Republicans love to talk about "family values." "Talk" is the operative word. You never hear the end of it, how our culture is so permissive, how anti-Christian we are becoming, and how celebrities on film and television are promoting promiscuity and violence. Watching the Super Bowl, you get flipped off by MIA or get flashed by Janet Jackson. Watch the Grammy's and you see Nicki Minaj mocking Catholicism. Listen to rap and you get to hear some misogynistic filth.
None of this is new. Back in the 90's, we had the debate about unwed mothers with Dan Quayle. In the 70's, Richard Nixon talked about his moral Silent Majority. Each generation of Republican contender just has to parrot some language about decency, morality, and stopping the filth, and the Christians hop on board. But have the Republicans actually done anything to make morality better? Can they? Ronald Reagan played that game. The results of his presidency included dramatic cuts to health and safety regulations that led to sickness, injury, and death to thousands of people. His reduction of welfare programs and food stamp assistance led to hungry children just at the time he was busy breaking unions so those same parents didn't have jobs with benefits anymore. He did nothing to end abortion. Like many other things, he seemed to forget about that one. What he didn't forget about included funding repressive regimes and death squads in Central America, bombing various small countries, and tripling the budget deficit. He funded the groups who murdered Jesuit priests and nuns who taught compassion for the poor.
George W. Bush was even worse. When things were looking tough for his re-election campaign, he suddenly found it convenient to make the argument that the gay lobby was going to take over if he weren't re-elected. It was going to be a perpetual drag show, gay-pride parade if he weren't re-elected. After all, they did have Ellen and RuPaul. Of course it worked. Bush won handily. Abortion? Well, once again nothing was done about that. During his presidency, the conservativism won over the compassion part. Inequality skyrocketed, the housing and financial bubbles led to economic collapse, and the middle class was left with their life's savings (in their home values) eradicated. With high unemployment, the economy in a mess, and hundreds of thousands of mostly working class soldiers sent to Afghanistan and Iraq, I am unsure what is so pro-family values about that?
If you care about children and families, don't send soldiers off to war unless there is a damn good reason. Searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction is not one of them.
Now that it is election time, we are beginning to hear the same old tired chorus from the Republicans. Newt Gingrich has a hard time trying to sell family values because of his own, wretchedly adulterous past. Leaving a wife when she gets cancer for another woman is a rough sell. The most vicious and self-righteous of the bunch is Rick Santorum. His zone of compassion only extends to the unborn. If you happen to be born gay, sick, or poor, then his philosophy is "fuck you," you need tough love, which means going back in the closet, no governmental assistance for health care regardless of whether you are a sick child or not, and if you have a heart disease and don't have health insurance, then too bad for you. Also, his "family values" include, as he mentions, "bombing Iran tomorrow." So little Persian children, aka "collateral damage" also aren't part of his family values agenda.
It seems convenient that the Republicans are all up in arms about whether or not Catholic employers have the right to deny free contraceptive coverage within their health insurance benefit packages. Never mind the family values of those employees who aren't Catholic. Never mind the family values of making it affordable for people to plan the size of their families as to properly feed and clothe the children they already have. Never mind the providing of contraception for other health reasons, such as to balance out imbalanced hormones or to prevent birth when a serious genetic or inherited disease might result. Apparently these things don't count as "family values." And if the Catholic bishops want to have a hissy fit of moral indignation, where was that same indignation when their flock was being molested and raped by their own priests and they chose to cover up the scandal to save money on lawsuits? Unfortunately their moral authority has become very dubious given their behavior. Even more telling is their lack of outrage over the horrific Iraq war, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and thousands of American soldiers.
Regarding the filth in the mainstream media, this shouldn't be surprising. Filth sells. It is pure capitalism and greed that leads to outrageous behavior by greedy stars. Why do you think Howard Stern and his shock jock comrades have huge ratings? People love their filth. The same goes for television and movies. The more shocking, the more our Puritanical culture reacts, and the more is sold. It is unregulated capitalism that the Republicans favor which leads to this behavior. Parroting the values of decency while working to deregulate large corporations responsible for the filth doesn't solve anything. It makes the problem worse.
Actions speak louder than words. If you claim to be for family values but you promote economic programs that destroy the family for the benefit of large corporations, such as eliminating child labor laws, the right to collectively bargain to receive a living wage, food stamp programs, health care programs for the poor, preventing the dumping of cancer causing toxic waste into streams and rivers where children drink, and the like, then you are a hypocrite.
Actions speak louder than words. Let's not forget it.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Obladee, Oblada, WTF?
I have a confession to make. I don't like the Beatles. In fact, I think they stink. I've tried so hard to like them. Believe me. With all the hoopla around how revolutionary they were, and how they changed everything, I still can't for the life of me figure out what the hype was all about. I mean, I know I am supposed to like them. It's a part of being a modern American born after WWII. It's practically required. Rejecting them is like saying Faulkner was an idiot, or if you are from Medina, that Frank Bianchi wasn't the shit. It's heresy. (In all fairness to Frank Bianchi, I do think he is extremely talented, so please no hate mail on that one).
I can see how the Beatles may have had some kind of cool allure in the early 60's with their mod outfits. I thought Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band was a good album, but I don't think they deserve rock-god status. I've tried looking at their work holistically. I can't see it. Their songs just never resonated with me. I know it was about love and finding harmony with the world and all that, but how was that any different from the stuff by other artists of the time?
As far as individual artists, I think Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr were sort of lightweights. The best thing Ringo ever did was narrate the Thomas the Train Engine series. "I think I can, I think I can" was Ringo's finest cultural achievement. John Lennon on his own was fine, and of course George Harrison was talented. In fact, I always thought Sean Lennon, the youngest son of John, was always more talented than his father. His music has more depth. Sean is lucky to have taken after his father instead of his mother, Yoko, in the music department. Yoko's musical ventures have not been pretty.
Maybe you had to be alive at the time. Apparently with the Vietnam War going on and their opposition to it, and their hippy values, they sort of were in touch with the spirit of the age. Being born in 1976, this was long past my time. I don't think it's cultural, though, because I can listen to Bob Dylan and the lyrics give me chills. I see Dylan as being a musical genius. I listen to the music of Creedence Clearwater Revival and the Doors and I can appreciate how awesome the music of the Vietnamese War era was. I really think it was just the Beatles. To me, they were of the same caliber as the Monkees, who overall were a fun band but had as much impact as the New Kids on the Block or maybe Menudo.
Okay, I suppose I am a cultural troglodyte. Next thing you know, I'll be dissing Shakespeare and praising the Sarah Palin reading list, or claiming how I think Joe the Plumber is a deep thinker. I might even start giving away free Milton Friedman books. Watch out.
Of course maybe I'm not so far off. After all, there has to be an English professor somewhere who doesn't like Shakespeare, a musician who doesn't like Mozart, or an athlete who thinks Michael Jordan wasn't so great. If that's the case, I will stick to my guns and continue disliking the Beatles. If you want to play them, fine. I won't run away.
But if you start playing Ringo or Paul, I'm outta here.
I can see how the Beatles may have had some kind of cool allure in the early 60's with their mod outfits. I thought Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band was a good album, but I don't think they deserve rock-god status. I've tried looking at their work holistically. I can't see it. Their songs just never resonated with me. I know it was about love and finding harmony with the world and all that, but how was that any different from the stuff by other artists of the time?
As far as individual artists, I think Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr were sort of lightweights. The best thing Ringo ever did was narrate the Thomas the Train Engine series. "I think I can, I think I can" was Ringo's finest cultural achievement. John Lennon on his own was fine, and of course George Harrison was talented. In fact, I always thought Sean Lennon, the youngest son of John, was always more talented than his father. His music has more depth. Sean is lucky to have taken after his father instead of his mother, Yoko, in the music department. Yoko's musical ventures have not been pretty.
Maybe you had to be alive at the time. Apparently with the Vietnam War going on and their opposition to it, and their hippy values, they sort of were in touch with the spirit of the age. Being born in 1976, this was long past my time. I don't think it's cultural, though, because I can listen to Bob Dylan and the lyrics give me chills. I see Dylan as being a musical genius. I listen to the music of Creedence Clearwater Revival and the Doors and I can appreciate how awesome the music of the Vietnamese War era was. I really think it was just the Beatles. To me, they were of the same caliber as the Monkees, who overall were a fun band but had as much impact as the New Kids on the Block or maybe Menudo.
Okay, I suppose I am a cultural troglodyte. Next thing you know, I'll be dissing Shakespeare and praising the Sarah Palin reading list, or claiming how I think Joe the Plumber is a deep thinker. I might even start giving away free Milton Friedman books. Watch out.
Of course maybe I'm not so far off. After all, there has to be an English professor somewhere who doesn't like Shakespeare, a musician who doesn't like Mozart, or an athlete who thinks Michael Jordan wasn't so great. If that's the case, I will stick to my guns and continue disliking the Beatles. If you want to play them, fine. I won't run away.
But if you start playing Ringo or Paul, I'm outta here.
Unemployment--Good for The Fund Managers, Bad for You
To get some honest to God truth, read the business press. The following article, entitled "Fidelity, Vanguard, Pimco say inflation to be contained," really lays it out clearly for us.
What do we learn? Well, the masters of the universe, aka the mutual fund managers, are breathing a sigh of relief as thankfully, unemployment promises to remain high. Wages will remain nice and stagnant. This is good, they say, because this means the economy won't "overheat." "Overheat" is a code word for reduced unemployment. We wouldn't want that. Reduced unemployment is bad. It is even worse when wages increase, because this leads to inflation, which makes creditors, bondholders, and others who hold large monetary assets lose money. Essentially, their investments are worth less.
These also happen to be the folks who contribute huge amounts of money to electoral campaigns and super PACs to help ensure that unemployment remains high and wages remain stagnant. Why do you think politicians are more worried about the national debt? All of this is a smokescreen to avoid solving the real problem of unemployment. Why do you think wages are being frozen for federal employees? Why do you suppose the Republicans are against any and all jobs bills that Obama proposes?
From the perspective of your average worker, the economy sucks. From the perspective of fund managers, things are stellar. Just read the business press. They are breathing a sigh of relief that people will remain unemployed.
This isn't surprising. These fund managers are legally obliged as fiduciaries to maximize short term profits. If they don't, they get fired. This is just how the system works. It's nothing personal. If you own mutual funds, this is also good for you, but not if you have a 401(k) through your employer who decides to downsize your job and outsource the work to India.
Now if you live on mutual fund income, like Mitt Romney, then you aren't going to be too worried. The problem is that this is short term thinking. In the long run, as the greater share of people in this country become destitute and hopeless, they are also going to become restless. This means more civil unrest and protests, kind of like the ones we see with the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street Movement. If things get bad enough, we could see riots like we saw in the 1960's. Protests are good for democracy. Riots are bad for everyone.
Unfortunately for the mutual fund managers, we are all in this together. What you do affects me, and vice versa. If you work to keep me unemployed, I'm not going to be able to buy your products, which in the end is bad for you. If you deny someone preventative health care to save a few bucks, you end up paying much, much more when you treat a serious illness. You can deny the diabetic test strips to save money now, but when they go on dialysis, your tax dollars are footing the huge bill.
"Penny wise and pound foolish are we," says Yoda.
What do we learn? Well, the masters of the universe, aka the mutual fund managers, are breathing a sigh of relief as thankfully, unemployment promises to remain high. Wages will remain nice and stagnant. This is good, they say, because this means the economy won't "overheat." "Overheat" is a code word for reduced unemployment. We wouldn't want that. Reduced unemployment is bad. It is even worse when wages increase, because this leads to inflation, which makes creditors, bondholders, and others who hold large monetary assets lose money. Essentially, their investments are worth less.
These also happen to be the folks who contribute huge amounts of money to electoral campaigns and super PACs to help ensure that unemployment remains high and wages remain stagnant. Why do you think politicians are more worried about the national debt? All of this is a smokescreen to avoid solving the real problem of unemployment. Why do you think wages are being frozen for federal employees? Why do you suppose the Republicans are against any and all jobs bills that Obama proposes?
From the perspective of your average worker, the economy sucks. From the perspective of fund managers, things are stellar. Just read the business press. They are breathing a sigh of relief that people will remain unemployed.
This isn't surprising. These fund managers are legally obliged as fiduciaries to maximize short term profits. If they don't, they get fired. This is just how the system works. It's nothing personal. If you own mutual funds, this is also good for you, but not if you have a 401(k) through your employer who decides to downsize your job and outsource the work to India.
Now if you live on mutual fund income, like Mitt Romney, then you aren't going to be too worried. The problem is that this is short term thinking. In the long run, as the greater share of people in this country become destitute and hopeless, they are also going to become restless. This means more civil unrest and protests, kind of like the ones we see with the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street Movement. If things get bad enough, we could see riots like we saw in the 1960's. Protests are good for democracy. Riots are bad for everyone.
Unfortunately for the mutual fund managers, we are all in this together. What you do affects me, and vice versa. If you work to keep me unemployed, I'm not going to be able to buy your products, which in the end is bad for you. If you deny someone preventative health care to save a few bucks, you end up paying much, much more when you treat a serious illness. You can deny the diabetic test strips to save money now, but when they go on dialysis, your tax dollars are footing the huge bill.
"Penny wise and pound foolish are we," says Yoda.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Don't Expect Me to Intimately Know Your Beverages
I dined at a very upscale restaurant a few days ago. This not having been my first time getting cleaned up, I was very conscious about minding my table manners. Using the right fork--check. Not sipping loudly through my straw--check. Napkin placed on my lap--check.
Then I was stopped dead in my tracks by a curve ball.
"What sort of pop do you have?" I asked, hoping Diet Dr. Pepper was available.
"We have Coke products," said the waitress.
Hold on there, tiger. "We have Coke products?" What the hell does that mean? I didn't know quite how to reply, especially since she didn't say anything after that. She just expected me to know. Am I the only one in the world who doesn't know the particularities of what the Coca Cola company makes versus the Pepsi Cola company? If I asked for a Coke, that would be another matter. But saying "We have Coke products" is like me asking for a Saab and a car salesman saying they have Ford products.
"I don't know what that means," I said to the waitress.
I really wasn't trying to be a dick, honest.
Then she went down the line of her pop selection. I was looking for this answer from the beginning. The ultimate answer came out to be, "No, damnit, there is no Diet Dr. Pepper."
I asked my friends whether they knew the answer to this pressing issue. Much to my surprise, they knew. For the love of God how, I have no idea. How can it be that I am the only person in the world who doesn't know these things? After all, I am a reasonably educated and worldly guy. I am 35 years old. I wasn't born yesterday. How could this be something utterly beyond me? I know that the speed of light is 186,000,282.4 miles per second. I know E=mc2. I know the date of Columbus discovering America, 1492. But I don't know who makes what sort of pop?
Maybe it's because I'm not a dedicated enough pop drinker. I don't usually make use of vending machines because they are overpriced. When I buy pop from Wal Mart, I usually buy the generic stuff because it is cheaper and tastes more or less the same. But even if I were buying named brand pop, how would I come to learn who makes what? Is this detail something written on the packaging? If yes, I've never seen it. Most of the pop I drink is too busy telling you how the saccharin or aspartame in it is going to give your pet rats cancer. Once you read that, it's hard to become interested in the details of whether Pepsi makes Mountain Dew or not.
I could look up this information on the Internet, but somehow I am content in my ignorance. The bottom line is that I don't care enough to learn the information. In a complex and busy world, trying to keep up, all I expect is for my waitress to just plod ahead and humor my dumb ass and tell me whether they have Diet Dr. Pepper or Mountain Dew.
Or maybe next time I'll just ask for a Diet Pepsi. Britney Spears drinks it, so it must be the right choice, right? I think it is the choice of the new generation, whatever that means.
Then I was stopped dead in my tracks by a curve ball.
"What sort of pop do you have?" I asked, hoping Diet Dr. Pepper was available.
"We have Coke products," said the waitress.
Hold on there, tiger. "We have Coke products?" What the hell does that mean? I didn't know quite how to reply, especially since she didn't say anything after that. She just expected me to know. Am I the only one in the world who doesn't know the particularities of what the Coca Cola company makes versus the Pepsi Cola company? If I asked for a Coke, that would be another matter. But saying "We have Coke products" is like me asking for a Saab and a car salesman saying they have Ford products.
"I don't know what that means," I said to the waitress.
I really wasn't trying to be a dick, honest.
Then she went down the line of her pop selection. I was looking for this answer from the beginning. The ultimate answer came out to be, "No, damnit, there is no Diet Dr. Pepper."
I asked my friends whether they knew the answer to this pressing issue. Much to my surprise, they knew. For the love of God how, I have no idea. How can it be that I am the only person in the world who doesn't know these things? After all, I am a reasonably educated and worldly guy. I am 35 years old. I wasn't born yesterday. How could this be something utterly beyond me? I know that the speed of light is 186,000,282.4 miles per second. I know E=mc2. I know the date of Columbus discovering America, 1492. But I don't know who makes what sort of pop?
Maybe it's because I'm not a dedicated enough pop drinker. I don't usually make use of vending machines because they are overpriced. When I buy pop from Wal Mart, I usually buy the generic stuff because it is cheaper and tastes more or less the same. But even if I were buying named brand pop, how would I come to learn who makes what? Is this detail something written on the packaging? If yes, I've never seen it. Most of the pop I drink is too busy telling you how the saccharin or aspartame in it is going to give your pet rats cancer. Once you read that, it's hard to become interested in the details of whether Pepsi makes Mountain Dew or not.
I could look up this information on the Internet, but somehow I am content in my ignorance. The bottom line is that I don't care enough to learn the information. In a complex and busy world, trying to keep up, all I expect is for my waitress to just plod ahead and humor my dumb ass and tell me whether they have Diet Dr. Pepper or Mountain Dew.
Or maybe next time I'll just ask for a Diet Pepsi. Britney Spears drinks it, so it must be the right choice, right? I think it is the choice of the new generation, whatever that means.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Why The Economy Isn't Getting Better
Naively, people keep thinking that the current economic downturn for the middle class will rebound and our prior glories will be restored. If only we vote for the right mainstream candidate, we are told, then everything will get better. Or maybe we should just wait it out. Nonsense. A better question is, why should the economy improve? There is nothing leading the economy in that direction. The masters of the universe--the heads of giant corporations and their purchased politicians have no interest in improving the economy in any kind of real way because it would cost them money and cut into their profits.
The state of the economy improves the lives of the middle class when it is producing real value. After World War II, the economy was based upon industrial manufacturing. America actually made things. It took labor and capital, mixed them together, and produced something of additional value. Over the last thirty years, corporations and management have worked with politicians to de-industrialize America. Manufacturing was abandoned and rebuilt in China, Mexico, India, and other Third World nations. The middle class lost their jobs. Union activity was crushed. These changes reduced labor costs for corporations and brought great wealth to their shareholders. The problem is that most Americans aren't shareholders. Most Americans were middle and working class folks who used to earn their money working in factories. With no money to spend and no new jobs, demand for products and services plummeted.
It used to be that the best and brightest mathematicians and physicists were recruited to work for NASA and high tech industries building things like computers, lasers, and the Internet. Now Wall Street recruits these folks to use mathematics and game theory to invent new ways to game financial markets to get, but not make, money. Nothing of value is actually created. It becomes a way to game the system. The housing bubble and meltdown of 2008 is a perfect example. The financial industry created credit default swaps and derivatives. Unconcerned because they knew the government would bail them out, the top banks and lending institutions took excessive risks and crashed the financial system. In the end, the housing bubble created no new value. It was a speculator's game.
For the last thirty years, the so called "improvement" in the economy was all a fiction, not a reality. One bubble after another, nothing based on the creation of real value. First was the dot com bubble, which imploded, then the housing bubble, which also imploded. All during this time, the factories were being closed. No new, real jobs were created. America is becoming a nation of fast food workers.
To help make things even worse, taxes for the rich were cut and basic services were slashed. The infrastructure of America--it's schools, roads, bridges, and the like are falling apart. Local police and fire departments are facing budget crises. Assistance to the poor to help for home heating and to feed hungry children were reduced and eliminated. Welfare reform, under the guise of punishing the "lazy", actually served to destroy wages for the bottom half of the market because the supply of workers then outstripped the demand for low skill, low wage jobs. This served to make everyone poorer.
Tax cuts, combined with two unfunded wars, led to massive budget deficits. As we speak, Social Security is being de-funded through a cut in the payroll tax. This will later mean that seniors and the disabled will have nothing to survive on when they most need it. The rich will push for Social Security to be privatized, risking the economic security for those most in need. New stock market bubbles will implode and leave people hungry and homeless.
America is now a country that doesn't make things. It manipulates markets by playing shell games and creating bubbles that burst every few years. China is growing at 10% each year. The standard of living is increasing rapidly in China. Ironically, we hear all the time about how communism doesn't work, and that capitalism is the answer to all of our problems. First of all, the U.S. is not a capitalist country. It cannot be capitalist when it provides socialist style bailouts to banks which are so large they are like monopolies and trusts. America cannot be capitalist when it insures the existence of banks which would fail without government welfare. China, the supposedly communist country, carefully plans its economy and encourages growth by subsidizing upcoming industries like solar power and high tech manufacturing. The bottom line is that China is creating real value, and that will be a threat to America eventually. The problem is that American corporations--the masters of the universe--cannot do anything but invest in short term strategies. If you are the CEO of a large corporation and you don't outperform each quarter, you are fired and replaced by someone who will. Shareholders don't have patience for long term investment anymore.
If America really cared about the free market and capitalism, it would not have bailed out the big banks. It would have let those who couldn't cut it fail. The market was never given the chance to correct itself. In America, capitalism is like tough love--it's only for Main Street, never Wall Street. Tough love is also for the poor, who must learn to live without luxuries like food, medical care, and heating. This builds character. But Wall Street speculators are given bonuses of a million dollars subsidized by public tax money. This is American "capitalism" at its best.
There are solutions to the problems. We could immediately increase taxes on the rich, use the money to hire people to repair America's crumbling infrastructure, fund schools so our children have the knowledge to work in a high tech and advanced economy, and balance the budget. We could create a single payer health care system that is more efficient, involves less fraud and abuse, and one that rewards health outcomes instead of paying for more and more medical procedures which are unneeded. This would also help American business be more productive compared to all the other industrialized nations which provide health care for all at half the cost of the American system with superior health outcomes. Right now, we are 39th in the world on health care outcomes.
The problems can be solved, but they won't be because America's election system is hopelessly corrupt. We need a constitutional amendment calling for the end of private money in politics, even if this means restricting free speech rights. The corrupting influence of big money has destroyed American democracy. This is something that both the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Tea Party can both agree on. Change can only come from the bottom up. Relying on a political hero who preaches hope and change and doesn't do anything, or relying on an empty suit with plastic hair, isn't the solution.
We the people, we are the answer.
The state of the economy improves the lives of the middle class when it is producing real value. After World War II, the economy was based upon industrial manufacturing. America actually made things. It took labor and capital, mixed them together, and produced something of additional value. Over the last thirty years, corporations and management have worked with politicians to de-industrialize America. Manufacturing was abandoned and rebuilt in China, Mexico, India, and other Third World nations. The middle class lost their jobs. Union activity was crushed. These changes reduced labor costs for corporations and brought great wealth to their shareholders. The problem is that most Americans aren't shareholders. Most Americans were middle and working class folks who used to earn their money working in factories. With no money to spend and no new jobs, demand for products and services plummeted.
It used to be that the best and brightest mathematicians and physicists were recruited to work for NASA and high tech industries building things like computers, lasers, and the Internet. Now Wall Street recruits these folks to use mathematics and game theory to invent new ways to game financial markets to get, but not make, money. Nothing of value is actually created. It becomes a way to game the system. The housing bubble and meltdown of 2008 is a perfect example. The financial industry created credit default swaps and derivatives. Unconcerned because they knew the government would bail them out, the top banks and lending institutions took excessive risks and crashed the financial system. In the end, the housing bubble created no new value. It was a speculator's game.
For the last thirty years, the so called "improvement" in the economy was all a fiction, not a reality. One bubble after another, nothing based on the creation of real value. First was the dot com bubble, which imploded, then the housing bubble, which also imploded. All during this time, the factories were being closed. No new, real jobs were created. America is becoming a nation of fast food workers.
To help make things even worse, taxes for the rich were cut and basic services were slashed. The infrastructure of America--it's schools, roads, bridges, and the like are falling apart. Local police and fire departments are facing budget crises. Assistance to the poor to help for home heating and to feed hungry children were reduced and eliminated. Welfare reform, under the guise of punishing the "lazy", actually served to destroy wages for the bottom half of the market because the supply of workers then outstripped the demand for low skill, low wage jobs. This served to make everyone poorer.
Tax cuts, combined with two unfunded wars, led to massive budget deficits. As we speak, Social Security is being de-funded through a cut in the payroll tax. This will later mean that seniors and the disabled will have nothing to survive on when they most need it. The rich will push for Social Security to be privatized, risking the economic security for those most in need. New stock market bubbles will implode and leave people hungry and homeless.
America is now a country that doesn't make things. It manipulates markets by playing shell games and creating bubbles that burst every few years. China is growing at 10% each year. The standard of living is increasing rapidly in China. Ironically, we hear all the time about how communism doesn't work, and that capitalism is the answer to all of our problems. First of all, the U.S. is not a capitalist country. It cannot be capitalist when it provides socialist style bailouts to banks which are so large they are like monopolies and trusts. America cannot be capitalist when it insures the existence of banks which would fail without government welfare. China, the supposedly communist country, carefully plans its economy and encourages growth by subsidizing upcoming industries like solar power and high tech manufacturing. The bottom line is that China is creating real value, and that will be a threat to America eventually. The problem is that American corporations--the masters of the universe--cannot do anything but invest in short term strategies. If you are the CEO of a large corporation and you don't outperform each quarter, you are fired and replaced by someone who will. Shareholders don't have patience for long term investment anymore.
If America really cared about the free market and capitalism, it would not have bailed out the big banks. It would have let those who couldn't cut it fail. The market was never given the chance to correct itself. In America, capitalism is like tough love--it's only for Main Street, never Wall Street. Tough love is also for the poor, who must learn to live without luxuries like food, medical care, and heating. This builds character. But Wall Street speculators are given bonuses of a million dollars subsidized by public tax money. This is American "capitalism" at its best.
There are solutions to the problems. We could immediately increase taxes on the rich, use the money to hire people to repair America's crumbling infrastructure, fund schools so our children have the knowledge to work in a high tech and advanced economy, and balance the budget. We could create a single payer health care system that is more efficient, involves less fraud and abuse, and one that rewards health outcomes instead of paying for more and more medical procedures which are unneeded. This would also help American business be more productive compared to all the other industrialized nations which provide health care for all at half the cost of the American system with superior health outcomes. Right now, we are 39th in the world on health care outcomes.
The problems can be solved, but they won't be because America's election system is hopelessly corrupt. We need a constitutional amendment calling for the end of private money in politics, even if this means restricting free speech rights. The corrupting influence of big money has destroyed American democracy. This is something that both the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Tea Party can both agree on. Change can only come from the bottom up. Relying on a political hero who preaches hope and change and doesn't do anything, or relying on an empty suit with plastic hair, isn't the solution.
We the people, we are the answer.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
A Repost Worthy of A Good Read
this post was originally from http://ironlabyrinth.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html from the blogger minotaur
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2005
Sugar is Evil
Most of the calories we consume can be attributed to one of the catagories in the set of Protein, Fat, and Carbohydrate. Protein is everyone's friend. It provides all those nice amino acids which your body uses to build more you. Eat your proteins and enjoy clear skin, strong muscles, and shiny hair. Hooray. Fat gets a bad rap. Fat is a great way to store energy, high fat foods can be excellent sources of oil soluable vitamins like A, E, and D, and high fat foods can help promote high-density cholesterol. While not every high fat food is good for you, there are many healthful foods which are very high in fat and can be included in a heathy diet.
This brings me to the last catagory: Carbohydrates. The set of compunds which are called "Carbohydrates" includes what are known as trisaccharides. Trisaccharides include cellulose and starch. These compunds provide energy to those animals capable of digesting them. Since humans and other monkeys can't digest cellulose, it really only acts as a transport agent by helping the body to push food from one end of the digestive tract to the other. There are lots of good foods which are high in both cellulose and starch and since the body does need a very small amount of them, they are a necessary evil.
This brings me to the unneccessary evils: mono and di-saccharides: glucose, fructose, galactose, sucrose, maltose, and lactose... These are the enemy. Your body doesn't really need you to consume them directly but for some reason people not only want to suck down all the high sugar foods that they can, they fill their kids up with it. It's not good for you and it never was. Moreover making heathful choices is made difficult by modern marketing: sugar is everywhere. You have to stay VERY vigilent in order to avoid it.
This Thanksgiving, do your body a favor. Enjoy all the turkey, ham, or tofu that you want, have a second helping of mashed potatoes, rice, or stuffing if you like, and say no to any dish described as a "pie", "cake", "cobbler", or "crisp". Your body will thank you.
This brings me to the last catagory: Carbohydrates. The set of compunds which are called "Carbohydrates" includes what are known as trisaccharides. Trisaccharides include cellulose and starch. These compunds provide energy to those animals capable of digesting them. Since humans and other monkeys can't digest cellulose, it really only acts as a transport agent by helping the body to push food from one end of the digestive tract to the other. There are lots of good foods which are high in both cellulose and starch and since the body does need a very small amount of them, they are a necessary evil.
This brings me to the unneccessary evils: mono and di-saccharides: glucose, fructose, galactose, sucrose, maltose, and lactose... These are the enemy. Your body doesn't really need you to consume them directly but for some reason people not only want to suck down all the high sugar foods that they can, they fill their kids up with it. It's not good for you and it never was. Moreover making heathful choices is made difficult by modern marketing: sugar is everywhere. You have to stay VERY vigilent in order to avoid it.
This Thanksgiving, do your body a favor. Enjoy all the turkey, ham, or tofu that you want, have a second helping of mashed potatoes, rice, or stuffing if you like, and say no to any dish described as a "pie", "cake", "cobbler", or "crisp". Your body will thank you.
Why Poor People Tend To Be More Overweight
In American society, the most overweight people also tend to be the poorest. Why is that? You would assume that the poorest people would be the thinnest. If you believe in the "calorie in, calorie out" hypothesis, then this should be the outcome. However, this simply isn't the case. As Gary Taubes points out in his book "Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It", there are many cases where poor women tend to be fat while their children are malnourished. Does this mean the women are hoarding all the food for themselves and letting their children starve? Hardly. In fact, it is all about nutrition. It has to do with the women eating government subsidized foods heavy in sugar and carbohydrate which causes them to gain weight, but causes malnourishment in their children because these types of food lack essential vitamins and minerals to help them thrive. Take, for example, the Pima Indians. The Pima diet was traditionally heavy in fresh vegetables, little processed wheat, no sugar, and a moderate amount of meat. The Pima, under their traditional diet, remained lean. Enter the introduction of government subsidized wheat and sugar as part of their food allotments. The consumption of highly refined carbohydrates and sugars increased dramatically due to the lower cost of these foods. Next thing you know, the population gains a tremendous amount of weight, particularly the women. There also happens to be an epidemic of adult onset diabetes and obesity among the Pima as well.
The U.S. government heavily subsidizes the corn industry. Corn and grain products are so abundant it is unbelievable. Because the ingredients are cheap, the food industry has managed to produce a huge amount of artificial, fake foods which are delicious tasting, filling, and cheap. The profit margin on a bag of cheesy poofs, potato chips, and the like is huge. Breakfast cereal is a perfect example. Take some grain, process it, toss in a bunch of sugar to make it tasty, and then make a colorful box that gets the attention of children. Put it on the shelf at just the right level so the kids see it. Make a cartoon character like the Lucky Charms leprechaun or Tony the Tiger who make the cereal seem fun. Or, even better, put Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan on the box and you have a financial winner!
Shopping at any grocery store is eye opening. The most inexpensive foods are the ones with the most sugar and the most carbs. 60% of the grocery store center section is filled with candy, processed foods like instant mash potatoes, snacks, factory made bread, and pop (soda). You have to go all the way through the store to get to the most nutritious foods, such as the dairy and the meat section. This is all about money. Then go through the checkout line. You aren't going to find refrigerators filled with meat or vegetables. The profit margin isn't large enough for those. No, you will find chocolate bars, cold pop (soda), and candy. This is the store's last chance to make some money, the junk food sitting next to the Star Magazine and the tabloids reporting the birth of the Bat Boy and three headed kittens.
None of this rules out the factor of individual taste. Some people value taste more than nutrition. Given the opportunity, there are many people who say "to hell with it" and eat whatever they want, the consequences be damned, regardless of cost. In the end, this remains a person's right. My contention is that if people just cut out the sugar, soda, candy, and reduced their consumption of carbohydrates, they would already be making some progress toward improving their health.
Eating low-carb to control your weight and promote your health is more expensive than eating lots of processed foods. This puts the poor at a disadvantage. Fresh meat and fresh vegetables are more expensive than eating lots of macaroni and cheese or Ramen Noodles. There are things you can do to reduce your costs, however, such as buying fresh, pasture raised meat from a local farmer, growing your own vegetables, and making use of canning and freezing garden vegetables. Eggs are an an inexpensive form of protein. Hot dogs are cheaper than steaks, but you certainly don't want to be eating hot dogs every day. Store brand canned tuna is also inexpensive. Deer meat donated by hunter friends is also a real bargain, particularly when the hunter has had a good year and caught more than his family can eat.
The U.S. government heavily subsidizes the corn industry. Corn and grain products are so abundant it is unbelievable. Because the ingredients are cheap, the food industry has managed to produce a huge amount of artificial, fake foods which are delicious tasting, filling, and cheap. The profit margin on a bag of cheesy poofs, potato chips, and the like is huge. Breakfast cereal is a perfect example. Take some grain, process it, toss in a bunch of sugar to make it tasty, and then make a colorful box that gets the attention of children. Put it on the shelf at just the right level so the kids see it. Make a cartoon character like the Lucky Charms leprechaun or Tony the Tiger who make the cereal seem fun. Or, even better, put Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan on the box and you have a financial winner!
Shopping at any grocery store is eye opening. The most inexpensive foods are the ones with the most sugar and the most carbs. 60% of the grocery store center section is filled with candy, processed foods like instant mash potatoes, snacks, factory made bread, and pop (soda). You have to go all the way through the store to get to the most nutritious foods, such as the dairy and the meat section. This is all about money. Then go through the checkout line. You aren't going to find refrigerators filled with meat or vegetables. The profit margin isn't large enough for those. No, you will find chocolate bars, cold pop (soda), and candy. This is the store's last chance to make some money, the junk food sitting next to the Star Magazine and the tabloids reporting the birth of the Bat Boy and three headed kittens.
None of this rules out the factor of individual taste. Some people value taste more than nutrition. Given the opportunity, there are many people who say "to hell with it" and eat whatever they want, the consequences be damned, regardless of cost. In the end, this remains a person's right. My contention is that if people just cut out the sugar, soda, candy, and reduced their consumption of carbohydrates, they would already be making some progress toward improving their health.
Eating low-carb to control your weight and promote your health is more expensive than eating lots of processed foods. This puts the poor at a disadvantage. Fresh meat and fresh vegetables are more expensive than eating lots of macaroni and cheese or Ramen Noodles. There are things you can do to reduce your costs, however, such as buying fresh, pasture raised meat from a local farmer, growing your own vegetables, and making use of canning and freezing garden vegetables. Eggs are an an inexpensive form of protein. Hot dogs are cheaper than steaks, but you certainly don't want to be eating hot dogs every day. Store brand canned tuna is also inexpensive. Deer meat donated by hunter friends is also a real bargain, particularly when the hunter has had a good year and caught more than his family can eat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)