The United States has a complicated history regarding Catholicism. Much of this is actually systemic. The Founding Fathers were not Catholic, and England at the time was Anglican, not Catholic. This is not to say that the Founding Fathers were actually anti-Catholic. But they certainly weren't pro-Catholic, either. Some of them were Deists, some were Christians, others were Secular. Many of the early European immigrants were of the English variety, not Irish or French, which traditionally tended to be Catholic. Those in power again were typically white, male, land-owning Protestants. With this came certain assumptions about how the world should operate--and following the Pope wasn't one of them.
Black slaves were encouraged to become Christians, just like their slave owning masters. To this day, Blacks in America are generally more Protestant than not. In the South, the KKK was fiercely anti-Black, but also anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic.
Economic troubles during the late 1800s and early 1900s brought hatred toward immigrants, many of whom happened to be from traditionally Catholic areas, such as Ireland and Poland. Growing up in the 1930s and 1940s, my own Irish-German grandfather recalls tales about how he was called a "fish eater" by school officials and how the KKK had an office in town.
The large influx of Catholics and the economic strength and development of Catholics in America over the last fifty years has changed the demographics of power in America. The Supreme Court has more Catholics on it than any other religion. Catholics hold power in the government and in local politics as well.
Despite all this, however, being Catholic is only acceptable in America so long as you don't challenge the interests of the power elite who run this country. John F. Kennedy was acceptable because he didn't act like a Catholic. He served the interests of the moneyed elite and the power brokers, so he was fine. So long as he supported the war in Vietnam, which served the interests of the military manufacturers, he was fine. So long as he supported terrorist operations in Cuba (aka Project Mongoose), which involved the bombing of civilian installations and generalized terrorism against the Cuban population which needed to be punished for supporting Castro, he was fine. Never mind the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
But when Catholics get too uppity and start supporting interests which hurt the power of the elites, then Catholicism is not okay and must be wiped out. Pope John XXIII organized the Second Vatican Counsel. He wanted the Catholic Church to support the rights of the poor and the marginalized. Catholic theologians began developing the notion of the "preferential option for the poor", which meant supporting true democracy and people instead of moneyed interests. Now this would not be tolerated. This was played out in Latin America. When Archbishop Oscar Romero witnessed the murder of a priest by U.S. backed goons (because the priest had supported the poor and the democratic political forces there), he began to question the U.S. backed forces and their death squads. Shortly after writing a letter to Jimmy Carter asking him to stop funding these thugs, he was assassinated by the U.S. supported killers. In Nicaragua and other countries the same dynamic was played out. Any time Catholics supported the rights of the working people against the moneyed interests, Catholics were the enemy and murdered. That's also why priests and nuns were targeted by U.S. backed forces and murdered. During the Vietnam War, Jesuit priests and nuns were arrested for protesting against the draft and the war.
The Wall Street Journal is the voice for the power and moneyed elites in America. It is designed to serve their interests. It is also owned by Rupert Murdoch, the right winger owner of Fox News. In an article yesterday by Peggy Noonan, she asserts that Obama essentially has contempt for Roman Catholics because of his position that Catholic employers must provide health insurance coverage that includes contraceptive coverage. She asserts that this is essentially declaring war against Catholics and that Obama's contempt and arrogance toward them will come back to bite him in the next election.
This is a perfect example of the moneyed interests using class warfare and propaganda to turn the interests of Catholics against themselves. It is convenient that the Wall Street Journal supports Catholics so long as it is in the interest of their moneyed readers. Pope John Paul II wrote against rampant capitalism that puts money and greed ahead of people. Yet the Republicans supported this type of capitalism all the way through the last thirty years. The Wall Street Journal was all for the deindustrializing of America for short term profit in the name of "globalism." It was all for the Reagan policies of choking unions and cutting assistance for the poor and disabled. The evil genius of Reagan was to manipulate the good intentions of Catholics by parroting language about morality, family values, and being pro-life while doing everything possible to economically cut the throat of the American family. You can't actually be for family values if you cut food stamps that help keep children from being hungry. You can't be pro-life when you support death squads and regimes that murder priests and nuns, or if you support foreign wars of aggression that happen to be economically profitable for the stock market.
Obama is no Catholic hater. He is a traditional politician obsessed with enhancing his career. He has done very little to advance the abortion issue one way or another because he knows that politically the issue might hurt him. On the one hand his administration vetoed the ability for the morning after pill to be available over the counter. On the other, it supported this new legislation that orders Catholic employers to provide health coverage that includes contraceptives. He is certainly no pro-abortion zealot.
The more likely reason for his support of this legislation is that it supports the underlying rationale of the Obama health reforms--that the government is to ensure a minimum level of health care coverage is provided to all Americans. This rationale is actually a very Catholic one--health care for all serves the well being of everyone. As it stands now, most, if not all health insurance plans cover contraceptives. This is just a normal part of how things work. By providing health insurance to its employees, the Catholic Church isn't forcing anyone to use contraceptives. It simply remains an option made available by nature of the coverage. It is just like the Catholic notion of double effect. For example, abortion is considered the immoral taking of life in Catholic teaching. Yet say a woman is faced with an ectopic pregnancy that will certainly lead to the death of the mother and the fetus if not surgically corrected. The Catholic surgeon may remove the fetus for the sake of the mother's life, which has a secondary effect of aborting the fetus. This is considered moral by the Catholic Church although technically an abortion is committed. The same should go for the notion of providing health insurance coverage that just so happens to provide contraceptive coverage. The importance of providing quality health insurance to everyone without enabling loopholes which could harm everyone is important. If we allow the Church to avoid providing coverage for contraceptives, then other religious groups might stop providing coverage for other, non-legitimate reasons, which could end up being more about politics and economics than legitimate religious conviction.
It is also important to remember that not all Catholic employees are Catholics themselves. Many aren't. And limiting their health coverage doesn't serve them fairly. Mandating health coverage to provide contraceptives is indirect. It is totally different from ordering Catholic hospitals to perform elective abortions, which would be a direct offense to Catholic teaching.
The Wall Street Journal doesn't give a rats ass about Catholics and their beliefs. It cares about electing its Wall Street darling du jour, Mitt Romney. The fact that it would stoop so low as to try and inflame Catholics to serve its ends isn't surprising. But it is surprisingly disgusting. But I am the naive one. After all, the Wall Street Journal has been cynically trying to play Catholics like a fiddle for the last thirty years, so why should I expect them to be any different now?
Catholics who care about family values are smarter than the Wall Street Journal might otherwise claim, and hopefully the next election will show it.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Planned Parenthood vs. Susan G. Komen Foundation: The Poverty of the Debate
The controversy over the funding of Planned Parenthood from the Susan G. Komen Foundation is an interesting one from a cognitive science point of view. George Lakoff, a linguist and cognitive scientist, points out in his book, "Don't Think of An Elephant", that how we think about an issue is automatically determined by the language that is used to define the problem. For example, if I say to you "don't think of an elephant", you can't help but imagine an elephant. No amount of mental work can stop this. It is part of how the mind works.
The ability to define the parameters of thought is called "framing". In politics, the framers are able to win arguments before the battle even begins. This is especially true considering many people don't think more than superficially. Most people make decisions based upon their emotions. This is why marketing and advertising work so well. Just look at the Super Bowl ads. Corporations spend millions of dollars on commercials featuring half naked women selling cars, celebrities telling us to buy things, and animated characters hocking a variety of wares. These ads work, otherwise corporations wouldn't waste the money.
On NPR yesterday, Neil Conan was interviewing a reporter about the Susan G. Komen Foundation controversy. His framing of the question automatically tainted the interview.
"So, [Mr. Reporter], you are opposed to abortion rights, so what is your opinion about this decision?"
Wisely, the reporter stopped Mr. Conan and clarified his position.
"Before we begin, I'd like to clarify things. I don't define myself as "anti-abortion rights." I believe, because of my religion, that human life begins at conception and that a human life is taken during abortion. Therefore, I am 'anti-abortion.'"
Neil Conan tried to dismiss the criticism.
"Well, your editors will have to talk with my editors."
But the criticism of the reporter remains valid. By defining someone as being opposed to someone else's rights, the minds of the listener have already been framed and primed toward the issue. People who are opposed to abortion aren't mean, nasty, small-minded turds who hate women, despite some attempts to paint them that way. Many of them consider human life to begin at conception. If this is one's position, then it makes sense that the right to life of the unborn would be hierarchically more important than the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy. Given this understanding, using terms like "anti-choice" and "anti-woman" are unfair and mean spiritedly biased.
This goes both ways. If I support the repeal of Roe v. Wade and I define those who support it as being "pro-abortion", this is an unfair label. No decent people are "pro-abortion." Supporters believe that abortion is a right that women should be able to exercise given difficult circumstances. They aren't murderous lechers who hate fetuses.
Getting back to the Planned Parenthood issue, there are larger problems that haven't been addressed by either side. First, Planned Parenthood does provide health screening services along with references to abortion providers. If Planned Parenthood cared about providing health services to women, it could simply promise to segregate the funds received from the Susan G. Komen Foundation to be used solely for health screenings instead of being provided for abortion related services. This would be a fair compromise. But instead, Planned Parenthood decided to make the thing political. This isn't surprising. Given its history, Planned Parenthood is not neutral on the abortion issue. Just research the history of Planned Parenthood and of its founder. It is very much in support of Roe v. Wade. The second issue is that women shouldn't be forced to go to charities to receive health care screenings because they don't have health insurance. All Americans should have free and universal access to health care coverage. The United States is the only industrialized First World nation without universal health care coverage. No one seems to be scandalized or worried about this, although they should be. The current health care system is the most inhumane system in the world.
The controversy here has become laden with value judgments instead of discussion of the real issues. This is unfortunate. It was my hope that news outlets like NPR would be less biased. Of course I was wrong.
The ability to define the parameters of thought is called "framing". In politics, the framers are able to win arguments before the battle even begins. This is especially true considering many people don't think more than superficially. Most people make decisions based upon their emotions. This is why marketing and advertising work so well. Just look at the Super Bowl ads. Corporations spend millions of dollars on commercials featuring half naked women selling cars, celebrities telling us to buy things, and animated characters hocking a variety of wares. These ads work, otherwise corporations wouldn't waste the money.
On NPR yesterday, Neil Conan was interviewing a reporter about the Susan G. Komen Foundation controversy. His framing of the question automatically tainted the interview.
"So, [Mr. Reporter], you are opposed to abortion rights, so what is your opinion about this decision?"
Wisely, the reporter stopped Mr. Conan and clarified his position.
"Before we begin, I'd like to clarify things. I don't define myself as "anti-abortion rights." I believe, because of my religion, that human life begins at conception and that a human life is taken during abortion. Therefore, I am 'anti-abortion.'"
Neil Conan tried to dismiss the criticism.
"Well, your editors will have to talk with my editors."
But the criticism of the reporter remains valid. By defining someone as being opposed to someone else's rights, the minds of the listener have already been framed and primed toward the issue. People who are opposed to abortion aren't mean, nasty, small-minded turds who hate women, despite some attempts to paint them that way. Many of them consider human life to begin at conception. If this is one's position, then it makes sense that the right to life of the unborn would be hierarchically more important than the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy. Given this understanding, using terms like "anti-choice" and "anti-woman" are unfair and mean spiritedly biased.
This goes both ways. If I support the repeal of Roe v. Wade and I define those who support it as being "pro-abortion", this is an unfair label. No decent people are "pro-abortion." Supporters believe that abortion is a right that women should be able to exercise given difficult circumstances. They aren't murderous lechers who hate fetuses.
Getting back to the Planned Parenthood issue, there are larger problems that haven't been addressed by either side. First, Planned Parenthood does provide health screening services along with references to abortion providers. If Planned Parenthood cared about providing health services to women, it could simply promise to segregate the funds received from the Susan G. Komen Foundation to be used solely for health screenings instead of being provided for abortion related services. This would be a fair compromise. But instead, Planned Parenthood decided to make the thing political. This isn't surprising. Given its history, Planned Parenthood is not neutral on the abortion issue. Just research the history of Planned Parenthood and of its founder. It is very much in support of Roe v. Wade. The second issue is that women shouldn't be forced to go to charities to receive health care screenings because they don't have health insurance. All Americans should have free and universal access to health care coverage. The United States is the only industrialized First World nation without universal health care coverage. No one seems to be scandalized or worried about this, although they should be. The current health care system is the most inhumane system in the world.
The controversy here has become laden with value judgments instead of discussion of the real issues. This is unfortunate. It was my hope that news outlets like NPR would be less biased. Of course I was wrong.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
We Aren't Broke
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the United States is not broke. In fact, the U.S. is very, very rich. The problem is that the money is sitting in offshore and private accounts like those owned by Mitt Romney and his Wall Street friends. This is also why the economy for 99% of people is terrible. Because such a large share of the money is in the hands of the top 1%, the bottom 99% lacks the funds to spend. This means decreased demand. It's not surprising that the economy isn't doing well for the vast majority of Americans. Money is like water. Right now it's not flowing because some are hoarding it.
The current unemployment problem is easy to solve. Hiring would increase if we increased consumer demand. This means getting money to consumers. Consumers aren't buying now because they are indeed broke and don't have jobs. This means taxing large corporations and the rich and using the money to hire people to repair the infrastructure of our crumbling roads and bridges. It means investing in alternative forms of energy and building more broadband Internet connections and investing in high tech energy research and development. The problem is that unemployment benefits the large corporations and richest donors. How? By not hiring, large corporations can force existing workers to do more. This means less cost to them and more profits. The stock market, unlike the unemployment numbers, is doing fine. The relatively small number of stockholders in America are happy. Also, unemployment means less inflation. If you are a bondholder, such as the holder of U.S. Treasury Bonds, then you don't want inflation, because this means your investment goes down. So for those with stock and bond portfolios, unemployment is a good thing. And who donates money to politicians? The largest holders of stocks--large corporations and the rich.
Giving tax breaks to the very rich has never been shown to increase hiring. In fact, during the 1950s and 1960s, the tax rate was much, much higher than it is now, and the economy was growing like gangbusters. Corporations and the rich just use tax breaks to hold onto more cash. Apple, for example, currently has 72 billion dollars of cash on hand. This is more money on hand than the U.S. government. Apple could use this to hire more people, but they don't need to. They already have enough cheap outsourced labor from China. The "job creators" aren't creating more jobs from tax breaks.
The neoliberal policies of the last thirty years have destroyed the American economy. Take the education system, for example. Public education at the elementary and college level is more expensive than ever. This has a cause, too--it's called excessive tax breaks for the rich. The Reagan, Bush, and Obama tax cuts have caused massive budget deficits. Add to this two unfunded wars. Then there is no money to fund and repair the nation's infrastructure, government, or educational institutions. Students graduate from college now as indentured servants to corporate America. With student loans in excess of the average $30,000, this isn't surprising. But it works out perfectly for corporate America. Workers are more docile and compliant when they have nowhere else to turn. And if the workers become too problematic and demand more rights, their jobs can always be outsourced to India or China. In fact, the less educated people are, the better, because then there is an excuse to outsource. Engineers in India get paid much less than those in America.
The healthcare issue is another one. It's a matter of socialism for the health insurance companies and capitalism for everyone else. As Ron Paul points out, capitalism and the free market have nothing to do with our current healthcare system. That is why it is so expensive. As a nation, we spend twice as much as any other industrialized country. This expense is reducing American competitiveness. In fact, the extreme health care costs to the American auto industry is partly how Obama was able to get his healthcare reforms passed. When General Motors decided it was time for change, we got change.
When I go to the hospital to get my cholesterol tested, the cost is three times what it costs me to go to a private lab and pay out of pocket. The difference is the middleman. With the health insurance industry as a buffer, consumers are insulated from the costs. The Obama healthcare reform bill cannot bend the cost curve because only the public option could have done that. As it stands now, the health insurance industry is guaranteed to get extra consumers by mandate. This is socialism for them, but capitalism for everyone else because they are forced to buy health insurance which has a built in profit system for the private health insurance companies.
The answer is not doing away with health insurance, but instead doing away with health insurance designed for profit. The free market doesn't work efficiently in the area of health care because the incentive is to not provide care for those who need it most. There isn't going to be competition to sign up the sickest people for health insurance policies. Health insurers only make money when they deny health care to those who need it and collect money from those who don't need it. This is completely the wrong incentive system. A single payer system, such as that found in almost every other industrialized nation, helps keep costs down while ensuring health outcomes are reasonable. Through the use of public taxes, the costs for health care can be regulated. American business would no longer be competitively disadvantaged by yearly increases in health care premiums. Those who need care get it. Those who don't need it, don't. Because everyone is required to pay into the system, everyone can benefit. By spreading the risk, each person benefits. This is the same thing we see with public taxation for fire and police services. The risk is spread around so everyone benefits.
Some elements of capitalism in a single payer system can in fact be utilized to save money. For example, if the government used its bargaining power to buy pharmaceuticals at a reduced rate, this would save a tremendous amount of money. But of course, this was not part of the Obamacare reform legislation because the Obama administration made a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry to not include this so as to gain their support. This would have saved a tremendous amount of money. Again, we have socialism for the large corporations and capitalism for the consumer.
Social Security is another example. Even the language around this program is framed by Republicans in a propaganda sort of way. When we provide money to sick and old people at even the most basic subsistence level, this is actually a form of tax relief for them. We are placing less of a burden on them. Instead, the pejorative term "entitlement" is used, as if the sick and old are spoiled brats wanting a free handout. Never mind most old people having worked and paid into the system for their entire lives. But when we give large corporations massive tax breaks even though these same corporations are using public roads, infrastructure, national defense, etc. for free and making private profits, this isn't called an entitlement. It's not even called a subsidy. No, this is "investing" in the "job creators." Social Security as it stands now is no ponzi scheme. It is self funding and with the right tweaks, can exist for our children and grandchildren. But Republicans despise this system. Despite overwhelming public support for Social Security, they will stop at nothing to attempt to destroy it. They resent the idea that the government can do something well and not exclusively for their benefit.
Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's strategy of cutting taxes for the rich and creating massive budget deficits actually benefits their agendas. How? Because then the government doesn't have the funding needed to pay for the social programs, infrastructure repairs, and other programs that they deem wasteful and useless. It directly serves the rich by giving them welfare at the expense of everyone else. It also serves as a fantastic means of social control. The poorer people are, the more they begin to blame others for their problems--like immigrants, minorities, union workers, teachers, etc. This has been a consistent feature of American history. Scapegoating isn't new. And it helps deflect attention from the real causes of poverty--the greed and selfishness of the power elite in charge of this country. Keeping people divided and full of anger works well. Add to this the other forms of social control used by the rich--mindless entertainment, such as reality television shows, act as a form of modern day bread and circus games approach to keeping the populace docile. This was done during the Roman times as well. The gladiator games served an important purpose, to keep the people from rioting and demanding change.
The current unemployment problem is easy to solve. Hiring would increase if we increased consumer demand. This means getting money to consumers. Consumers aren't buying now because they are indeed broke and don't have jobs. This means taxing large corporations and the rich and using the money to hire people to repair the infrastructure of our crumbling roads and bridges. It means investing in alternative forms of energy and building more broadband Internet connections and investing in high tech energy research and development. The problem is that unemployment benefits the large corporations and richest donors. How? By not hiring, large corporations can force existing workers to do more. This means less cost to them and more profits. The stock market, unlike the unemployment numbers, is doing fine. The relatively small number of stockholders in America are happy. Also, unemployment means less inflation. If you are a bondholder, such as the holder of U.S. Treasury Bonds, then you don't want inflation, because this means your investment goes down. So for those with stock and bond portfolios, unemployment is a good thing. And who donates money to politicians? The largest holders of stocks--large corporations and the rich.
Giving tax breaks to the very rich has never been shown to increase hiring. In fact, during the 1950s and 1960s, the tax rate was much, much higher than it is now, and the economy was growing like gangbusters. Corporations and the rich just use tax breaks to hold onto more cash. Apple, for example, currently has 72 billion dollars of cash on hand. This is more money on hand than the U.S. government. Apple could use this to hire more people, but they don't need to. They already have enough cheap outsourced labor from China. The "job creators" aren't creating more jobs from tax breaks.
The neoliberal policies of the last thirty years have destroyed the American economy. Take the education system, for example. Public education at the elementary and college level is more expensive than ever. This has a cause, too--it's called excessive tax breaks for the rich. The Reagan, Bush, and Obama tax cuts have caused massive budget deficits. Add to this two unfunded wars. Then there is no money to fund and repair the nation's infrastructure, government, or educational institutions. Students graduate from college now as indentured servants to corporate America. With student loans in excess of the average $30,000, this isn't surprising. But it works out perfectly for corporate America. Workers are more docile and compliant when they have nowhere else to turn. And if the workers become too problematic and demand more rights, their jobs can always be outsourced to India or China. In fact, the less educated people are, the better, because then there is an excuse to outsource. Engineers in India get paid much less than those in America.
The healthcare issue is another one. It's a matter of socialism for the health insurance companies and capitalism for everyone else. As Ron Paul points out, capitalism and the free market have nothing to do with our current healthcare system. That is why it is so expensive. As a nation, we spend twice as much as any other industrialized country. This expense is reducing American competitiveness. In fact, the extreme health care costs to the American auto industry is partly how Obama was able to get his healthcare reforms passed. When General Motors decided it was time for change, we got change.
When I go to the hospital to get my cholesterol tested, the cost is three times what it costs me to go to a private lab and pay out of pocket. The difference is the middleman. With the health insurance industry as a buffer, consumers are insulated from the costs. The Obama healthcare reform bill cannot bend the cost curve because only the public option could have done that. As it stands now, the health insurance industry is guaranteed to get extra consumers by mandate. This is socialism for them, but capitalism for everyone else because they are forced to buy health insurance which has a built in profit system for the private health insurance companies.
The answer is not doing away with health insurance, but instead doing away with health insurance designed for profit. The free market doesn't work efficiently in the area of health care because the incentive is to not provide care for those who need it most. There isn't going to be competition to sign up the sickest people for health insurance policies. Health insurers only make money when they deny health care to those who need it and collect money from those who don't need it. This is completely the wrong incentive system. A single payer system, such as that found in almost every other industrialized nation, helps keep costs down while ensuring health outcomes are reasonable. Through the use of public taxes, the costs for health care can be regulated. American business would no longer be competitively disadvantaged by yearly increases in health care premiums. Those who need care get it. Those who don't need it, don't. Because everyone is required to pay into the system, everyone can benefit. By spreading the risk, each person benefits. This is the same thing we see with public taxation for fire and police services. The risk is spread around so everyone benefits.
Some elements of capitalism in a single payer system can in fact be utilized to save money. For example, if the government used its bargaining power to buy pharmaceuticals at a reduced rate, this would save a tremendous amount of money. But of course, this was not part of the Obamacare reform legislation because the Obama administration made a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry to not include this so as to gain their support. This would have saved a tremendous amount of money. Again, we have socialism for the large corporations and capitalism for the consumer.
Social Security is another example. Even the language around this program is framed by Republicans in a propaganda sort of way. When we provide money to sick and old people at even the most basic subsistence level, this is actually a form of tax relief for them. We are placing less of a burden on them. Instead, the pejorative term "entitlement" is used, as if the sick and old are spoiled brats wanting a free handout. Never mind most old people having worked and paid into the system for their entire lives. But when we give large corporations massive tax breaks even though these same corporations are using public roads, infrastructure, national defense, etc. for free and making private profits, this isn't called an entitlement. It's not even called a subsidy. No, this is "investing" in the "job creators." Social Security as it stands now is no ponzi scheme. It is self funding and with the right tweaks, can exist for our children and grandchildren. But Republicans despise this system. Despite overwhelming public support for Social Security, they will stop at nothing to attempt to destroy it. They resent the idea that the government can do something well and not exclusively for their benefit.
Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's strategy of cutting taxes for the rich and creating massive budget deficits actually benefits their agendas. How? Because then the government doesn't have the funding needed to pay for the social programs, infrastructure repairs, and other programs that they deem wasteful and useless. It directly serves the rich by giving them welfare at the expense of everyone else. It also serves as a fantastic means of social control. The poorer people are, the more they begin to blame others for their problems--like immigrants, minorities, union workers, teachers, etc. This has been a consistent feature of American history. Scapegoating isn't new. And it helps deflect attention from the real causes of poverty--the greed and selfishness of the power elite in charge of this country. Keeping people divided and full of anger works well. Add to this the other forms of social control used by the rich--mindless entertainment, such as reality television shows, act as a form of modern day bread and circus games approach to keeping the populace docile. This was done during the Roman times as well. The gladiator games served an important purpose, to keep the people from rioting and demanding change.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Why Am I Fat?
If you listen to Jillian Michaels, then losing weight is simply a matter of eating less and exercising more. Simple enough, right? We are fat because we are lazy and because we are gluttons.
Anyone who has problems with their weight knows that the issue might be more complex than that, especially considering that the rate of Type 2 diabetes and obesity has skyrocketed over the last 30 years. People certainly haven't become any lazier than they used to be. The rate of exercise, if anything, has increased over the last 30 years. Suburbs and automobiles have been around long before 1980. What has been the difference? Perhaps it could be not how much we are eating, nor how much we are exercising, but instead what we are eating.
Ever since the 1970's, the government has stressed that we eat 6-11 servings of carbs per day and limit our intake of fat, particularly saturated fat. We were encouraged to eat margarine and other trans fats. Even McDonald's switched their fry oil from beef tallow to trans fat, all in hopes of being "heart smart." Now we know that trans fats essentially harden your arteries and are lethal. We would have been better off eating the beef tallow. In fact, study after study, including the Framingham Heart study, has shown that saturated fat, so long as not consumed with excessive carbs or sugar, is not harmful.
Ten years ago I was a study hall monitor at a suburban middle school. I was shocked at how fat the kids were. Usually middle school children are very lean. When I was a middle school child in the early 1990s, obesity was not very common. After all, middle school kids are growing rapidly. Kids at this age aren't supposed to be fat until they get older, right? Wrong. And the cause was pretty obvious. The school lunch program was part of the problem. During study hall and throughout the day, the kids would purchase processed snacks filled with sugar. They drank huge amounts of pop (soda), ate candy bars, and munched on potato chips. At lunch, they filled up on pizza, cheeseburgers, and french fries. I asked the principal why the lunch program didn't offer healthy choices.
"Kids don't buy healthy food. We lost money when we tried that. Now we break even or make money."
So apparently it's all about economics.
It's not surprising that middle school kids don't like the taste of healthier food compared to unhealthy food. That is natural. But then we shouldn't be surprised why kids are fat and have health problems, either.
Some of the increase in obesity has to do with economics. Prior to the Nixon administration, the price of grain as a commodity would shift rapidly. This fluctuation in prices caused instability in food prices. Politically, this was problematic. Nixon instructed his Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, to stabilize grain prices. Butz reformed the New Deal program of paying farmers not to plant corn. Instead, he encouraged farmers to go big and plant as much as possible. Corn subsidies from the government meant the price of corn would remain stable and abundant. The food industry found a thousand and one uses for corn, including the creation of high fructose corn syrup. Soon, high fructose corn syrup found itself in everything because it was so cheap. This had the effect of greatly increasing the amount of sugar and carbs that people would eat.
While the decrease in food prices was a benefit to the poor, it also had health implications. The revised food pyramid encouraged by the government was happily encouraging the massive consumption of carbs and considered sugar innocuous. The low fat, high carb diet, subsidized by the government and embraced by the food industry and by doctors, had serious metabolic implications. The conventional wisdom was that if you feasted on low fat snacks, you were being heart healthy. It kind of reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and Elaine were enjoying their low fat yogurt without guilt, only to find that they were getting fatter and fatter.
Eating carbohydrates turns to sugar in the blood. The body must then make insulin to regulate the blood sugar. Too much carbohydrate and sugar eventually wears down the body and leads to insulin resistance, which can turn to diabetes. It also leads to weight gain and obesity. Diabetes frequently leads to heart damage and other health problems if uncontrolled. Insulin is also a fat storing hormone. A perfect guinea pig to show this process is a person with juvenile diabetes. Type 1 diabetics (juvenile diabetics) do not make their own insulin. So when they eat sugar or carbohydrates, their blood sugar goes very high. The body cannot utilize the energy so it passes into the urine. Even though a person with juvenile diabetes has high blood sugar, his or her body cannot use the energy stored in the sugar without insulin. The person is literally starving to death. He or she will lose weight rapidly. He or she is also very thirsty. Without insulin, death is not far behind. In fact, there are some teenage girls with juvenile diabetes who intentionally don't take their insulin to control their weight. It is dangerous, but it is done.
When juvenile diabetics begin insulin therapy, they gain weight. The more carbs and sugar they eat, the more insulin they need, and the more weight they gain. Insulin is the key factor. The same goes for non diabetics. The more carbs and sugar one eats, the more insulin the body makes, the more weight that is gained. This also explains my fat middle school children. They were drinking soda pop like it was going out of style. I saw kids drinking 3-5 cans of Pepsi and Coke a day.
We are also witnessing an epidemic of fat babies. Why? Is it because they are eating too much and exercising too little? Is it because they aren't going to the gym enough? It could be because during pregnancy, their mothers were eating lots of carbs, which meant higher blood sugar, and more insulin. This is passed onto the baby, priming the baby's little metabolism to be big. Another perfect example of this is the babies of juvenile diabetics. Frequently mothers who are juvenile diabetics must be induced early because their babies are huge. This is caused because of high blood sugars and excessive insulin during pregnancy. The baby grows so large it is dangerous for it to be carried to full term.
Some of this also has international implications. Consider the "War on Drugs." As a country, we waste billions of dollars fighting drug producers in Columbia, Mexico, and here in America. But why do farmers in Columbia, Mexico, and other countries grow drugs? The answer is simple--they have to. Because of NAFTA and so called "free trade", they certainly can't compete with the subsidized American grain farmers. It is impossible. When given the choice between starvation or growing drugs, they take their chances. The American government doesn't care at all about whether people use drugs or not. The real purpose of the drug war is economics. As a nation, the United States has more prisons than any other Western nation. The cost of running these prisons is astronomical. But it is also big business. Consider the number of lawyers, judges, federal drug enforcement agents, bureaucrats, prison guards, food-service-to-prison companies, police officers, and others who have jobs because of the "War on Drugs". We now even have private prisons, so putting people in jail can be profitable to a small number of shareholders. Many of the people in prison are there for drug related crimes. This also serves the side benefit of locking up unskilled members of the labor population who might otherwise make trouble. It helps decrease unemployment figures as well. Some prisons even have work programs to sell prison labor to private corporations at a cheap price. All of this costs the American taxpayer big money, not to mention how unjust it is.
Anyone who has problems with their weight knows that the issue might be more complex than that, especially considering that the rate of Type 2 diabetes and obesity has skyrocketed over the last 30 years. People certainly haven't become any lazier than they used to be. The rate of exercise, if anything, has increased over the last 30 years. Suburbs and automobiles have been around long before 1980. What has been the difference? Perhaps it could be not how much we are eating, nor how much we are exercising, but instead what we are eating.
Ever since the 1970's, the government has stressed that we eat 6-11 servings of carbs per day and limit our intake of fat, particularly saturated fat. We were encouraged to eat margarine and other trans fats. Even McDonald's switched their fry oil from beef tallow to trans fat, all in hopes of being "heart smart." Now we know that trans fats essentially harden your arteries and are lethal. We would have been better off eating the beef tallow. In fact, study after study, including the Framingham Heart study, has shown that saturated fat, so long as not consumed with excessive carbs or sugar, is not harmful.
Ten years ago I was a study hall monitor at a suburban middle school. I was shocked at how fat the kids were. Usually middle school children are very lean. When I was a middle school child in the early 1990s, obesity was not very common. After all, middle school kids are growing rapidly. Kids at this age aren't supposed to be fat until they get older, right? Wrong. And the cause was pretty obvious. The school lunch program was part of the problem. During study hall and throughout the day, the kids would purchase processed snacks filled with sugar. They drank huge amounts of pop (soda), ate candy bars, and munched on potato chips. At lunch, they filled up on pizza, cheeseburgers, and french fries. I asked the principal why the lunch program didn't offer healthy choices.
"Kids don't buy healthy food. We lost money when we tried that. Now we break even or make money."
So apparently it's all about economics.
It's not surprising that middle school kids don't like the taste of healthier food compared to unhealthy food. That is natural. But then we shouldn't be surprised why kids are fat and have health problems, either.
Some of the increase in obesity has to do with economics. Prior to the Nixon administration, the price of grain as a commodity would shift rapidly. This fluctuation in prices caused instability in food prices. Politically, this was problematic. Nixon instructed his Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, to stabilize grain prices. Butz reformed the New Deal program of paying farmers not to plant corn. Instead, he encouraged farmers to go big and plant as much as possible. Corn subsidies from the government meant the price of corn would remain stable and abundant. The food industry found a thousand and one uses for corn, including the creation of high fructose corn syrup. Soon, high fructose corn syrup found itself in everything because it was so cheap. This had the effect of greatly increasing the amount of sugar and carbs that people would eat.
While the decrease in food prices was a benefit to the poor, it also had health implications. The revised food pyramid encouraged by the government was happily encouraging the massive consumption of carbs and considered sugar innocuous. The low fat, high carb diet, subsidized by the government and embraced by the food industry and by doctors, had serious metabolic implications. The conventional wisdom was that if you feasted on low fat snacks, you were being heart healthy. It kind of reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and Elaine were enjoying their low fat yogurt without guilt, only to find that they were getting fatter and fatter.
Eating carbohydrates turns to sugar in the blood. The body must then make insulin to regulate the blood sugar. Too much carbohydrate and sugar eventually wears down the body and leads to insulin resistance, which can turn to diabetes. It also leads to weight gain and obesity. Diabetes frequently leads to heart damage and other health problems if uncontrolled. Insulin is also a fat storing hormone. A perfect guinea pig to show this process is a person with juvenile diabetes. Type 1 diabetics (juvenile diabetics) do not make their own insulin. So when they eat sugar or carbohydrates, their blood sugar goes very high. The body cannot utilize the energy so it passes into the urine. Even though a person with juvenile diabetes has high blood sugar, his or her body cannot use the energy stored in the sugar without insulin. The person is literally starving to death. He or she will lose weight rapidly. He or she is also very thirsty. Without insulin, death is not far behind. In fact, there are some teenage girls with juvenile diabetes who intentionally don't take their insulin to control their weight. It is dangerous, but it is done.
When juvenile diabetics begin insulin therapy, they gain weight. The more carbs and sugar they eat, the more insulin they need, and the more weight they gain. Insulin is the key factor. The same goes for non diabetics. The more carbs and sugar one eats, the more insulin the body makes, the more weight that is gained. This also explains my fat middle school children. They were drinking soda pop like it was going out of style. I saw kids drinking 3-5 cans of Pepsi and Coke a day.
We are also witnessing an epidemic of fat babies. Why? Is it because they are eating too much and exercising too little? Is it because they aren't going to the gym enough? It could be because during pregnancy, their mothers were eating lots of carbs, which meant higher blood sugar, and more insulin. This is passed onto the baby, priming the baby's little metabolism to be big. Another perfect example of this is the babies of juvenile diabetics. Frequently mothers who are juvenile diabetics must be induced early because their babies are huge. This is caused because of high blood sugars and excessive insulin during pregnancy. The baby grows so large it is dangerous for it to be carried to full term.
Some of this also has international implications. Consider the "War on Drugs." As a country, we waste billions of dollars fighting drug producers in Columbia, Mexico, and here in America. But why do farmers in Columbia, Mexico, and other countries grow drugs? The answer is simple--they have to. Because of NAFTA and so called "free trade", they certainly can't compete with the subsidized American grain farmers. It is impossible. When given the choice between starvation or growing drugs, they take their chances. The American government doesn't care at all about whether people use drugs or not. The real purpose of the drug war is economics. As a nation, the United States has more prisons than any other Western nation. The cost of running these prisons is astronomical. But it is also big business. Consider the number of lawyers, judges, federal drug enforcement agents, bureaucrats, prison guards, food-service-to-prison companies, police officers, and others who have jobs because of the "War on Drugs". We now even have private prisons, so putting people in jail can be profitable to a small number of shareholders. Many of the people in prison are there for drug related crimes. This also serves the side benefit of locking up unskilled members of the labor population who might otherwise make trouble. It helps decrease unemployment figures as well. Some prisons even have work programs to sell prison labor to private corporations at a cheap price. All of this costs the American taxpayer big money, not to mention how unjust it is.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Patriotism vs Nationalism
The difference between patriotism vs nationalism is the like the difference between love and obsession. One is balanced, healthy, subtle, rich and complex. The other is unhealthy, out of harmony, and misguided by raw emotionalism. It is driven by fear and insecurity.
Patriotism, according the Webster's dictionary, is a "love that people feel for their country."
Nationalism, on the other hand, is "a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries."
Unfortunately, what is commonly a form of unhealthy ethnocentrism and aggressive nationalism is called "patriotism" in America. Somehow, the term has been co-opted by the Right. Therefore, if you don't support aggressive Bush doctrine wars, you aren't "patriotic."
True patriotism means understanding the American legal system and it's government. It means using one's freedom of the press and freedom of speech to become informed about important societal issues. It means being civically engaged, such as participating in protests, voting, working at the polls, and running for public office. It means being actively engaged in public life and service. To me, the Occupy Wall Street Movement is as patriotic as it gets. By embracing nonviolent, peaceful demonstration, democracy is embraced and nurtured. Elected representatives are pressured to engage the will of the people, not just those who fund their electoral campaigns. That's why during the 1960's America was much more democratic than any other time in its past. This was a revival of consciousness and true patriotism. It was this spirit that led to real progress for civil rights for all.
Bob Dylan and his peaceful songs of protest are infinitely more patriotic to me than the nationalistic songs such as "Over there", which was manufactured as propaganda to encourage working class Americans during WWI to fight in a war that only profited robber barons. Contrary to the song, Johnny would have been better off not having gotten his gun. Another patriotic classic is Credence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son."
Any time the political elites beat the drums of war, such as is happening now with Iran, and discourage people from making a fuss or thinking for themselves, this is nationalism at work, not patriotism. True patriots are those who refuse to sit idly by while politicians aggressively pursue another war.
It seems that for the United States, much like ancient Rome, war becomes a permanent state. The economic benefits of war are too seductive. After all, the weapons industry, financial speculators, and large corporations see war as a means of modern day colonialism. Wipe out the government, destroy the infrastructure of the country, and then you can get lucrative governmental contracts (like Halliburton in Iraq) to rebuild the country. Your large corporations can dominate the opened up markets. Who cares what happens to the inhabitants of the country. That isn't even a consideration. After all, we know what's best for them. Just don't oppose the war if we invade, because then you aren't "supporting the troops." That, in this nationalistic age, is basically the equivalent of treason. To truly support those in the armed services, perhaps one should consider whether their lives are being risked unnecessarily. That is the best way to" support the troops."
I consider myself a patriot, not a nationalist.
Patriotism, according the Webster's dictionary, is a "love that people feel for their country."
Nationalism, on the other hand, is "a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries."
Unfortunately, what is commonly a form of unhealthy ethnocentrism and aggressive nationalism is called "patriotism" in America. Somehow, the term has been co-opted by the Right. Therefore, if you don't support aggressive Bush doctrine wars, you aren't "patriotic."
True patriotism means understanding the American legal system and it's government. It means using one's freedom of the press and freedom of speech to become informed about important societal issues. It means being civically engaged, such as participating in protests, voting, working at the polls, and running for public office. It means being actively engaged in public life and service. To me, the Occupy Wall Street Movement is as patriotic as it gets. By embracing nonviolent, peaceful demonstration, democracy is embraced and nurtured. Elected representatives are pressured to engage the will of the people, not just those who fund their electoral campaigns. That's why during the 1960's America was much more democratic than any other time in its past. This was a revival of consciousness and true patriotism. It was this spirit that led to real progress for civil rights for all.
Bob Dylan and his peaceful songs of protest are infinitely more patriotic to me than the nationalistic songs such as "Over there", which was manufactured as propaganda to encourage working class Americans during WWI to fight in a war that only profited robber barons. Contrary to the song, Johnny would have been better off not having gotten his gun. Another patriotic classic is Credence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Son."
Any time the political elites beat the drums of war, such as is happening now with Iran, and discourage people from making a fuss or thinking for themselves, this is nationalism at work, not patriotism. True patriots are those who refuse to sit idly by while politicians aggressively pursue another war.
It seems that for the United States, much like ancient Rome, war becomes a permanent state. The economic benefits of war are too seductive. After all, the weapons industry, financial speculators, and large corporations see war as a means of modern day colonialism. Wipe out the government, destroy the infrastructure of the country, and then you can get lucrative governmental contracts (like Halliburton in Iraq) to rebuild the country. Your large corporations can dominate the opened up markets. Who cares what happens to the inhabitants of the country. That isn't even a consideration. After all, we know what's best for them. Just don't oppose the war if we invade, because then you aren't "supporting the troops." That, in this nationalistic age, is basically the equivalent of treason. To truly support those in the armed services, perhaps one should consider whether their lives are being risked unnecessarily. That is the best way to" support the troops."
I consider myself a patriot, not a nationalist.
War With Iran?
A review of the newspaper headlines is incredibly troubling. Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency's recent inspection and the follow up inspection planned for the end of February, and despite there being no objective proof that Iran is anywhere close to having nuclear weapons, Israel is putting out propaganda stating that Iran already has the ability to produce four nuclear weapons. It has consistently pushed for attacks on Iran and is becoming frustrated at the slow pace of American aggression under Obama. Apparently the current sanctions which are causing untold suffering to the Iranian people aren't enough.
As we speak, Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had a nuclear bomb, it wouldn't use them because doing so would be suicide. The consequence would be mutually assured destruction. The purpose of Iran having them would probably stabilize the region, not destabilize it because the balance of power in the region is now focused on Israel with its military might and nuclear weapons. The deterrent factor of Iran being able to defend itself would stabilize the region. But Israel doesn't want this because it likes being number 1.
A recent inquiry into the Republican candidates for president is telling. Sheldon Adelson, casino mogul and hard core Zionist, has given 10 million dollars to a Super PAC for Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has since taken a very hard line stance in support of Israel against everyone in the region. Mitt Romney's campaign has 15 of 22 former Bush administration advisors who supported the Iraq invasion in an attempt to privatize the crude oil market and set the floor for crude oil. Now they want another shot with Iran.
America cannot afford another war. War has already cost this country a fortune in blood and money. The deficit is out of control from unfunded foreign wars and enough people have died. Further, a war with Iran could lead to a full scale war throughout the Middle East. Unlike Iraq, Iran is more than willing to defend itself. Tired from the sanctions and indirect violence committed by the West, Iran would be no cake walk to dominate. It's amazing how Republicans say there is no money for Social Security, Medicare, to repair roads, or for public education, yet at the same time give billions of dollars in tax breaks to the rich and support never ending foreign wars. The money is burrowed from China to pay for these wars. Apparently there is money for the things they want, but no money to help the old, the sick, and the poor.
A war with Iraq would also have the effect of driving short term oil prices through the roof. Iran is a very oil rich country and a major supplier of crude oil. A war would interrupt this pattern and send gas prices soaring. While Big Oil and speculators may love this option, the real victims would be the average American worker, including truck drivers, rural commuters, and farmers. This would be just another incidence of the rich taking advantage of the poor.
As we speak, Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had a nuclear bomb, it wouldn't use them because doing so would be suicide. The consequence would be mutually assured destruction. The purpose of Iran having them would probably stabilize the region, not destabilize it because the balance of power in the region is now focused on Israel with its military might and nuclear weapons. The deterrent factor of Iran being able to defend itself would stabilize the region. But Israel doesn't want this because it likes being number 1.
A recent inquiry into the Republican candidates for president is telling. Sheldon Adelson, casino mogul and hard core Zionist, has given 10 million dollars to a Super PAC for Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has since taken a very hard line stance in support of Israel against everyone in the region. Mitt Romney's campaign has 15 of 22 former Bush administration advisors who supported the Iraq invasion in an attempt to privatize the crude oil market and set the floor for crude oil. Now they want another shot with Iran.
America cannot afford another war. War has already cost this country a fortune in blood and money. The deficit is out of control from unfunded foreign wars and enough people have died. Further, a war with Iran could lead to a full scale war throughout the Middle East. Unlike Iraq, Iran is more than willing to defend itself. Tired from the sanctions and indirect violence committed by the West, Iran would be no cake walk to dominate. It's amazing how Republicans say there is no money for Social Security, Medicare, to repair roads, or for public education, yet at the same time give billions of dollars in tax breaks to the rich and support never ending foreign wars. The money is burrowed from China to pay for these wars. Apparently there is money for the things they want, but no money to help the old, the sick, and the poor.
A war with Iraq would also have the effect of driving short term oil prices through the roof. Iran is a very oil rich country and a major supplier of crude oil. A war would interrupt this pattern and send gas prices soaring. While Big Oil and speculators may love this option, the real victims would be the average American worker, including truck drivers, rural commuters, and farmers. This would be just another incidence of the rich taking advantage of the poor.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
"I Work Hard, But You Are Lazy"!
Premise No. 1: "I work hard, but you, well, you are lazy."
This seems to be the reigning mantra for many people. Breaking down the phrase, I don't know what the hell it actually means. What is "working hard"? Do you have to suffer while working to make it hard work? What if you enjoy doing something--what makes it different from a hobby, which isn't even considered "work"? Is physical work harder work than mental work? Say you are a ditch digger. Before the backhoe, you had to dig the ditch with a hand shovel. This was physically exhausting, back-breaking work. Then the backhoe comes along. Now the digger spends his time moving foot and pedal levers while the machine does the muscle work. Does the digger still "work hard"? Does this mean he should get paid more or less? The same goes for mental work. Before the Internet, doing legal research was a pain in the ass. You had to go look up case law using books, which took a long time. Plus you had to manually check the validity of cases, which was a real burden. Now, lawyers can use the Internet to do extensive legal research much more quickly and efficiently. Does this mean that legal research was hard work before the Internet but is now not hard work? If it takes less time, does this mean the cost savings should be shifted to the client? An interesting and important question. I know in my own case, if something only takes me a brief amount of time, I only bill for the actual time spent, not more. This means the Internet saves me time (but costs me money). The client ends up the winner (which overall is a good thing). However, I still have to have the legal knowledge, the analytical ability, and the know-how to interpret the law. This part still requires law school training and legal experience, which deserves adequate reimbursement.
Premise No. 2: "I work hard, so I deserve my money. I earned it."
This is another challenging phrase. Mitt Romney recently claimed that he shouldn't be derided for making 20 million dollars per year. He said he "earned" his pay, and that he didn't inherit it or win it. We know ditch diggers, farm workers, teachers, and mostly everyone doesn't make 20 million dollars per year. By this standard, Mitt Romney must have worked millions of times harder than 99.9% of everyone else given his income. I find this hard to believe. No one works that much harder than others. So in America, the notion that "working hard" correlates to pay doesn't mean anything. The other argument is that maybe he added so much value to society through his work that he earned his 20 million dollars per year. If he invented something like the Internet, the computer, Taxol (chemotherapy), or the laser, we might agree he added so much value to society he is worth 20 million per year. Unfortunately, however, this isn't the case. In fact, all of the previously mentioned high technology items were invented by the government and then given to corporations to sell for a profit. If you don't believe me, look it up. Romney acquired his money by heading a financial investment firm that essentially downsized corporations and fired people to maximize income for shareholders. While helping the small proportion of stock holders in various corporations, the overall added value to our society is minimal compared to even your most modest garbageman, who serves the vital function of ensuring public health and safety are maintained by removing filthy, disease spreading trash.
Almost everyone thinks they work hard. Some also believe that while they work hard, other people are lazy. This is almost like Garrisson Keillor's Lake Wobegone, where everyone is above average. Statistically, it just cannot be true.
There is a tendency for some people who earn a great deal of money to believe they are making a bigger contribution than what they actually are. In our society, the notion of pay is supposedly based on supply and demand. If you have skills which are rare but in need, then you get paid more. Assuming this is the case, it doesn't mean you are adding more value to society. There are porn stars who make millions per year, but it doesn't mean they are bringing more value to society than a grade school teacher who teaches kids to read and write. The same goes for LeBron James. Ultimately his job really doesn't matter.
Pride is also a problem. There are people who have mental jobs which few people might be able to do. Some of these require an extensive education and the investment of years of work. This being the case, it makes sense that one should be compensated for this added investment. However, sometimes these workers are excessively prideful about their status. They must be mindful of contributing factors which had nothing to do with them. For example, some people are born into middle and upper class families that provide extra opportunities. Some are born with the genetics for intelligence. Some are taught self-discipline and have good parents. However, no one chooses these things. No one chooses to be born dumb, or born to poor or absent parents. These are things outside of our control. So even if one took advantages of opportunities and combined one's natural gifts with hard work, that person's success is not 100% their own.
Remembering this, one would think, would lead to a sense of humility. Yet there are some men who believe their penis's are cartoonishly enlarged. These folks need to learn humility. The same goes for elite athletes who make millions of dollars. Because despite how hard they work, ultimately what they do is a form of entertainment. They are not curing cancer or teaching children to read. They certainly aren't taking away the trash. The same goes for rappers, any of the Real Housewives of Whatever, and Rockefeller heirs.
The truth is that in America, how much money you have and how hard you work have little correlation. On average, a person born to average privilege in America has to do some work to financially survive. But the work that is done is rarely so valuable that the pay is directly tied to the benefit provided. And even if this is the case, there are external factors that lead to individual success which cannot be wholly attributed to that person's "hard work". Therefore, humility is in order. Maybe it's time to stop judging other people based on how lazy you perceive them to be. Maybe we should be thankful for what we have and not presumptuous about how great we are while everyone else sucks.
Maybe this also means not judging people who work their asses off as retail clerks, day laborers, and other positions but still need government assistance for food, medical care, and housing.
Jesus would have expected no less.
This seems to be the reigning mantra for many people. Breaking down the phrase, I don't know what the hell it actually means. What is "working hard"? Do you have to suffer while working to make it hard work? What if you enjoy doing something--what makes it different from a hobby, which isn't even considered "work"? Is physical work harder work than mental work? Say you are a ditch digger. Before the backhoe, you had to dig the ditch with a hand shovel. This was physically exhausting, back-breaking work. Then the backhoe comes along. Now the digger spends his time moving foot and pedal levers while the machine does the muscle work. Does the digger still "work hard"? Does this mean he should get paid more or less? The same goes for mental work. Before the Internet, doing legal research was a pain in the ass. You had to go look up case law using books, which took a long time. Plus you had to manually check the validity of cases, which was a real burden. Now, lawyers can use the Internet to do extensive legal research much more quickly and efficiently. Does this mean that legal research was hard work before the Internet but is now not hard work? If it takes less time, does this mean the cost savings should be shifted to the client? An interesting and important question. I know in my own case, if something only takes me a brief amount of time, I only bill for the actual time spent, not more. This means the Internet saves me time (but costs me money). The client ends up the winner (which overall is a good thing). However, I still have to have the legal knowledge, the analytical ability, and the know-how to interpret the law. This part still requires law school training and legal experience, which deserves adequate reimbursement.
Premise No. 2: "I work hard, so I deserve my money. I earned it."
This is another challenging phrase. Mitt Romney recently claimed that he shouldn't be derided for making 20 million dollars per year. He said he "earned" his pay, and that he didn't inherit it or win it. We know ditch diggers, farm workers, teachers, and mostly everyone doesn't make 20 million dollars per year. By this standard, Mitt Romney must have worked millions of times harder than 99.9% of everyone else given his income. I find this hard to believe. No one works that much harder than others. So in America, the notion that "working hard" correlates to pay doesn't mean anything. The other argument is that maybe he added so much value to society through his work that he earned his 20 million dollars per year. If he invented something like the Internet, the computer, Taxol (chemotherapy), or the laser, we might agree he added so much value to society he is worth 20 million per year. Unfortunately, however, this isn't the case. In fact, all of the previously mentioned high technology items were invented by the government and then given to corporations to sell for a profit. If you don't believe me, look it up. Romney acquired his money by heading a financial investment firm that essentially downsized corporations and fired people to maximize income for shareholders. While helping the small proportion of stock holders in various corporations, the overall added value to our society is minimal compared to even your most modest garbageman, who serves the vital function of ensuring public health and safety are maintained by removing filthy, disease spreading trash.
Almost everyone thinks they work hard. Some also believe that while they work hard, other people are lazy. This is almost like Garrisson Keillor's Lake Wobegone, where everyone is above average. Statistically, it just cannot be true.
There is a tendency for some people who earn a great deal of money to believe they are making a bigger contribution than what they actually are. In our society, the notion of pay is supposedly based on supply and demand. If you have skills which are rare but in need, then you get paid more. Assuming this is the case, it doesn't mean you are adding more value to society. There are porn stars who make millions per year, but it doesn't mean they are bringing more value to society than a grade school teacher who teaches kids to read and write. The same goes for LeBron James. Ultimately his job really doesn't matter.
Pride is also a problem. There are people who have mental jobs which few people might be able to do. Some of these require an extensive education and the investment of years of work. This being the case, it makes sense that one should be compensated for this added investment. However, sometimes these workers are excessively prideful about their status. They must be mindful of contributing factors which had nothing to do with them. For example, some people are born into middle and upper class families that provide extra opportunities. Some are born with the genetics for intelligence. Some are taught self-discipline and have good parents. However, no one chooses these things. No one chooses to be born dumb, or born to poor or absent parents. These are things outside of our control. So even if one took advantages of opportunities and combined one's natural gifts with hard work, that person's success is not 100% their own.
Remembering this, one would think, would lead to a sense of humility. Yet there are some men who believe their penis's are cartoonishly enlarged. These folks need to learn humility. The same goes for elite athletes who make millions of dollars. Because despite how hard they work, ultimately what they do is a form of entertainment. They are not curing cancer or teaching children to read. They certainly aren't taking away the trash. The same goes for rappers, any of the Real Housewives of Whatever, and Rockefeller heirs.
The truth is that in America, how much money you have and how hard you work have little correlation. On average, a person born to average privilege in America has to do some work to financially survive. But the work that is done is rarely so valuable that the pay is directly tied to the benefit provided. And even if this is the case, there are external factors that lead to individual success which cannot be wholly attributed to that person's "hard work". Therefore, humility is in order. Maybe it's time to stop judging other people based on how lazy you perceive them to be. Maybe we should be thankful for what we have and not presumptuous about how great we are while everyone else sucks.
Maybe this also means not judging people who work their asses off as retail clerks, day laborers, and other positions but still need government assistance for food, medical care, and housing.
Jesus would have expected no less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)