At this point in the point in the exploitation of the death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman's gun the only fact not in dispute is that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.
In the interest of full disclosure let me say I have a carry permit and more than one handgun suitable for short range combat. I am not a police officer nor was I trained as a soldier so I have effectively no combat training.
The most important thing I was told by the police detective who interviewed me before I was given my license was not to pull my gun unless I had to use it.
He didn't mean to pound nails.
It took a while for the lesson to sink in. The only legitimate reason I could pull out one of these uncomfortable chunks of metal and point it at someone was because I believed that person was going to kill or severely injure either myself or some nearby defenseless person. That's a real tough judgment call in my opinion, especially when you're not trained to make those decisions.
The other thought that finally came to my mind... The only reason I'm carrying this gun is to kill someone. I can't warn them. I can't threaten them. I have to kill them (or at least try to kill them). That made me very cautious about when I carried my gun.
I wonder about Mr. Zimmerman. He's a young man in good health. A rough and tumble street fight with an unarmed opponent shouldn't have been such a threat he needed lethal force. In my opinion.
But I wasn't there.
On the other hand why would Trayvon jump a white guy in a white neighborhood who is obviously carrying a gun? Oh the gun was concealed... right. So Trayvon thought he'd get tough with the white dude following him... in a gated community noted for having a community watch...
I have a lot of questions for Mr. Zimmerman and the police, but none really for Trayvon. He could reasonably have turned and confronted Zimmerman or tried to run or even attacked Zimmerman, but in any case he was unarmed and alone and in a strange neighborhood, while Zimmerman was in communication with the police and carrying a pistol, locked cocked and ready to rock. (That means he had a round in the chamber, the gun was ready to fire as soon as the safety was released and the trigger pulled. In other words Mr. Zimmerman was ready to kill someone.
I like the Florida stand your ground law. I think it's the right action in certain circumstances. Like if someone with a gun is shooting at you or people nearby (like this random gunmen that like to gun down unarmed people)... then I think a person who is carrying his weapon should return fire and try to kill the individual. I think a woman threatened with rape should gun down her attacker. I wouldn't mind if she shot his nuts off. I think old people should be allowed to defend themselves.
Self defense should be considered a basic right.
But the question I have is: Who was ready to kill that night? The man with the gun or the boy with the skittles?
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Romney as Commander in Chief.... or through the Looking Glass...
The Republicans are barking at the moon again. They want a war... Any war. Romney is even criticizing Obama for not having enlarged the Army by enough troops. He wants another 100,000.
But he doesn't want to pay for the troops, their training, or housing.
We don't have anyplace to put a hundred thousand soldiers in peace time. Except in other countries.
I guess I'm very afraid that the people who think Obama is really an African Muslim will prevail in the next election, dooming our soldiers to more endless guerrilla wars.
The last time we defeated a dedicated native militia was the Indian Wars of the 1800s. And then we had to kill their families, steal their children, steal their land and starve them into submission.
We haven't had the stomach, thank the Lord, for that kind of dedicated slaughter since.
Except we are pushing our soldiers to the breaking point. Like the SFC that went amok in Afghanistan. Whatever justification he gives for his actions we're going to execute him. And it will be our fault for having allowed these wars and these endless deployments to go on.
So I really don't want another armchair general starting more wars and rattling his sabre. We've had enough. We can fight a decisive year long conflict with any army in the world. But we can't fight sand which is the nature of the guerilla war.
But he doesn't want to pay for the troops, their training, or housing.
We don't have anyplace to put a hundred thousand soldiers in peace time. Except in other countries.
I guess I'm very afraid that the people who think Obama is really an African Muslim will prevail in the next election, dooming our soldiers to more endless guerrilla wars.
The last time we defeated a dedicated native militia was the Indian Wars of the 1800s. And then we had to kill their families, steal their children, steal their land and starve them into submission.
We haven't had the stomach, thank the Lord, for that kind of dedicated slaughter since.
Except we are pushing our soldiers to the breaking point. Like the SFC that went amok in Afghanistan. Whatever justification he gives for his actions we're going to execute him. And it will be our fault for having allowed these wars and these endless deployments to go on.
So I really don't want another armchair general starting more wars and rattling his sabre. We've had enough. We can fight a decisive year long conflict with any army in the world. But we can't fight sand which is the nature of the guerilla war.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Christian Values
Rick Santorum is promoting himself as the true conservative and the faith based candidate. People are telling reporters they support him because he represents their 'Christian Values'.
Being a self professed Christian I began to compare the conservative platform to my Christian Values.
Let's look at point number one: Birth Control and legalized abortion.
Jesus tells us: Judge not, lest we be judged. To forgive others as we would have God forgive us and to love each other as we love ourselves. So what would Jesus say about this issue? I'm sure he would council young mothers not to have abortions. I'm also sure he would hold their hand through the procedure and comfort them afterwards. It's not our place to make laws to control women. Our only responsibility is to love and support them through whatever trials they must pass.
Let's look at point number two: Government supported and mandated health care: Jesus said, whatever you do for the least of my brothers you do for me. Jesus also healed the ill and the destitute, asking nothing from them. So what would Jesus do about Obama care? He would probably say that the plan is a good thought but has been corrupted and needs to be made simple. Throw the money changers (the insurance companies) out of the temple and let the people (We the People of the United States) of the constitution support their own mutual health care.
Let's look at point number three: Taxes.... Jesus was very clear about taxes. Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's. We pay taxes, though in the United States the Government is of the People and For the People as long as we vote the bought and paid for hypocrites out of congress (like Boehner and his ilk).
Let's look at point number four: Welfare and unemployment insurance. As I mentioned before, Jesus holds us accountable for the poorest of our neighbors and responsible for their welfare. How can we advocate turning these people out in the street? Jesus would feed them and house them and clothe them, that's what Jesus would do.
Let's look at point number five: Encouraging the wealthy and the powerful to contribute to the welfare of our society both through paying their fair share of the bill and through the creation of jobs. Jesus addressed both of these issues. On the first he reminds us that the wealthy can't take their possessions with them into heaven any more than a fully laden camel can pass through the smallest gate into the old city of Jerusalem without shedding all that it carries. Therefor the rich man should share with his less fortunate brothers here and now. And Jesus tells the story about the brothers and the talents where the one who buried (hoarded) his talent was the one who was wrong. So what would Jesus do? Tell the rich and powerful to share their good fortune in ways that makes life better for their less fortunate brothers, through Jobs and other programs.
Let's look at point number six: The maintenance of the environment. God gave man stewardship of the Earth. It's a poor steward that soils and desecrates that which he was given responsibility for .
And let's not forget the last point: The claim of Rick Santorum and the others to be 'faith based' candidates: Mathew Chapter 6: Jesus tells us not to be like those who proclaim their faith in public for public approval but to pray in private, and when he or any of the others cynically appeal to the religiosity of the voters.
So what would Jesus do?
Being a self professed Christian I began to compare the conservative platform to my Christian Values.
Let's look at point number one: Birth Control and legalized abortion.
Jesus tells us: Judge not, lest we be judged. To forgive others as we would have God forgive us and to love each other as we love ourselves. So what would Jesus say about this issue? I'm sure he would council young mothers not to have abortions. I'm also sure he would hold their hand through the procedure and comfort them afterwards. It's not our place to make laws to control women. Our only responsibility is to love and support them through whatever trials they must pass.
Let's look at point number two: Government supported and mandated health care: Jesus said, whatever you do for the least of my brothers you do for me. Jesus also healed the ill and the destitute, asking nothing from them. So what would Jesus do about Obama care? He would probably say that the plan is a good thought but has been corrupted and needs to be made simple. Throw the money changers (the insurance companies) out of the temple and let the people (We the People of the United States) of the constitution support their own mutual health care.
Let's look at point number three: Taxes.... Jesus was very clear about taxes. Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's. We pay taxes, though in the United States the Government is of the People and For the People as long as we vote the bought and paid for hypocrites out of congress (like Boehner and his ilk).
Let's look at point number four: Welfare and unemployment insurance. As I mentioned before, Jesus holds us accountable for the poorest of our neighbors and responsible for their welfare. How can we advocate turning these people out in the street? Jesus would feed them and house them and clothe them, that's what Jesus would do.
Let's look at point number five: Encouraging the wealthy and the powerful to contribute to the welfare of our society both through paying their fair share of the bill and through the creation of jobs. Jesus addressed both of these issues. On the first he reminds us that the wealthy can't take their possessions with them into heaven any more than a fully laden camel can pass through the smallest gate into the old city of Jerusalem without shedding all that it carries. Therefor the rich man should share with his less fortunate brothers here and now. And Jesus tells the story about the brothers and the talents where the one who buried (hoarded) his talent was the one who was wrong. So what would Jesus do? Tell the rich and powerful to share their good fortune in ways that makes life better for their less fortunate brothers, through Jobs and other programs.
Let's look at point number six: The maintenance of the environment. God gave man stewardship of the Earth. It's a poor steward that soils and desecrates that which he was given responsibility for .
And let's not forget the last point: The claim of Rick Santorum and the others to be 'faith based' candidates: Mathew Chapter 6: Jesus tells us not to be like those who proclaim their faith in public for public approval but to pray in private, and when he or any of the others cynically appeal to the religiosity of the voters.
So what would Jesus do?
Thursday, February 09, 2012
The Manifesto
Over the last several years I've tried to enumerate the points of the New Manifesto but always with some hesitation.
The purpose of the Manifesto is to succinctly enumerate those points we believe in and which we should hold our elected officials to as guidance for all their decisions and actions. Basically I want to state what we believe in as a country. This is very difficult because we are myopic and schizophrenic at times.
But I'm going to try one more time:
We, the People of the United States of America, hold the following ideals and beliefs:
1: We are exceptional. There are things to change in this country, but its still the best bet in the world.
2: We believe in fairness: This means the same rules need to apply to everyone.
3: We believe in making it big: Everyone needs to know they can become one of the 1% if they work hard enough.
4: We believe in gain through personal effort: Handouts are bad whether to the poor or the rich or to foreign nations.
5: We believe in helping our neighbor: Sometimes, despite our best efforts, either we need help or our neighbors need help. Then we help.
6: We believe in honesty: Tell us the truth. Honesty beats unrealistic perfection. We all have faults, we all make mistakes. Just don't lie about it.
7: We believe in equality: Absolute equality. The lady serving your food at the 5 star restaurant doesn't do that because that's her place, she does it because its her job. Things COULD be reversed just as easily.
8: We believe our way of life is perfect. It isn't, but we believe it anyway.
9: We believe some shadowy power, corporations, shadow government, has manipulated our economy and taken over the reigns of power. We're not wrong. We can change that.
There are more points probably. I wish the six or seven people who read this (G) would offer suggestions. The manifesto should describe how we can work together to set our own goals with out the buzzwords and gaming of the election year propaganda.
Just my thoughts.
The purpose of the Manifesto is to succinctly enumerate those points we believe in and which we should hold our elected officials to as guidance for all their decisions and actions. Basically I want to state what we believe in as a country. This is very difficult because we are myopic and schizophrenic at times.
But I'm going to try one more time:
We, the People of the United States of America, hold the following ideals and beliefs:
1: We are exceptional. There are things to change in this country, but its still the best bet in the world.
2: We believe in fairness: This means the same rules need to apply to everyone.
3: We believe in making it big: Everyone needs to know they can become one of the 1% if they work hard enough.
4: We believe in gain through personal effort: Handouts are bad whether to the poor or the rich or to foreign nations.
5: We believe in helping our neighbor: Sometimes, despite our best efforts, either we need help or our neighbors need help. Then we help.
6: We believe in honesty: Tell us the truth. Honesty beats unrealistic perfection. We all have faults, we all make mistakes. Just don't lie about it.
7: We believe in equality: Absolute equality. The lady serving your food at the 5 star restaurant doesn't do that because that's her place, she does it because its her job. Things COULD be reversed just as easily.
8: We believe our way of life is perfect. It isn't, but we believe it anyway.
9: We believe some shadowy power, corporations, shadow government, has manipulated our economy and taken over the reigns of power. We're not wrong. We can change that.
There are more points probably. I wish the six or seven people who read this (G) would offer suggestions. The manifesto should describe how we can work together to set our own goals with out the buzzwords and gaming of the election year propaganda.
Just my thoughts.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Role of Government
Normally I start these rants with a more colorful attention getting phrase but this essay is about educating.
Traditionally the role of government has been to maintain order and support the interests of the wealthiest members of society.
The Declaration of Independence changed that. Between our demand for separation from Mother England and the Constitution that frames the structure of our government was the idea that an educated and comfortable middle class could govern a nation decently and fairly.
There is a certain naivety and absurdity in that pronouncement, especially since special interests and the corrupt politico have gone hand in hand from Valley Forge until today, but that doesn't change the ideal of our government or country.
Consider the effects of the Arab spring.
There has been armed revolt needed to change regimes in various countries. Some successful some not.
In our country we have the chance for regime change every four years.
Now I am happy with President Obama. I despise the obstructionist Republicans and their commitment to server their corporate masters, but that's just my opinion. If enough people agree that some bought and paid for conservative should be president and preside over the dismantling of the protections Obama is trying to institute against corporate greed and aggression then we should by all means try the regressive approach to managing our economy.
OK I'm a little grumpy about the idea of another Republican president. All the ones we've had have built a corporate sponsored government that has sucked the life from the middle class in this country.
The role of the American Government isn't to keep order and support the wealthy. The role of the American Government is to protect the weak from the strong, and to blunt the strength of the rich and powerful. If our government isn't doing these things then we need to vote in a regime change that will do it...
But make sure you know who you're voting in and what they really represent.
They had better be representing you and me.
Traditionally the role of government has been to maintain order and support the interests of the wealthiest members of society.
The Declaration of Independence changed that. Between our demand for separation from Mother England and the Constitution that frames the structure of our government was the idea that an educated and comfortable middle class could govern a nation decently and fairly.
There is a certain naivety and absurdity in that pronouncement, especially since special interests and the corrupt politico have gone hand in hand from Valley Forge until today, but that doesn't change the ideal of our government or country.
Consider the effects of the Arab spring.
There has been armed revolt needed to change regimes in various countries. Some successful some not.
In our country we have the chance for regime change every four years.
Now I am happy with President Obama. I despise the obstructionist Republicans and their commitment to server their corporate masters, but that's just my opinion. If enough people agree that some bought and paid for conservative should be president and preside over the dismantling of the protections Obama is trying to institute against corporate greed and aggression then we should by all means try the regressive approach to managing our economy.
OK I'm a little grumpy about the idea of another Republican president. All the ones we've had have built a corporate sponsored government that has sucked the life from the middle class in this country.
The role of the American Government isn't to keep order and support the wealthy. The role of the American Government is to protect the weak from the strong, and to blunt the strength of the rich and powerful. If our government isn't doing these things then we need to vote in a regime change that will do it...
But make sure you know who you're voting in and what they really represent.
They had better be representing you and me.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
The Facts About Opinons
We groan when someone in the group starts a sentence with 'I think' or 'You know' because we know this means our friend is going to share his or her opinion on what ever the topic de jour is. And we all know the old adage: "Opinions are like A@@holes. Everyone has one and they all stink."
But opinion is a fact of life. We have to interpret information presented to us. Is a statement true or false? How does the statement affect me? Does it change how I perceive the world? In fact opinions become tied up with our identities. If someone disagrees with my opinion does that affect my self worth? Does it say the other person is criticizing my ability to form opinions?
An opinion is more a statement about how we perceive the information given than a statement about the truth of the information.
For instance, let's take a statement: "The President of the United States is a black man."
First: Is the statement true? Literally no. President Obama's skin color is more of a brown than black. He is a man. His father was a native of an African country. His mother was an American citizen living in the state of Hawaii. So President Obama is provably an African-American. African Americans are colloquially referred to as 'Black' even though skin color varies. So the initial statement can be taken as being 'True'.
Of course we could legitimately say : "The President of the United States is a Hawaiian."
Or we could say: "The President of the United States is an American."
Or : "The President of the United States is a Lawyer, and a father, and an Author....."
The point here being not what the fact is but which facts we choose to acknowledge when we form an opinion. Or should I say, which facts we allow ourselves to acknowledge based on our preconceived opinions.
Wait a second: Aren't opinions supposed to be formed from the facts, not the other way around?
Lately in Washington we see the effects of opinion trumping facts. The Republican's hold the opinion that President Obama is an ineffective leader. There fore they refuse to create the jobs he asks for, roll back the taxes he asks for, and authorize the income producing measures (taxes on the rich) that he asked for. Why? Because they don't want to 'give him the win'?
John Boehner said that taxing the wealthy and corporations prevents the wealthy and corporations from creating jobs. His logic is: If the government takes money from the entities that have accrued the wealth, then they aren't free to create jobs to make more wealth for themselves. On the surface this seems to have some logic, until you look at the results.
As restrictions and taxes have been decreased on these entities they have moved jobs to other countries that don't have our strong middle class or our messy safety and ecological rules. The jobs they create in this country are at the lowest possible wages because they are non productive jobs and don't create wealth.
The facts are that a strong middle class expects a fair economy where small businesses can flourish and not be destroyed or bought out by massive corporations. Where the health and welfare of the people matter more than the health of massive soulless non physical entities like Citibank or Chrysler. A strong middle class will demand fairness and a chance to form their own opinions instead of being told what to think.
What set this particular chain of thought off on me was the argument over the extension of the tax cut for the working class.
Fact: The tax cut was on the Social Security Tax which is paid only on the first $110,000 of income.
Fact: 85% of the people in this country make less than $110,000.
Fact: The original proposal was to pay for the 2% tax rate decrease by increasing the tax on unearned income which would effect the wealthiest 1%.
Fact: The tax on the rich had to be taken OFF THE TABLE for the Republican's to agree to any tax cut for the majority of Americans.
Now what's your opinion?
But opinion is a fact of life. We have to interpret information presented to us. Is a statement true or false? How does the statement affect me? Does it change how I perceive the world? In fact opinions become tied up with our identities. If someone disagrees with my opinion does that affect my self worth? Does it say the other person is criticizing my ability to form opinions?
An opinion is more a statement about how we perceive the information given than a statement about the truth of the information.
For instance, let's take a statement: "The President of the United States is a black man."
First: Is the statement true? Literally no. President Obama's skin color is more of a brown than black. He is a man. His father was a native of an African country. His mother was an American citizen living in the state of Hawaii. So President Obama is provably an African-American. African Americans are colloquially referred to as 'Black' even though skin color varies. So the initial statement can be taken as being 'True'.
Of course we could legitimately say : "The President of the United States is a Hawaiian."
Or we could say: "The President of the United States is an American."
Or : "The President of the United States is a Lawyer, and a father, and an Author....."
The point here being not what the fact is but which facts we choose to acknowledge when we form an opinion. Or should I say, which facts we allow ourselves to acknowledge based on our preconceived opinions.
Wait a second: Aren't opinions supposed to be formed from the facts, not the other way around?
Lately in Washington we see the effects of opinion trumping facts. The Republican's hold the opinion that President Obama is an ineffective leader. There fore they refuse to create the jobs he asks for, roll back the taxes he asks for, and authorize the income producing measures (taxes on the rich) that he asked for. Why? Because they don't want to 'give him the win'?
John Boehner said that taxing the wealthy and corporations prevents the wealthy and corporations from creating jobs. His logic is: If the government takes money from the entities that have accrued the wealth, then they aren't free to create jobs to make more wealth for themselves. On the surface this seems to have some logic, until you look at the results.
As restrictions and taxes have been decreased on these entities they have moved jobs to other countries that don't have our strong middle class or our messy safety and ecological rules. The jobs they create in this country are at the lowest possible wages because they are non productive jobs and don't create wealth.
The facts are that a strong middle class expects a fair economy where small businesses can flourish and not be destroyed or bought out by massive corporations. Where the health and welfare of the people matter more than the health of massive soulless non physical entities like Citibank or Chrysler. A strong middle class will demand fairness and a chance to form their own opinions instead of being told what to think.
What set this particular chain of thought off on me was the argument over the extension of the tax cut for the working class.
Fact: The tax cut was on the Social Security Tax which is paid only on the first $110,000 of income.
Fact: 85% of the people in this country make less than $110,000.
Fact: The original proposal was to pay for the 2% tax rate decrease by increasing the tax on unearned income which would effect the wealthiest 1%.
Fact: The tax on the rich had to be taken OFF THE TABLE for the Republican's to agree to any tax cut for the majority of Americans.
Now what's your opinion?
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Burn Down the House or the Corporate Conspiracy Theory
When I hear 'conspiracy theory' my ears pop up like a hound dog. I know I'm either going to hear a great truth or a great lie, but in either direction I'm going to hear something that isn't supposed to see the light of day.
Today's topic came from an interview on NPR. Someone, I tuned in and have no context, said that the idea that republican run corporations were banding together to shut the economy down was 'ludicrous' or something similar in meaning. Companies, of course are in the business of making a profit and they can't see a clear profit from spending money in the US with all these rules about fair treatment of workers and health insurance... Why that's just not good business.
The secret here is that there is no secret. The American economic system has always been a street fight with the toughest winning and the weaker getting fed to the pigs. As we developed more humanistic rules in an attempt to protect the workers and the people surrounding factories the corporate boards and the schools that train them focused on minimizing their costs and finding off shore opportunities in 'business friendly' environments (ones where the corporations could pay a fixed price to the powers that be to build and run their factory and didn't have to worry about the health and welfare of the employees.)
I worked for one of these companies in the 80's. They spent a lot of money making sure the people in my town didn't make money. I didn't understand this desire of corporations to destroy the people who contribute to their wealth. I also told the Vice President of Engineering, not too politely, that this was an immoral act, to offshore jobs. He told me it was my job. And it was. My career there was over.
Fortunately it was the 80's and the economy supported even the people they were trying to destroy.
I suppose that's why I think there is a conspiracy. When the corporations got rid of the manufacturing jobs, we went back to the drawing boards and came up with virtual products that were created with brain power. Then they (corporations are always THEY) went on a feeding frenzy to buy smart people to make them lots of money from dumb people.
Until they found they could by pretty smart people in other countries where the government hadn't been taken over by panty wearing liberals that wanted there to be a comfortable and stable middle class. I can imagine the smile on the wealthy people's faces when they realized they could return all of the social climbing want to be well off middle class to the edge of poverty. Keep us where we belong. After all aren't we just the children of immigrants driven (or stolen) from every decent country in the world by wealthy landowners or traders who just didn't think our ancestors mattered as much as the dirt they stood on.
You see there has always been a conspiracy of the rich and powerful to hold down everyone else. It's what populated this country and is what is impoverishing us today. If I sound a little radical when I say 'Burn down their' house please forgive me. I hate being lied to, and the economic powers in this country have manipulated the economy and the laws to bring the gains made by the middle class after world war 2 down.
So we the people of the United States need to stand up, live up to the education our parents and grandparents fought and died for, and use our minds and our freedom, while we have it, to bring down the evil shielded by corporate America. You want jobs. We need to make our own. Don't like the price of food? Grow your own. Gas too expensive, go electric and go off the grid. Find a way to live that doesn't rely on the corporate ideology. If we built our economy around THOSE ideals we might have a chance to give our children a better life and a more robust society.
But we must establish control over the government. It is a government that has been undermined by corporate money and propaganda. Why else would the supposed 'People's Voice' Tea Party members support tax breaks for the wealthy. Why would they refer to these Vampires as 'Job Creators' when the only jobs they create are in Indochina?
Reason first.
Then Burn Down Their House.
Today's topic came from an interview on NPR. Someone, I tuned in and have no context, said that the idea that republican run corporations were banding together to shut the economy down was 'ludicrous' or something similar in meaning. Companies, of course are in the business of making a profit and they can't see a clear profit from spending money in the US with all these rules about fair treatment of workers and health insurance... Why that's just not good business.
The secret here is that there is no secret. The American economic system has always been a street fight with the toughest winning and the weaker getting fed to the pigs. As we developed more humanistic rules in an attempt to protect the workers and the people surrounding factories the corporate boards and the schools that train them focused on minimizing their costs and finding off shore opportunities in 'business friendly' environments (ones where the corporations could pay a fixed price to the powers that be to build and run their factory and didn't have to worry about the health and welfare of the employees.)
I worked for one of these companies in the 80's. They spent a lot of money making sure the people in my town didn't make money. I didn't understand this desire of corporations to destroy the people who contribute to their wealth. I also told the Vice President of Engineering, not too politely, that this was an immoral act, to offshore jobs. He told me it was my job. And it was. My career there was over.
Fortunately it was the 80's and the economy supported even the people they were trying to destroy.
I suppose that's why I think there is a conspiracy. When the corporations got rid of the manufacturing jobs, we went back to the drawing boards and came up with virtual products that were created with brain power. Then they (corporations are always THEY) went on a feeding frenzy to buy smart people to make them lots of money from dumb people.
Until they found they could by pretty smart people in other countries where the government hadn't been taken over by panty wearing liberals that wanted there to be a comfortable and stable middle class. I can imagine the smile on the wealthy people's faces when they realized they could return all of the social climbing want to be well off middle class to the edge of poverty. Keep us where we belong. After all aren't we just the children of immigrants driven (or stolen) from every decent country in the world by wealthy landowners or traders who just didn't think our ancestors mattered as much as the dirt they stood on.
You see there has always been a conspiracy of the rich and powerful to hold down everyone else. It's what populated this country and is what is impoverishing us today. If I sound a little radical when I say 'Burn down their' house please forgive me. I hate being lied to, and the economic powers in this country have manipulated the economy and the laws to bring the gains made by the middle class after world war 2 down.
So we the people of the United States need to stand up, live up to the education our parents and grandparents fought and died for, and use our minds and our freedom, while we have it, to bring down the evil shielded by corporate America. You want jobs. We need to make our own. Don't like the price of food? Grow your own. Gas too expensive, go electric and go off the grid. Find a way to live that doesn't rely on the corporate ideology. If we built our economy around THOSE ideals we might have a chance to give our children a better life and a more robust society.
But we must establish control over the government. It is a government that has been undermined by corporate money and propaganda. Why else would the supposed 'People's Voice' Tea Party members support tax breaks for the wealthy. Why would they refer to these Vampires as 'Job Creators' when the only jobs they create are in Indochina?
Reason first.
Then Burn Down Their House.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Illegal Immigration or Where did the Mayflower go through Customs
To all the self righteous 'Americans' out there screaming to send the illegals home, let us remember that the Pilgrims didn't check in at Customs either when the landed. It wasn't like the land was uninhabited. We always need to look first at history so we know whether we are being reasonable or selfish.
America is a big country.
American's, in general, seem to have small minds.
In reality we are all illegal immigrants. I know my great grandparents slipped the border to come here for work. To raise a family. My great grandfather married a local girl and died in a construction accident. And no one cared except for his wife, because he was just another Irishman. Another illegal who would work where decent folk wouldn't.
Not a lot different from today. Illegals aren't taking good jobs, because they can't get hired with no papers. They aren't getting welfare, because they don't dare raise their heads that high for fear of being sent home. They work for a living and pay taxes they can't file for refunds on and Social Security they can't ever receive, and pay for Medicaid they can't ever get.
Sure we need better immigration laws. Why are they coming across illegally? Decent hardworking families? Are our rules too restrictive? Is the system working against them? Fix the process and the rules that cause them to be illegals FIRST. Then talk repatriation or amnesty.
Don't get the cart before the horse, or you'll end up pulling the cart. .
America is a big country.
American's, in general, seem to have small minds.
In reality we are all illegal immigrants. I know my great grandparents slipped the border to come here for work. To raise a family. My great grandfather married a local girl and died in a construction accident. And no one cared except for his wife, because he was just another Irishman. Another illegal who would work where decent folk wouldn't.
Not a lot different from today. Illegals aren't taking good jobs, because they can't get hired with no papers. They aren't getting welfare, because they don't dare raise their heads that high for fear of being sent home. They work for a living and pay taxes they can't file for refunds on and Social Security they can't ever receive, and pay for Medicaid they can't ever get.
Sure we need better immigration laws. Why are they coming across illegally? Decent hardworking families? Are our rules too restrictive? Is the system working against them? Fix the process and the rules that cause them to be illegals FIRST. Then talk repatriation or amnesty.
Don't get the cart before the horse, or you'll end up pulling the cart. .
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Thomas Jefferson, Mao Zedong, and Ed Osborne walk into a bar...
And the first question that comes to mind is "Who's Ed Osborne?"
He's my father, and possibly one of the most opinionated people I ever met. During the 60's (about my earliest recollection) and the '70s he was virulently outspoken against communism in all it's forms from Maoist China (he had a copy of Mao' s Little Red Book hid up on his shelf next to his bible because he believed in knowing his enemy) to social reform in this country (like welfare and civil rights).
Mao, as we all know, was the Chinese leader that is responsible for creating modern China out of the ashes of World War II, and making it a 'Workers Paradise' or the last hold out as a 'Communist' country. The reason Mao supported Communism is because the Russians (but not the American's or English) supported his People's Army that drove the Japanese out of China.
Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, articulated a particular view of social political structure where the people have the greatest right to command the government. He also advocated violent revolution against the established authorities.
What do these men have in common? They all advocated violent change as a medium of controlling social policy.
I'm sure I don't have the thorough knowledge of Mao's policies or Jefferson's writings that I need to really pull off this thesis but it seems to me that my father's ideas for social change/control in this country were more in line with the authoritarian actions of the People's Leader (Mao) than the writings of the aristocratic Jefferson.
In many ways this contrast is between the semi anarchy that is the United States with our gun rights and murders, and vigilantes and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the mild to strict authoritarian systems in place in other countries where the people either revolt against the government in total anarchy or run from the government in fear for their lives.
Here we can't run from our government because we are the government. Take a look around. You and your neighbors elect the hell hounds in Washington and Albany. Don't like what they're doing? Recall them. Elect someone else. Run yourself. Sure its a tough fight but it needs to be fought. Just don't sell your soul to the company store.
He's my father, and possibly one of the most opinionated people I ever met. During the 60's (about my earliest recollection) and the '70s he was virulently outspoken against communism in all it's forms from Maoist China (he had a copy of Mao' s Little Red Book hid up on his shelf next to his bible because he believed in knowing his enemy) to social reform in this country (like welfare and civil rights).
Mao, as we all know, was the Chinese leader that is responsible for creating modern China out of the ashes of World War II, and making it a 'Workers Paradise' or the last hold out as a 'Communist' country. The reason Mao supported Communism is because the Russians (but not the American's or English) supported his People's Army that drove the Japanese out of China.
Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, articulated a particular view of social political structure where the people have the greatest right to command the government. He also advocated violent revolution against the established authorities.
What do these men have in common? They all advocated violent change as a medium of controlling social policy.
I'm sure I don't have the thorough knowledge of Mao's policies or Jefferson's writings that I need to really pull off this thesis but it seems to me that my father's ideas for social change/control in this country were more in line with the authoritarian actions of the People's Leader (Mao) than the writings of the aristocratic Jefferson.
In many ways this contrast is between the semi anarchy that is the United States with our gun rights and murders, and vigilantes and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the mild to strict authoritarian systems in place in other countries where the people either revolt against the government in total anarchy or run from the government in fear for their lives.
Here we can't run from our government because we are the government. Take a look around. You and your neighbors elect the hell hounds in Washington and Albany. Don't like what they're doing? Recall them. Elect someone else. Run yourself. Sure its a tough fight but it needs to be fought. Just don't sell your soul to the company store.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Welcome Tea Party Activists
Dear America.
You F^&*ing Morons.
Oh I should scratch that but I can't find it in my heart to say something soothing and peaceful.
A bunch of rapid dogs have been elected to office. In the grand scheme of things I agree with them. The way we do business has to be changed. But the idea that the republican party (the corporate party) has won after two years of trying to screw up the good things and blaming Obama for the policies they instituted. The propaganda machine has over come the truth and common sense. Now the dogs are going to rip up things they don't understand.
Like health care. None of these illiterate bastards have read the bill. The worst parts are sops to the republicans and maybe should be repealed. But the idea that we the people should insure ourselves is good business. Yeah, let's redo health care right. Let's make sure everyone gets healthcare and the insurance companies are out of that business. They don't need any more unearned money.
Let's use that extra money to fund small business green projects that cuts the knees out of the corporate meglomaniacs. Let small business guide the development of our new economy without the weight of healtinsurance payments. Each Health insurance company collects at least 35% of their premiums as profit. Don't pay them and there is a net savings.
But do you think those tea party morons would see the positives in this? I don't think so because they are paid to support the Corporate Megolith. Big Money and Big Business has bought and paid for this election and their rapid dogs are going to chew at the little progress towards rationality we have made. I say the whole economic crisis was engineered by big business and big money to break the Obama administration and the democratic movement.
Looks like the money won as usual.
You F^&*ing Morons.
Oh I should scratch that but I can't find it in my heart to say something soothing and peaceful.
A bunch of rapid dogs have been elected to office. In the grand scheme of things I agree with them. The way we do business has to be changed. But the idea that the republican party (the corporate party) has won after two years of trying to screw up the good things and blaming Obama for the policies they instituted. The propaganda machine has over come the truth and common sense. Now the dogs are going to rip up things they don't understand.
Like health care. None of these illiterate bastards have read the bill. The worst parts are sops to the republicans and maybe should be repealed. But the idea that we the people should insure ourselves is good business. Yeah, let's redo health care right. Let's make sure everyone gets healthcare and the insurance companies are out of that business. They don't need any more unearned money.
Let's use that extra money to fund small business green projects that cuts the knees out of the corporate meglomaniacs. Let small business guide the development of our new economy without the weight of healtinsurance payments. Each Health insurance company collects at least 35% of their premiums as profit. Don't pay them and there is a net savings.
But do you think those tea party morons would see the positives in this? I don't think so because they are paid to support the Corporate Megolith. Big Money and Big Business has bought and paid for this election and their rapid dogs are going to chew at the little progress towards rationality we have made. I say the whole economic crisis was engineered by big business and big money to break the Obama administration and the democratic movement.
Looks like the money won as usual.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Burn Down Their House
I've got a favorite phrase I use when it comes to the people I feel are responsible for the economic predicament America is in at the moment. Burn their house down. Except I don't mean in the literal sense of mindless ultra violence and anarchy but rather in the political sense. There are some very wealthy people who have used their wealth to manipulate the political system to support their agendas.
This is not a early 21st century conspiracy theory, this was true when Hearst ordered his newspapers to support certain candidates and policies, and it's true today when FOX entertainment pretends to be a 'news' channel when it is really providing propaganda that spreads fear and discontent in the middle class.
I deduce from their focus of fear that the people who control FOX are afraid of a unified and thoughtful middle class who would have the power to burn their political house down.
Let's face it. The average entrepreneur and small businessman doesn't run in the same circles as the Forbes 400 wealthiest Billionaires. Your local savings and loan chairman didn't make $4 BILLION on the economic fire sale that happened when the housing market burst.
But the political manipulators would like these people to join the panic over the president's attempts to clamp down on the people and companies that have manipulated our economy into despair. Who sold our manufacturing to the Chinese? Who profits from the Chinese? Walmart and the Walton family as one example.
I say, follow the money. Who is profiting from the economic stagnation and despair? Once we kn ow, burn their F(&*ing house down. Metaphorically speaking.
This is not a early 21st century conspiracy theory, this was true when Hearst ordered his newspapers to support certain candidates and policies, and it's true today when FOX entertainment pretends to be a 'news' channel when it is really providing propaganda that spreads fear and discontent in the middle class.
I deduce from their focus of fear that the people who control FOX are afraid of a unified and thoughtful middle class who would have the power to burn their political house down.
Let's face it. The average entrepreneur and small businessman doesn't run in the same circles as the Forbes 400 wealthiest Billionaires. Your local savings and loan chairman didn't make $4 BILLION on the economic fire sale that happened when the housing market burst.
But the political manipulators would like these people to join the panic over the president's attempts to clamp down on the people and companies that have manipulated our economy into despair. Who sold our manufacturing to the Chinese? Who profits from the Chinese? Walmart and the Walton family as one example.
I say, follow the money. Who is profiting from the economic stagnation and despair? Once we kn ow, burn their F(&*ing house down. Metaphorically speaking.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Vegans, Mylie Cyrus and British Petroleum
The chatter on Facebook this afternoon was about Mylie Cyrus and sex. Specifically using an underage girl as a sex object to market her brand. Of course this is as cynical as it is effective. The human beast is wired to respond to the high hormone level in the young females of the species. They become sexually attractive by virtue of their body chemistry, and in turn enjoy the attention they get by being available to males. In previous generations mothers actively discouraged their daughters from advertising their availability by controlling their clothing choices. Now we find the clothing choices are marketed as 'empowering' even in prepubescent children.
Empowering means flaunting this basic sexual reaction between males and females in females that are not ready emotionally or intellectually to make choices that protect them from the cynically predatory male sexual response.
Who benefits from this empowerment? Not the little girls who are targets for every sexually frustrated male in their vicinity, including adults who should know better. Not the sexually frustrated male, especially at his 18+ yr peak. A three year delta at eighteen is a jail term but at 21 it's getting lucky.
So the majority of marketing is targeted at people with the highest hormone levels, the least maturity and the most sensitive egos. And the corporate marketing executives use sex to increase their sales, and incidentally driving the cultural norms implying that the rules don't apply to the observer.
And the corporations will tell you that they are just reflecting societal norms, not making the norms. Which is a lot like how BP is addressing the Gulf Coast. One lady (a clean up team leader) was fired for telling her team to excavate for sludge buried by the tidal sands. She was told the job was just cosmetic.
I heard in the Crystal Restaurant in downtown Watertown NY that BP is leasing the charter boats that have been losing business due to the oil spill. Are they using these vessels to mitigate the oil problem? Of course. They want to prevent the news media from discovering the true extent of the disaster they (BP) created.
Of course with BP the truth is this is just business. They want to control the perceptions of how bad the problem is. It's all about marketing the brand. They can't be the green energy brand name when they've caused one of the biggest ecological disasters since the Exxon Valdeez. (Exxon has never lived that down and it's no where near as bad as the BP Deepwater fiasco.
So what's this got to do with Mylie Cyrus and Vegans?
Corporate greed uses human nature, whether sex, or security or greed, to meet its objectives. The vegans unfortunately, are trying to do something lofty by not eating animals under the presumption that will prevent the death of the animal. However since the majority of food animals are raised specifically for diner their lives will not be spared if we skip a hamburger. Should we as a race cease eating meat the animals would have to be disposed of just so their waste wouldn't continue to damage the ozone layer.
We shouldn't let corporate greed dictate our morals. In fact we should insist that corporations behave in a moral manner. After centuries of using oppressive control techniques to protect our daughters a free society can't abide lies, chastity belts and the law treating females as property. But we need to be open about human nature and what the unpleasant truths are about human sexuality as well as the more pleasant aspects. A blunt and open discussion with our youth would be more effective than all the platitudes and fear campaigns and jean advertisements.
We can't change human nature but we can understand it, accept it and work with to build a better society.
Empowering means flaunting this basic sexual reaction between males and females in females that are not ready emotionally or intellectually to make choices that protect them from the cynically predatory male sexual response.
Who benefits from this empowerment? Not the little girls who are targets for every sexually frustrated male in their vicinity, including adults who should know better. Not the sexually frustrated male, especially at his 18+ yr peak. A three year delta at eighteen is a jail term but at 21 it's getting lucky.
So the majority of marketing is targeted at people with the highest hormone levels, the least maturity and the most sensitive egos. And the corporate marketing executives use sex to increase their sales, and incidentally driving the cultural norms implying that the rules don't apply to the observer.
And the corporations will tell you that they are just reflecting societal norms, not making the norms. Which is a lot like how BP is addressing the Gulf Coast. One lady (a clean up team leader) was fired for telling her team to excavate for sludge buried by the tidal sands. She was told the job was just cosmetic.
I heard in the Crystal Restaurant in downtown Watertown NY that BP is leasing the charter boats that have been losing business due to the oil spill. Are they using these vessels to mitigate the oil problem? Of course. They want to prevent the news media from discovering the true extent of the disaster they (BP) created.
Of course with BP the truth is this is just business. They want to control the perceptions of how bad the problem is. It's all about marketing the brand. They can't be the green energy brand name when they've caused one of the biggest ecological disasters since the Exxon Valdeez. (Exxon has never lived that down and it's no where near as bad as the BP Deepwater fiasco.
So what's this got to do with Mylie Cyrus and Vegans?
Corporate greed uses human nature, whether sex, or security or greed, to meet its objectives. The vegans unfortunately, are trying to do something lofty by not eating animals under the presumption that will prevent the death of the animal. However since the majority of food animals are raised specifically for diner their lives will not be spared if we skip a hamburger. Should we as a race cease eating meat the animals would have to be disposed of just so their waste wouldn't continue to damage the ozone layer.
We shouldn't let corporate greed dictate our morals. In fact we should insist that corporations behave in a moral manner. After centuries of using oppressive control techniques to protect our daughters a free society can't abide lies, chastity belts and the law treating females as property. But we need to be open about human nature and what the unpleasant truths are about human sexuality as well as the more pleasant aspects. A blunt and open discussion with our youth would be more effective than all the platitudes and fear campaigns and jean advertisements.
We can't change human nature but we can understand it, accept it and work with to build a better society.
Friday, June 11, 2010
No Fear
The catch phrase titling this post is a fallacy. Fear is the cornerstone of our ability to learn, whether used by our parents as in fear of physical or emotional punishment, or by the law (remember breaking any law has a punishment, and punishment is to be feared) or political activity.
Control comes from directing fear.
Power comes from Control.
If you want to know who's in power look at who's directing your fear.
I spoke with a friend yesterday who strongly believes that the Constitution has been usurped in Washington. He believes that the real power in this country lies with the Haliburton's and the Merril Lynch's.
I think he might be right to a certain degree. Corporate media and corporate sponsored sponsored media is responsible for dumbing down the discourse in America to fear bites. What should we fear today? They tell us, and then tell us we have to act on this fear.... Everything from the complexity of our cable bills (a corporate deception used to raise profits) to our president (take any sound bite from Fox News).
Fear leads to panic and panic thinking is usually reactive and predictable. Any soldier will tell you that to panic the enemy is to win the battle. Lesson here? The fear and panic mongers think of the people as the enemy.
I want us, the people of this country to exercise control. I'm afraid of the corporate power because it is insidious and above the reach of the law. At least it appears that way. I don't want to be afraid of these non persons. I would like to tear down the facade that hides the men and women behind the curtain. Managers of corporations should be personally liable. Corporations should not be protected. They are not people. They have no rights. Especially not the right to make a profit.
I think that we can change the climate of fear by stripping Corporate America of its unnatural rights. And if the multinational corporations don't want to play here then I think we need to go back to self sufficiency.
Control comes from directing fear.
Power comes from Control.
If you want to know who's in power look at who's directing your fear.
I spoke with a friend yesterday who strongly believes that the Constitution has been usurped in Washington. He believes that the real power in this country lies with the Haliburton's and the Merril Lynch's.
I think he might be right to a certain degree. Corporate media and corporate sponsored sponsored media is responsible for dumbing down the discourse in America to fear bites. What should we fear today? They tell us, and then tell us we have to act on this fear.... Everything from the complexity of our cable bills (a corporate deception used to raise profits) to our president (take any sound bite from Fox News).
Fear leads to panic and panic thinking is usually reactive and predictable. Any soldier will tell you that to panic the enemy is to win the battle. Lesson here? The fear and panic mongers think of the people as the enemy.
I want us, the people of this country to exercise control. I'm afraid of the corporate power because it is insidious and above the reach of the law. At least it appears that way. I don't want to be afraid of these non persons. I would like to tear down the facade that hides the men and women behind the curtain. Managers of corporations should be personally liable. Corporations should not be protected. They are not people. They have no rights. Especially not the right to make a profit.
I think that we can change the climate of fear by stripping Corporate America of its unnatural rights. And if the multinational corporations don't want to play here then I think we need to go back to self sufficiency.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Corporate Innovation
One of the Facebook characters stated that Corporations are the source of all innovation and job creation.
After I finished choking I tried to explain succinctly and politely that corporations are responsible for stifling innovation and shipping jobs over seas where they don't have to pay workers a living wage.
The sad part was the joker attacked the president and then declined further discussion under the label of inappropriate venue.
Well this is an appropriate venue and I offer up my thoughts with the understanding anyone may respond as long as they are polite. Facts will be checked and bullshit called.
My particular point is that corporations were created to hide owners and concentrate wealth. They were not created, nor do they, innovate or create jobs. Most corporations consolidate actual production jobs (production as opposed to overhead or non-production labor) to minimize their direct costs. Overhead can be amortized over quantity but direct costs accrue proportionately with production, because they add value (ie create wealth).
Here are real facts on innovation.
Nikola Tesla, an immigrant from Serbia, invented the modern electrical distribution system, fluorescent lights and radio. These are true facts. Look up the patents. He was paid 25,000 by Westinghouse for the patents on the generators, transformers, switches, and distribution system he designed and then he built the first generation plant at Niagara Falls.
George Westinghouse provided cash. And made BILLIONS. Without Nikola Tesla's genius we'd have no power grid, no aluminum manufacturing operations, no airlines, spaceflight, and pretty much anything that requires large quantities of electrical energy. (Semi conductors....) And we might have more air pollution because of inefficient coal usage.
One example.
PCs are another. IBM had no interest in small computers until Apple founders Jobs and Wozniak started selling computers to persons. Then they decided to peddle to their corporate market. IBM and Microsoft, as corporate partners, stifled the growth of the personal computer for years. Windows was/is a poor copy of Apple's OS. Innovation stifled. Oh and Apple as a corporation doesn't want anyone to play with their toys... another stifler.
So where are the examples of corporate innovation? Well when I worked for Scott Fetzer in the early 80's we manufactured electric motors in Watertown NY. The workers in the factory were mostly women (because they worked for less) and the management wanted to cut direct costs so they opened a plant in Mexico where instead of $8 an hour they paid the workers $8 a day. Instead of using high end manufacturing techniques and training the workforce to operate robotic equipment they just found people they could hire for less money to do things the old way.
Innovation.
Those are the facts. Corporations don't want to create wealth for individuals. They want to create wealth for themselves, with no moral compunctions otherwise. Corporations need to be regulated and tightly controlled because they have no human values. They only consider profit and that doesn't support human society. We saw how they manipulated the economy when no one was watching them. They bled the economy until it nearly collapsed.
I could go on but I really am tired. It would be nice if we the people, conservative and otherwise, could have a civilized and intelligent discussion. We might find that the real villains are the ones trying to tell us what a good job they're doing fixing the mess they made.
After I finished choking I tried to explain succinctly and politely that corporations are responsible for stifling innovation and shipping jobs over seas where they don't have to pay workers a living wage.
The sad part was the joker attacked the president and then declined further discussion under the label of inappropriate venue.
Well this is an appropriate venue and I offer up my thoughts with the understanding anyone may respond as long as they are polite. Facts will be checked and bullshit called.
My particular point is that corporations were created to hide owners and concentrate wealth. They were not created, nor do they, innovate or create jobs. Most corporations consolidate actual production jobs (production as opposed to overhead or non-production labor) to minimize their direct costs. Overhead can be amortized over quantity but direct costs accrue proportionately with production, because they add value (ie create wealth).
Here are real facts on innovation.
Nikola Tesla, an immigrant from Serbia, invented the modern electrical distribution system, fluorescent lights and radio. These are true facts. Look up the patents. He was paid 25,000 by Westinghouse for the patents on the generators, transformers, switches, and distribution system he designed and then he built the first generation plant at Niagara Falls.
George Westinghouse provided cash. And made BILLIONS. Without Nikola Tesla's genius we'd have no power grid, no aluminum manufacturing operations, no airlines, spaceflight, and pretty much anything that requires large quantities of electrical energy. (Semi conductors....) And we might have more air pollution because of inefficient coal usage.
One example.
PCs are another. IBM had no interest in small computers until Apple founders Jobs and Wozniak started selling computers to persons. Then they decided to peddle to their corporate market. IBM and Microsoft, as corporate partners, stifled the growth of the personal computer for years. Windows was/is a poor copy of Apple's OS. Innovation stifled. Oh and Apple as a corporation doesn't want anyone to play with their toys... another stifler.
So where are the examples of corporate innovation? Well when I worked for Scott Fetzer in the early 80's we manufactured electric motors in Watertown NY. The workers in the factory were mostly women (because they worked for less) and the management wanted to cut direct costs so they opened a plant in Mexico where instead of $8 an hour they paid the workers $8 a day. Instead of using high end manufacturing techniques and training the workforce to operate robotic equipment they just found people they could hire for less money to do things the old way.
Innovation.
Those are the facts. Corporations don't want to create wealth for individuals. They want to create wealth for themselves, with no moral compunctions otherwise. Corporations need to be regulated and tightly controlled because they have no human values. They only consider profit and that doesn't support human society. We saw how they manipulated the economy when no one was watching them. They bled the economy until it nearly collapsed.
I could go on but I really am tired. It would be nice if we the people, conservative and otherwise, could have a civilized and intelligent discussion. We might find that the real villains are the ones trying to tell us what a good job they're doing fixing the mess they made.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
An Anonymous Response
I'm always over joyed when someone reads and comments on my thoughts. But being the madman that I am I have to respond, especially when I don't think my point came across the first time (based on the comment under greedism which I'll the reader peruse at their pleasure).
Here is my response to my reader:
Dear Anonymous...
The point behind the title of the post (Greedism) is that buzzwords don't describe what's going on.
Capitalism is a useful technique, if used morally, to nurture and develop a technically advanced economy.
Capitolism (ed. note spelling from comment), which could be defined as a mindless allegiance to dogma spouted by neo_fascists has used to justify laws violating the constitution, and the very nature of our freedoms. Need to be careful there.
What we need isn't more laws, but more morality. BP acted immorally endangering their employees as well as the ecosystem of the Gulf despite direct and correct advisement by technical experts. Their management should be put on a Texas chain gang and left to clean up the coast by hand, the assets of the company sold off to offset the costs of closing the well and the whole business of risky oil wells considered too dangerous to pursue.
We'd get as far with Wave generators and hydrogen manufacturing plants. But that's the subject of another rant.
The purpose of this rebuttal is to question the gut reaction (make laws) and suggest alternative actions (dismantle the company and punish the guilty).
Just some thoughts.
Here is my response to my reader:
Dear Anonymous...
The point behind the title of the post (Greedism) is that buzzwords don't describe what's going on.
Capitalism is a useful technique, if used morally, to nurture and develop a technically advanced economy.
Capitolism (ed. note spelling from comment), which could be defined as a mindless allegiance to dogma spouted by neo_fascists has used to justify laws violating the constitution, and the very nature of our freedoms. Need to be careful there.
What we need isn't more laws, but more morality. BP acted immorally endangering their employees as well as the ecosystem of the Gulf despite direct and correct advisement by technical experts. Their management should be put on a Texas chain gang and left to clean up the coast by hand, the assets of the company sold off to offset the costs of closing the well and the whole business of risky oil wells considered too dangerous to pursue.
We'd get as far with Wave generators and hydrogen manufacturing plants. But that's the subject of another rant.
The purpose of this rebuttal is to question the gut reaction (make laws) and suggest alternative actions (dismantle the company and punish the guilty).
Just some thoughts.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Greedism
Mankind creates society to support greed.
There I said it. We want to believe in human kindness and the basic Godness in all of us but that's crap. Society is/was and apparently always will be a support structure for greedy self serving bastards.
Capitalism is an economic philosophy that says it takes money to make money. Concentrated wealth or capital, when used to fund means of production or distribution, not only gathers wealth to itself but shares it with all participants.
Sounds altruistic huh?
After all it's MY money, why give it to anyone else? Isn't that what the bankers on Wall street say? They keep their money, grab ours from the government and from our wallets, and then insist we give them MORE money in interest to return OUR money. Got it. Greed works.
Is there a magic word to end this? Is there a man (read politician) strong enough to end this unfair siege? Nope. We are in a spider's web. Thrash all you want and all you get is further entangled.
The only way out of the spider's web is to step carefully where the spider steps.
That's what I love about the recent spate of 'walk aways' : people who can afford to pay their mortgages but don't see the economic sense in paying for a property that no longer has recoverable value.
The banks hate this. They claim the people are dishonoring their financial obligations.
The people say, 'It's just business.'
Yeah.
There I said it. We want to believe in human kindness and the basic Godness in all of us but that's crap. Society is/was and apparently always will be a support structure for greedy self serving bastards.
Capitalism is an economic philosophy that says it takes money to make money. Concentrated wealth or capital, when used to fund means of production or distribution, not only gathers wealth to itself but shares it with all participants.
Sounds altruistic huh?
After all it's MY money, why give it to anyone else? Isn't that what the bankers on Wall street say? They keep their money, grab ours from the government and from our wallets, and then insist we give them MORE money in interest to return OUR money. Got it. Greed works.
Is there a magic word to end this? Is there a man (read politician) strong enough to end this unfair siege? Nope. We are in a spider's web. Thrash all you want and all you get is further entangled.
The only way out of the spider's web is to step carefully where the spider steps.
That's what I love about the recent spate of 'walk aways' : people who can afford to pay their mortgages but don't see the economic sense in paying for a property that no longer has recoverable value.
The banks hate this. They claim the people are dishonoring their financial obligations.
The people say, 'It's just business.'
Yeah.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The New World
I love facebook. It has allowed me to reconnect with people I haven't seen in forty years. Absolutely wonderful.
Except when they start posting hate propaganda like we're not real Americans if we don't sign up to keep the foreigners out of our country.
Wait a minute. Five hundred years ago some freeloaders showed up on the beach, pitched tents and started looking for gold. When they got hungry and couldn't support themselves they turned to the local government and its citizens to feed them and help them survive the winters.
Who were these bums? We call them the pilgrims and the founding fathers of our nation. We celebrate their welfare dinner every year at thanksgiving.
So yeah, the uncontrolled migration of people is hard on our society. The working poor are always a better target for the anger of the disenfranchised than the greedy bankers who are manipulating us, but shouldn't we act like Real Americans and share our bounty with the less fortunate, using the Wampanoag's generosity as our guide?
Except when they start posting hate propaganda like we're not real Americans if we don't sign up to keep the foreigners out of our country.
Wait a minute. Five hundred years ago some freeloaders showed up on the beach, pitched tents and started looking for gold. When they got hungry and couldn't support themselves they turned to the local government and its citizens to feed them and help them survive the winters.
Who were these bums? We call them the pilgrims and the founding fathers of our nation. We celebrate their welfare dinner every year at thanksgiving.
So yeah, the uncontrolled migration of people is hard on our society. The working poor are always a better target for the anger of the disenfranchised than the greedy bankers who are manipulating us, but shouldn't we act like Real Americans and share our bounty with the less fortunate, using the Wampanoag's generosity as our guide?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Economic History
What is historically good for us is not historically good for all.
Consider the Native Americans for example. The Europeans came to their country (I'm thinking this the day after our traditional feast celebrating the saviour of the early immigrants by the native population) and proceeded to teach a wealthy and successful people that they were worthless and impoverished. A lesson that the descendants of these peoples, those allowed to live, are still struggling against.
The native Americans had a successful economy based on husbandry, craft, trade, communal living and political strength derived from their ability to make war as they needed to. The Europeans brought fruits of technology that the AmerIndians had lived without and took what they couldn't trade for.
This decade's debacle in trying to Americanize Iraq is another example of why we shouldnot interfere with the economic and political lives of others.
Economics is based on the confluence of a society's morality and its material needs. History shows us that economic policy will naturally tend to support those who are best able to influence the laws governing economic activity. In general this is done to the advantage of the few over the good of the many.
The Constitution appears to be written with the fundamental idea that American economic policy should support the welfare of the people of the United States. In fact the only people well supported by the economics of the last fifty years are the amoral corporations. With no obligation other than to show growing profitability (which is ludicrous in itself) these companies have moved a majority of our production to other countries. How does this benefit the US?
The reality is that since we no longer produce, we no longer increase our personal wealth through our own labor. Wealth instead is produced by others, like the chinese workers in their sweatshops. If we own the means to import and distribute we can transfer their wealth to our own accounts, otherwise we rely on the redistribution of wealth from those who have it to ourselves.
That doesn't imply socialism but is the nature of a service based economy. Without a means of production we are servants of the ones who do have such a means.
Consider the Native Americans for example. The Europeans came to their country (I'm thinking this the day after our traditional feast celebrating the saviour of the early immigrants by the native population) and proceeded to teach a wealthy and successful people that they were worthless and impoverished. A lesson that the descendants of these peoples, those allowed to live, are still struggling against.
The native Americans had a successful economy based on husbandry, craft, trade, communal living and political strength derived from their ability to make war as they needed to. The Europeans brought fruits of technology that the AmerIndians had lived without and took what they couldn't trade for.
This decade's debacle in trying to Americanize Iraq is another example of why we shouldnot interfere with the economic and political lives of others.
Economics is based on the confluence of a society's morality and its material needs. History shows us that economic policy will naturally tend to support those who are best able to influence the laws governing economic activity. In general this is done to the advantage of the few over the good of the many.
The Constitution appears to be written with the fundamental idea that American economic policy should support the welfare of the people of the United States. In fact the only people well supported by the economics of the last fifty years are the amoral corporations. With no obligation other than to show growing profitability (which is ludicrous in itself) these companies have moved a majority of our production to other countries. How does this benefit the US?
The reality is that since we no longer produce, we no longer increase our personal wealth through our own labor. Wealth instead is produced by others, like the chinese workers in their sweatshops. If we own the means to import and distribute we can transfer their wealth to our own accounts, otherwise we rely on the redistribution of wealth from those who have it to ourselves.
That doesn't imply socialism but is the nature of a service based economy. Without a means of production we are servants of the ones who do have such a means.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Das Kapital
I had an interesting discussion with my son (the college student) and one of my daughters this evening about the value of money and the control of our economy.
For a while now I've been wondering just what has gone wrong and it is clear (as mud) that the criminals that manipulated the economy into last years collapse were just another set of jokers in the deck, deluded by the illusion of capitalist superiority.
Capitalism states that wealth comes from the investment of money. Money begets more money. Ask any banker if this simple minded truism is valid and he'll hem and haw. Ask him for a loan and he wants his pound of flesh along with every penny he lends you.
Money is supposed to represent our productivity. One unit of measure is our Gross Domestic Product. Madman Junior (my son) claimed that the US would have a negative GDP unless China (who we have an egregious trade balance with) invests in our economy. If China should think this is a bad investment and pull out of trade with us our economy would fail.
My argument to him was our economy is comprised of buying and selling the crap China exports. We aren't producing anything. There fore if China wants to continue to produce they might want to continue to give us the money to buy their production.
Or we could just say no.
This isn't a rant about protectionism. We don't need protectionist trade policies to control our economy. We need to look carefully at who is controlling our economy and where the money goes. Just like in CSI. Follow the money.
The investment community has manipulated the average relative wage and the inflation index for many years. (The inflation index shows signs of manipulation since the early 1980's). OK this is an opinion but I think I can prove it. More to follow on that front. I feel that my relative income growth has not kept up with either my value to the workforce or the GDP.
The number crunchers have taken away the sense of what money is> that is the value of work.
In 1979 my take home was 1200 a month.
today my take home is 4900 a month (roughly).
According to the economics site www.measuringworth.com the measure of my productivity (my wages) has shown a 38% growth in the last 30 years measured against the CPI (or the value of what I spend my money on).
Against the nomimal productivity of everyone else I've lost ground (Nominal GDP).
But most telling is the relative share of the GDP. There I've lost 30% of my worth. This means someone else has taken my money. And yours. This is a conspiracy theory, but not a wild one. Maybe they're just arrogant.
We shouldn't be stupid.
For a while now I've been wondering just what has gone wrong and it is clear (as mud) that the criminals that manipulated the economy into last years collapse were just another set of jokers in the deck, deluded by the illusion of capitalist superiority.
Capitalism states that wealth comes from the investment of money. Money begets more money. Ask any banker if this simple minded truism is valid and he'll hem and haw. Ask him for a loan and he wants his pound of flesh along with every penny he lends you.
Money is supposed to represent our productivity. One unit of measure is our Gross Domestic Product. Madman Junior (my son) claimed that the US would have a negative GDP unless China (who we have an egregious trade balance with) invests in our economy. If China should think this is a bad investment and pull out of trade with us our economy would fail.
My argument to him was our economy is comprised of buying and selling the crap China exports. We aren't producing anything. There fore if China wants to continue to produce they might want to continue to give us the money to buy their production.
Or we could just say no.
This isn't a rant about protectionism. We don't need protectionist trade policies to control our economy. We need to look carefully at who is controlling our economy and where the money goes. Just like in CSI. Follow the money.
The investment community has manipulated the average relative wage and the inflation index for many years. (The inflation index shows signs of manipulation since the early 1980's). OK this is an opinion but I think I can prove it. More to follow on that front. I feel that my relative income growth has not kept up with either my value to the workforce or the GDP.
The number crunchers have taken away the sense of what money is> that is the value of work.
In 1979 my take home was 1200 a month.
today my take home is 4900 a month (roughly).
According to the economics site www.measuringworth.com the measure of my productivity (my wages) has shown a 38% growth in the last 30 years measured against the CPI (or the value of what I spend my money on).
In 1979, $4,903.00 from 2008 is worth:
| $1,652.60 | using the Consumer Price Index | |
| $1,977.82 | using the GDP deflator | |
| $1,476.96 | using the value of consumer bundle | |
| $1,731.24 | using the unskilled wage | |
| $1,176.82 | using the nominal GDP per capita | |
| $869.89 | using the relative share of GDP |
Against the nomimal productivity of everyone else I've lost ground (Nominal GDP).
But most telling is the relative share of the GDP. There I've lost 30% of my worth. This means someone else has taken my money. And yours. This is a conspiracy theory, but not a wild one. Maybe they're just arrogant.
We shouldn't be stupid.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
King Obama Tututkamen
I love bigots and conservative blowhards. They are a cartoon characters when compared to an intelligent man.
President Obama's speech to the Eqyptians strikes at the heart of the middle east trouble. Consider the real history. The original Israelies were conquered by the original Italians (Romans) and driven from their homeland when they rebelled (read this as violent terrorist acts). 1900 years later the descendents of Rome in the guise of the Third Reich tries to eradicate them as a race.
In the meantime the remaining European powers have recaptured the middle east and have been parceling out it's wealth and history, while treating the people, who carried the torch of science and civilization through the barbaric times following the fall of Rome, as though they were somehow inferior, therefore causing deep seated resentment and mistrust.
So our European bretheren, after we ended their great war for them, chose not to accept any of the survivors of the Nazi's 'Final Solution' and sent them back to their original homeland, Palestine, which was now the homeland of a whole other group of people (oddly called Palestinians) who did'nt want a bunch of European immigrants taking over their cities and farms.
I can't imagine why these people should feel bad about being put aside. Didn't they realize that the Jewish people had a God given right to the land? (It's true. Read Exodus. Though I'm afraid the intervening years has destroyed the land of milk and honey).
So here we are today, a group of European immigrants who pushed aside the resident population of 'our' country, to make a great nation, in turn supporting another group of basically European immigrants of Middle Eastern extraction who pushed the resident population aside when they fought against the invasion of their land.
I guess I can appreciate our position. But it's not a noble one. We simply support those who looke at the world the same way we do.
And dear naive President Obama has pissed off the conservative hack machine by telling the world the truth. Our public self image requires us to support the oppressed and make the world a better place for children. Realizing neither side has any place else to go, the president has said let's all get along. Let the evils of the past stay there.
The idea that it's somehow unAmerican to look at both sides of an issue should make the comic book character pulpit pounders that speak for the conervatives look like cutouts of Hitler pounding on his pulpit and espousing the superiority of everything German. Or Brezshnev pounding his shoe on the podium trying to rouse the masses with emotion.
Reasonable thought and discussion should be the watchwords for political discussion. No more of this Madison Avenue hype playing to emotions with cliched images (did anyone see the new GM ad??? Right out of the Advertisers Sure Sell Handbook. Page 63. Look it up.)
God bless free speech, but keep your hand on your freedoms or the Conservative shills will scare you back into the autocratic Bush Cheney dictatorship.
President Obama's speech to the Eqyptians strikes at the heart of the middle east trouble. Consider the real history. The original Israelies were conquered by the original Italians (Romans) and driven from their homeland when they rebelled (read this as violent terrorist acts). 1900 years later the descendents of Rome in the guise of the Third Reich tries to eradicate them as a race.
In the meantime the remaining European powers have recaptured the middle east and have been parceling out it's wealth and history, while treating the people, who carried the torch of science and civilization through the barbaric times following the fall of Rome, as though they were somehow inferior, therefore causing deep seated resentment and mistrust.
So our European bretheren, after we ended their great war for them, chose not to accept any of the survivors of the Nazi's 'Final Solution' and sent them back to their original homeland, Palestine, which was now the homeland of a whole other group of people (oddly called Palestinians) who did'nt want a bunch of European immigrants taking over their cities and farms.
I can't imagine why these people should feel bad about being put aside. Didn't they realize that the Jewish people had a God given right to the land? (It's true. Read Exodus. Though I'm afraid the intervening years has destroyed the land of milk and honey).
So here we are today, a group of European immigrants who pushed aside the resident population of 'our' country, to make a great nation, in turn supporting another group of basically European immigrants of Middle Eastern extraction who pushed the resident population aside when they fought against the invasion of their land.
I guess I can appreciate our position. But it's not a noble one. We simply support those who looke at the world the same way we do.
And dear naive President Obama has pissed off the conservative hack machine by telling the world the truth. Our public self image requires us to support the oppressed and make the world a better place for children. Realizing neither side has any place else to go, the president has said let's all get along. Let the evils of the past stay there.
The idea that it's somehow unAmerican to look at both sides of an issue should make the comic book character pulpit pounders that speak for the conervatives look like cutouts of Hitler pounding on his pulpit and espousing the superiority of everything German. Or Brezshnev pounding his shoe on the podium trying to rouse the masses with emotion.
Reasonable thought and discussion should be the watchwords for political discussion. No more of this Madison Avenue hype playing to emotions with cliched images (did anyone see the new GM ad??? Right out of the Advertisers Sure Sell Handbook. Page 63. Look it up.)
God bless free speech, but keep your hand on your freedoms or the Conservative shills will scare you back into the autocratic Bush Cheney dictatorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)