained you, your father? I was trained by the US Army Special Forces. I know exactly what handguns, assault rifles, and automatic weapons are made for, designed for, and utilized for in this world. They are not for protection. They are not for defense. Handguns, et al. are for killing other human beings. Those individuals in the world that say “I can have their gun when I pry it from their cold, dead fingers” want the opportunity to kill another human being and they will fight to protect their so-called right to do so. They defend their wish by using the law because they believe these laws give them the right to find themselves in a situation where they can kill another human being legally. There is no other explanation for it whether you want to recognize the darkness that is in all of us, or not.
The resolution of this issue is not going to be decided in the Supreme Court, or in Congress. It will be decided in the hearts and minds of all of us. The right to bear arms should exist but only because dismantling this fundamental tenant of the constitution would invite further deterioration of the body of laws that protect all of us. We decide for ourselves whether or not to own a firearm, be it a hunting rifle or a pistol, or worse. Each of us knows what is in our hearts and so each of us must assume responsibility for our own fears and how we choose to face them. Few of us have the courage to openly admit what those fears are, however. If you own a gun, ask yourself this question and be honest this one time. Why do you want a loaded gun in your hand? You want the moral opportunity – the ‘accidental’ opportunity – to shoot dead another human being, calling it self-defense, or constitutional right, or something else equally misleading. Why else would you pay for one, keep it in your home, and be preoccupied with the fear that firearms have always brought to their owners?
And as an answer to the question, no. I do not own a gun or any other type of firearm, much less anything that could be construed as a weapon. I have never found myself in a situation where I needed one, once I left the Armed Services. Not once in thirty-two years.

G. M. Potter can be found on –
He is the author of the recently published short story collection, Clowns and Buffoons: Short Stories
Available on
Amazon.com