I was discussing the state of things this morning with another fella. Not sure of his views, other than he seems to watch Faux Noise. We were discussing the homeless here in town, and I said something about not having the money to pay for housing, he smirked and said "or drugs." No way would I deny that there is not some reality behind his comment, but it seems to stem from the whole "if they are living on the street, it's their own fault" mentality.
Let aside for the moment whether that is even a little bit true or not, how is it that in the richest nation in the world, a country that spends more on its military than all the other developed countries of the world combined, we can't find a way to provide adequate housing for those that need and want it?
We have an entire segment of our society that believes if you are broke and living on the street, or if you can't feed your kids, its your fault! Why should society have to pay for it?
As a nation we will be judged on, among other things, how much compassion we have shown for the least among us. I shudder to think how historians will view "this grand experiment" in the light of our inability to see further than our own selfish desires. From our refusal to educate the next generation, to our willingness to let those without medical care suffer and die from easily preventable or treatable conditions.
When I was young, I read avidly the works of authors like Asimov and Heinlein. I dreamed with them of a future so grand that robots and technology replaced grinding labor for all. When one could pursue any endeavor without having to worry about the next meal. A future where a person could dedicate their time to exploring, writing, painting, or just thinking. There are people who love to build things; let them! People who want to drive a taxi; have at it!
I know, I'm lost in a utopian dream, but it's a dream that could become a reality if there was just the national will to accomplish it. We have the robotics for the most part. We have the money, although it's locked away in the vaults of the super wealthy. It goes beyond socialism. It doesn't prevent one from becoming wealthy, if one wants. It merely establishes a baseline below which we allow no citizen to fall. A baseline that requires everyone to have adequate food, housing, and healthcare plus a stipend to pay for clothing and other items.
It could be done. In most Scandinavian countries, it is being done. Yes, Denmark, for example, has the highest tax rate in the world. But they don't blow it on a bloated military, either. It is spent on education, infrastructure, and social welfare. Guess what? Denmark is number one on the recent global happiness survey. The US did not even make the top ten.
Why can the United States not be the same kind of country? The very country that our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Not the corrupt Plutocracy that we currently are stuck with.
Todays Newsfeeds
May 23, 2013
April 23, 2013
My Muse
Oh, be with me
My fickle muse,
and dance upon my mind.
Oh, frolic with me, you nasty bitch,
and see what we shall find;
You come and go;
sometimes a love,
sometimes a whore,
sometimes my best friend,
How can you be the same as these,
and still be my own mind!
My sometimes friend,
you ofttimes fiend,
leave me with thy blessing.
don't leave me with,
thy curse, thy horror;
My shallow thoughts depressing!
Creatively,
with words of glee,
shall all my words betoken,
The thoughts of gold
and worlds untold
unto the novice beckon!
Oh, shallow thought,
a meaningless pot,
a dry-well of creation.
My fickle muse,
my worthless dues,
my opus lies unwritten.
Come, say to me,
you capricious liar,
what have you brought to me,
A heartache, surely,
and a lot.
Of meaningless empathy!
April 8, 2013
On "American" Business
The rich don't care about America. Most hardly even consider themselves citizens except when it is convenient to be one. Most of the big corporations are now what we refer to as "multi-national." Even that icon of American enterprise; Coca-Cola, now does something on the order of 80% of its business in countries other than the U.S! That includes not just sales, but manufacturing, distribution, advertising, etc.
So what does that mean?
It means that when they are lobbying Washington, or trying to influence the vote through their PACs, they are not in the least interested in changing anything for the public good. Only their own.
We don't allow Chinese citizens the right to vote in our elections, or make decisions on foreign relations. We don't allow Saudi citizens to dictate our defense policy do we?
Well, yes we do. When we allow these multi-nationals to have the slightest sway in the running of our government we are allowing this and more.
We have been selling off our infrastructure to foreign investors for years. The current system is a farce. These investors now have input and control on the very laws and regulatory systems designed to protect the U.S. from foreign malfeasance. Why do you think there has been such a concerted effort to gut EPA, Customs, and FDA inspections? Currently, less than 1% of all shipments coming into this country's ports are inspected. More stringent inspections might hurt the profits of the Taiwanese owned company that operates the terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Alaska.
I galls me when I hear Conservatives arguing for less regulation and more "freedom" for business when I know they are not thinking about the public good.
The fury over the Keystone XL pipeline comes to mind. Conservatives are so eager for more oil they don't even begin to consider that the forces that are pushing for this pipeline have not the slightest interest in the common good of Americans. The oil is not destined for the U.S. market. If it was, there would be no need to pipe it to the gulf coast. The pipeline is to be laid for one purpose: To mightily enrich a cabal of multi-national corporations and their masters at the risk to the environment of the United States. Little of the revenues generated will end up on these shores. And if the pipeline breaks? So what? The movers and shakers responsible won't have to live with the effects.
I don't know how we can fix this rigged system, but I do know we have to at least begin the dialogue!
So what does that mean?
It means that when they are lobbying Washington, or trying to influence the vote through their PACs, they are not in the least interested in changing anything for the public good. Only their own.
We don't allow Chinese citizens the right to vote in our elections, or make decisions on foreign relations. We don't allow Saudi citizens to dictate our defense policy do we?
Well, yes we do. When we allow these multi-nationals to have the slightest sway in the running of our government we are allowing this and more.
We have been selling off our infrastructure to foreign investors for years. The current system is a farce. These investors now have input and control on the very laws and regulatory systems designed to protect the U.S. from foreign malfeasance. Why do you think there has been such a concerted effort to gut EPA, Customs, and FDA inspections? Currently, less than 1% of all shipments coming into this country's ports are inspected. More stringent inspections might hurt the profits of the Taiwanese owned company that operates the terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Alaska.
I galls me when I hear Conservatives arguing for less regulation and more "freedom" for business when I know they are not thinking about the public good.
The fury over the Keystone XL pipeline comes to mind. Conservatives are so eager for more oil they don't even begin to consider that the forces that are pushing for this pipeline have not the slightest interest in the common good of Americans. The oil is not destined for the U.S. market. If it was, there would be no need to pipe it to the gulf coast. The pipeline is to be laid for one purpose: To mightily enrich a cabal of multi-national corporations and their masters at the risk to the environment of the United States. Little of the revenues generated will end up on these shores. And if the pipeline breaks? So what? The movers and shakers responsible won't have to live with the effects.
I don't know how we can fix this rigged system, but I do know we have to at least begin the dialogue!
March 26, 2013
Now for something different...
Cicada
The town hadn't changed much, just looked
deader than he remembered. Yeah, there's the old Monte Vista hotel. I should
stop in and have a beer, see if Roxy still works there. Later. There'd be time
for that later. Besides, after all this time old Roxy probably doesn't look any
where near as good anymore. Jack felt his face crease into a grin as he drove
by the Romeo Savings and Loan. The big plate glass windows dark and lifeless.
God! Did I do that? Just like the town, like a fossil, Jack thinks. Yeah,
that's it, just a huge fossil. The town was dying a slow death, like so many
other small towns in America as the young left for the big cities. Autumn
leaves drift across the street and collect against the silent walls. The beer
signs in the saloon windows garish spots of color on a cold gray day.
March 13, 2013
On "War"
I was watching an interview Obama had with George Stephanopolis wherein GS was asking about the discovery that China was allegedly supporting a surge in hacking and internet based intrusions into American businesses, government agencies and individuals. The PLA (Peoples' Liberation Army) evidently has an entire division dedicated to this process.
George asked the Pres if he thought this meant we were in a "cyber war" with China. Obama, to his credit, declined to call it a "war" but stressed that it could not be allowed to continue.
This post is not about that.
Rather, it got me thinking about the overuse of the term itself. We use the term war so often that it has lost all meaning. No matter what your viewpoint, it seems that anyone that has the temerity to oppose or even attempt to modify it has declared "war" on it.
For example: Every fall, we see from Christians a resurgence of their claim that there is a "War on Christmas!"* Completely disregarding the fact that unless one lives in a cave on a remote island somewhere beyond the reach of flotsam from the developed world, one is going to find some reference to the Christian holiday. Of course, to be even handed, some Christians cite the commercialization of the holiday as one of the battles going on to destroy the "true meaning" of the holiday. whatever the rationale, it does not meet the definition of a "war."
We hear once again of, "class warfare." What exactly does this mean? Are the poor lopping off heads a la 1789 France? Are the oligarchy sending in troops to enslave the lower classes? I think we are long overdue for a re-think of what it means to be successful, and that there has to be some kind of social restructuring but that discussion still doesn't meet the definition of a "war."
Please, people! Stop overusing this freaking word. If you say "war" use the term correctly. It is NOT a debate, no matter how heated, on any subject unless it involves machine guns.
*We won't even get into the whole "War on Christianity" thing. That deserves a post of its own on the Christian persecution complex.
George asked the Pres if he thought this meant we were in a "cyber war" with China. Obama, to his credit, declined to call it a "war" but stressed that it could not be allowed to continue.
This post is not about that.
Rather, it got me thinking about the overuse of the term itself. We use the term war so often that it has lost all meaning. No matter what your viewpoint, it seems that anyone that has the temerity to oppose or even attempt to modify it has declared "war" on it.
For example: Every fall, we see from Christians a resurgence of their claim that there is a "War on Christmas!"* Completely disregarding the fact that unless one lives in a cave on a remote island somewhere beyond the reach of flotsam from the developed world, one is going to find some reference to the Christian holiday. Of course, to be even handed, some Christians cite the commercialization of the holiday as one of the battles going on to destroy the "true meaning" of the holiday. whatever the rationale, it does not meet the definition of a "war."
We hear once again of, "class warfare." What exactly does this mean? Are the poor lopping off heads a la 1789 France? Are the oligarchy sending in troops to enslave the lower classes? I think we are long overdue for a re-think of what it means to be successful, and that there has to be some kind of social restructuring but that discussion still doesn't meet the definition of a "war."
Please, people! Stop overusing this freaking word. If you say "war" use the term correctly. It is NOT a debate, no matter how heated, on any subject unless it involves machine guns.
*We won't even get into the whole "War on Christianity" thing. That deserves a post of its own on the Christian persecution complex.
January 10, 2013
FDR's Second Bill Of Rights
On January 11, 1944, as the country prepared for D-Day and the invasion of Normandy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was already laying out his vision of what a post-war America should be. In his State of the Union speech FDR discussed the recommendations that the President had made to the Congress to stabilize the economy, including a new tax bill, a food price control law, currency stabilization measures, and a national service law. He also included the following:
"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
December 28, 2012
Why aren't we even talking about this?
It's been quite a while since I've posted anything. The situation seems so immune to change. But at least I can bellyache even if I can't change anything.
Why is it that in every discussion about budget cuts, including those coming from the President and other high-level Democrats, there is little to nothing said about the military?
We have something on the order of over 900 Flag Officers (Generals & Admirals) each with million dollar retinues to cater to their every whim. They have six-figure salaries, government provided mansions, cars and private jets. And when they retire on their six-figure retirement plans, a lot of them join companies like Raytheon, GE, Lockheed or the like to peddle more waste back to Congress and their erstwhile colleagues in the military. The waste here is incredible! How many kids could we educate with the savings from just slashing these cadres in half?
Why do we need to have over 700 military bases scattered around the world, not even counting the ones we built in Iraq and Afghanistan? How long could we extend Medicare for just the savings of closing half of those bases?
Why on earth do we need eleven aircraft carriers, when the rest of the world combined has only ten? And most of those belong to our allies. How many billions are spent each year on these carrier groups? How many years could Social Security be extended if we just reduced the size of our Navy by half?
The Pentagon plans to buy a total of 2,443 F-35 fighters at a rough average cost of around two hundred million dollars apiece. For what? Blowing up more goat-herders in the Middle East? I won't even suggest depriving the Generals and Congress their shiny new jets, but if they just cut that number by half, they'd save $244 billion dollars! How many bridges and highways could be repaired with that money?
But what are we arguing about? How big of a tax break we will be giving millionaires and corporations. And how many benefits we will be slashing to the poor and the elderly.
What the fuck are we doing?
Why is it that in every discussion about budget cuts, including those coming from the President and other high-level Democrats, there is little to nothing said about the military?
We have something on the order of over 900 Flag Officers (Generals & Admirals) each with million dollar retinues to cater to their every whim. They have six-figure salaries, government provided mansions, cars and private jets. And when they retire on their six-figure retirement plans, a lot of them join companies like Raytheon, GE, Lockheed or the like to peddle more waste back to Congress and their erstwhile colleagues in the military. The waste here is incredible! How many kids could we educate with the savings from just slashing these cadres in half?
Why do we need to have over 700 military bases scattered around the world, not even counting the ones we built in Iraq and Afghanistan? How long could we extend Medicare for just the savings of closing half of those bases?
Why on earth do we need eleven aircraft carriers, when the rest of the world combined has only ten? And most of those belong to our allies. How many billions are spent each year on these carrier groups? How many years could Social Security be extended if we just reduced the size of our Navy by half?
The Pentagon plans to buy a total of 2,443 F-35 fighters at a rough average cost of around two hundred million dollars apiece. For what? Blowing up more goat-herders in the Middle East? I won't even suggest depriving the Generals and Congress their shiny new jets, but if they just cut that number by half, they'd save $244 billion dollars! How many bridges and highways could be repaired with that money?
But what are we arguing about? How big of a tax break we will be giving millionaires and corporations. And how many benefits we will be slashing to the poor and the elderly.
What the fuck are we doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)