It's been the talk of the globe for the last couple days: Yet another corrupt IL Governor busted. His crime? Well, they're many...but the most serious: soliciting bribes for a now-vacant United States senate seat. Some of his other crimes: pressuring the Chicago Tribune to fire editorialists that were bad-mouthing him in exchange for "help" in the sale of the Chicago Cubs. And then there's the Rezko fiasco. All these crimes have one common denominator: Blagojevich used his politcal power for personal gain. This is illegal.
However, there is a variation of this sort of pay-to-play politics that is legal, and is going on outside of our National Capital every day. It's called Lobbyism. I won't waste time on details about Lobbyism, but suffice it to say that corporate America has their lobbyists, and so does the NRA, and the AARP, and just about every group of people in America (except one: poor people).
On one hand, Lobbyism can be seen as the people letting their legislators know what they want. It's representative government, right? Well, yes and no. These lobbyists are being paid to lobby...it's their full time job. And so while most of America is working a "real" job, these lobbyists are influencing the legislators of our country. How? Promises of political campaign contributions, for one (although dollar amounts have been limited by the government). But there's also the promise of votes and endorsements, because the lobbyists represent an organization which is organized and which can rally support for one particular candidate.
This explains a few things...I'll give some examples. It explains why so much federal money is spent in the pharmaceutical industry, while many needy people can't pay for their medications.
It explains why 75% of Medicaid spending (which was established to assist the poor with basic medical costs) is spent on long-term living costs for the elderly, which constitute only 25% of the Medicaid recipients (AARP at work). This has been a disaster, by the way. Medicare (established for the elderly) and Medicaid (established for the poor) are HUGE parts of the National budget, but thanks to the elderly's takeover of Medicaid as well as Medicare, there is not enough money for the nation's poor that need medical attention, and therefore now we have calls for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE COVERAGE. Think about it: the over-represented minority (elderly w/ AARP) have, over time, usurped the benefits of the under-represented majority (the poor), which has led to the failure of our national healthcare system.
What to do about it? I don't know.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monopoly
Lately there's been a lot of (unintelligent) public discourse about capitalism and socialism/communism. At its most basic level, the argument for capitalism is that competition in the private sector is good, allows for creativity and ingenuity, rewards hard work, and benefits the Joe the Consumer because businesses compete for Joe's business. I believe this to be true, which is why I'm not a socialist. At its most basic level, the argument for socialism is that the government should "own" all the industries...what the advantage to this is I can't even tell you, which only goes to show how far I fall from a socialist.
But there's a scary trend going on in Western capitalism. Many of our major industries--the financial sector, automobile, communications, gas companies, farming (the list goes on, I'm sure)--are becoming more and more centralized; that is to say, what was once "competition in the private sector" has become one or two major companies dominating the industry. Obviously, less competition means higher costs for Joe (think gas prices a few months ago). But it also leads to a lack of creativity and ingenuity (think auto industry's failure to go green). It makes it almost impossible for the average American to start a business in one of these industries, (which doesn't reward hard work.) But most disturbing of all is that the failure of one of these major companies in a major industry can threaten to bring the whole economy to a screeching halt (think AIG, and the government's $85 billion bailout in order to avoid this.)
Think about our current economy, and tell me how the situation I've just outlined is all that different from socialism? Look at the recent bailouts...the goal is to reduce the impact of the financial crisis on main street. And how do they propose doing this? Essentially, by nationalizing our ailing major financial institutions! It's simply a transfer of power from one highly centralized power to another. I feel like ridiculing those who call our country's recent actions as "socialist" while clinging to the present system. They're not that different!
So what's my suggestion? Well, as I mentioned earlier, I believe in the theoretical fundamentals of capitalism, that is: that competition in the private sector is good, allows for creativity and ingenuity, rewards hard work, and benefits Joe the Consumer because businesses compete for Joe's business. However, I am not so naive as to think that capitalism can maintain "competition in the private sector" in the long term. Think of the game Monopoly: as one player gains more and more financial power, what happens? You pay much more money for landing on their property...eventually, there is one winner who owns everything, and many losers. It makes for a great game, but a very poor economy.
If capitalism is to work like we intend it to, there must be a regulator who helps to maintain a healthy competition between businesses. Yes, this calls for interference from government...but it also allows the positive aspects of capitalism to flourish, while controlling the devastating effects that our economy is experiencing right now. This is nothing new, by the way. Read up on Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busting. Regulation of capitalism is necessary if we want to avoid the fate which Karl Marx predicted--that is, that capitalism will bring about its own destruction.
But there's a scary trend going on in Western capitalism. Many of our major industries--the financial sector, automobile, communications, gas companies, farming (the list goes on, I'm sure)--are becoming more and more centralized; that is to say, what was once "competition in the private sector" has become one or two major companies dominating the industry. Obviously, less competition means higher costs for Joe (think gas prices a few months ago). But it also leads to a lack of creativity and ingenuity (think auto industry's failure to go green). It makes it almost impossible for the average American to start a business in one of these industries, (which doesn't reward hard work.) But most disturbing of all is that the failure of one of these major companies in a major industry can threaten to bring the whole economy to a screeching halt (think AIG, and the government's $85 billion bailout in order to avoid this.)
Think about our current economy, and tell me how the situation I've just outlined is all that different from socialism? Look at the recent bailouts...the goal is to reduce the impact of the financial crisis on main street. And how do they propose doing this? Essentially, by nationalizing our ailing major financial institutions! It's simply a transfer of power from one highly centralized power to another. I feel like ridiculing those who call our country's recent actions as "socialist" while clinging to the present system. They're not that different!
So what's my suggestion? Well, as I mentioned earlier, I believe in the theoretical fundamentals of capitalism, that is: that competition in the private sector is good, allows for creativity and ingenuity, rewards hard work, and benefits Joe the Consumer because businesses compete for Joe's business. However, I am not so naive as to think that capitalism can maintain "competition in the private sector" in the long term. Think of the game Monopoly: as one player gains more and more financial power, what happens? You pay much more money for landing on their property...eventually, there is one winner who owns everything, and many losers. It makes for a great game, but a very poor economy.
If capitalism is to work like we intend it to, there must be a regulator who helps to maintain a healthy competition between businesses. Yes, this calls for interference from government...but it also allows the positive aspects of capitalism to flourish, while controlling the devastating effects that our economy is experiencing right now. This is nothing new, by the way. Read up on Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busting. Regulation of capitalism is necessary if we want to avoid the fate which Karl Marx predicted--that is, that capitalism will bring about its own destruction.
Friday, November 7, 2008
A dark fog and my widwid
Now that the excitement of the elections are over, and most of the political arguments have ceased for now, I'm left with my own thoughts.
I am by nature a cynic, I think. I work hard to have a positive outlook on things, and I work even harder to make those around me have a positive outlook. Maybe subconciously I hope that by fostering positivity in others I may in turn be positively ionized (a bad chemistry joke) as well.
Perhaps it's mental exhaustion that has me in a negative mood. It is exhausting to have to defend your philosophy and worldview to family and to friends. Perhaps most exhausting, however, is defending them to yourself. I've never been able to answer the question about what I fear the most very well, but one thing I do fear is contradicting myself.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so afraid of it, since I do it every day. My actions constantly contradict my words and beliefs, and I'll be the first to admit it. Of course, everyone deals with this, and so that dimension is easier to swallow. What I fear more is that my words will somehow contradict my beliefs or worldview...or more to the point, that my worldview contradicts my worldview. It's an internal conflict concerning the foundation of my rationalization for doing the things I do. This, to me, is terrifying, and is the equivalent of being lost at sea without a compass, without a sail, without even a paddle.
Another possibility for my mood today could be frustration with others' worldviews. Not a condescending frustration, that seeks to pick someone's worldview to pieces; rather, a more general frustration with my/our inability to reconcile the opposing worldviews to each other, even when our backgrounds may be quite similar. Still, the temptation to belittle or dismiss another's worldview is always there, since I obviously believe in my own...kind of by definition.
[Let me just say that I'm sick of using the word worldview, and if you're still reading this, I'm guessing you're sick of reading it. So let's now call it the Why I Do What I Do (WIDWID). Mostly because "widwid" is going to be a lot of fun to write and read, I suspect.]
While the temptation to dismiss another's widwid is there, I fight it tooth and nail, and here is why: I can't put 100% faith in my own widwid. I'm not sure I'd want to, anyways, since it strikes me as somewhat arrogant. But I guess the point is that I need others' widwids. It is by rubbing our widwids together that we improve them, smooth them out. As iron can sharpen iron, widwid can sharpen widwid. Of course, if done incorrectly, iron can dull iron, and widwid can dull widwid.
Therefore, to properly sharpen widwids, those rubbing widwids together must know what they are doing. And, of course, it must be consensual.
Well I can see that what started as dark philosophical meandering has digressed to lighthearted inuendos with playwords. I'm ok with it, though, because I feel better. Hope you do too.
I am by nature a cynic, I think. I work hard to have a positive outlook on things, and I work even harder to make those around me have a positive outlook. Maybe subconciously I hope that by fostering positivity in others I may in turn be positively ionized (a bad chemistry joke) as well.
Perhaps it's mental exhaustion that has me in a negative mood. It is exhausting to have to defend your philosophy and worldview to family and to friends. Perhaps most exhausting, however, is defending them to yourself. I've never been able to answer the question about what I fear the most very well, but one thing I do fear is contradicting myself.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so afraid of it, since I do it every day. My actions constantly contradict my words and beliefs, and I'll be the first to admit it. Of course, everyone deals with this, and so that dimension is easier to swallow. What I fear more is that my words will somehow contradict my beliefs or worldview...or more to the point, that my worldview contradicts my worldview. It's an internal conflict concerning the foundation of my rationalization for doing the things I do. This, to me, is terrifying, and is the equivalent of being lost at sea without a compass, without a sail, without even a paddle.
Another possibility for my mood today could be frustration with others' worldviews. Not a condescending frustration, that seeks to pick someone's worldview to pieces; rather, a more general frustration with my/our inability to reconcile the opposing worldviews to each other, even when our backgrounds may be quite similar. Still, the temptation to belittle or dismiss another's worldview is always there, since I obviously believe in my own...kind of by definition.
[Let me just say that I'm sick of using the word worldview, and if you're still reading this, I'm guessing you're sick of reading it. So let's now call it the Why I Do What I Do (WIDWID). Mostly because "widwid" is going to be a lot of fun to write and read, I suspect.]
While the temptation to dismiss another's widwid is there, I fight it tooth and nail, and here is why: I can't put 100% faith in my own widwid. I'm not sure I'd want to, anyways, since it strikes me as somewhat arrogant. But I guess the point is that I need others' widwids. It is by rubbing our widwids together that we improve them, smooth them out. As iron can sharpen iron, widwid can sharpen widwid. Of course, if done incorrectly, iron can dull iron, and widwid can dull widwid.
Therefore, to properly sharpen widwids, those rubbing widwids together must know what they are doing. And, of course, it must be consensual.
Well I can see that what started as dark philosophical meandering has digressed to lighthearted inuendos with playwords. I'm ok with it, though, because I feel better. Hope you do too.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I haven't thought this one through much, and am certainly not suggesting anything...only raising a question, I guess. And so with that...
Can we legislate morality? I mean, if a moral sin becomes illegal, then is the result morality or compliance? Perhaps some would say "who cares?", just as some would say "who cares?" to the question of who helps the poor (not me, btw).
If I had to answer my own question, I'd come back with this response: God gave moral decrees in order to protect us from ourselves and to promote societal stability. History shows that the decline of empires often correlates with its moral situation. And so I'd suggest that legislating morality is beneficial to the country's stability.
But then that begs the question: Doesn't having the homeless off the streets and shrinking the lower class benefit a country? History has also shown that when the middle class expands and thrives, the county is better off. Therefore, just as legislating morality can fall under a government's domain, so too can caring for its poor, because in both cases it is beneficial to the greater common good.
My point is that while the poor should be the responsibility of the Church, it can fall under the domain of government as well.
But I'm not done...let me follow this train of thought to the finish line, where I think we'll all agree. If, indeed, the Church would fulfill its mission in America, then the need for government assistance should be diminished. Ideally this is where we should be, and I join others in the call for the Church to get busy. For me to get busy.
One last point though...In many cases, the Church ARE the poor. Until the affluent white church and the often poorer black church come to share this vision, I see huge roadblocks ahead. As long as Sunday remains the most segregated day of the week, the Church will have difficulty in fulfilling its responsibility to the poor.
Can we legislate morality? I mean, if a moral sin becomes illegal, then is the result morality or compliance? Perhaps some would say "who cares?", just as some would say "who cares?" to the question of who helps the poor (not me, btw).
If I had to answer my own question, I'd come back with this response: God gave moral decrees in order to protect us from ourselves and to promote societal stability. History shows that the decline of empires often correlates with its moral situation. And so I'd suggest that legislating morality is beneficial to the country's stability.
But then that begs the question: Doesn't having the homeless off the streets and shrinking the lower class benefit a country? History has also shown that when the middle class expands and thrives, the county is better off. Therefore, just as legislating morality can fall under a government's domain, so too can caring for its poor, because in both cases it is beneficial to the greater common good.
My point is that while the poor should be the responsibility of the Church, it can fall under the domain of government as well.
But I'm not done...let me follow this train of thought to the finish line, where I think we'll all agree. If, indeed, the Church would fulfill its mission in America, then the need for government assistance should be diminished. Ideally this is where we should be, and I join others in the call for the Church to get busy. For me to get busy.
One last point though...In many cases, the Church ARE the poor. Until the affluent white church and the often poorer black church come to share this vision, I see huge roadblocks ahead. As long as Sunday remains the most segregated day of the week, the Church will have difficulty in fulfilling its responsibility to the poor.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
My November the 4th Prayer
Oh LORD,To me, this day is historic. But to You, it may be comical. For you have seen the rise and fall of many empires. You have given power, and you have taken it away. To You be all the glory.
Foolishly, I have put my faith in earthly powers. I have become wrapped up in the squabbles of men, believing that humanity can somehow right what has gone wrong. Forgive me Lord; I ought to know better.
There is no Hope apart from You. You hold history in your hands, and I am ashamed to admit that I have given men the faith I owe You.
It is true Lord, that You work through powerful men. But it is also true that You work through the weakest of men. I think of the criminal hanging next to You on the cross, who at his dying hour came to know Life to the fullest. What comfort that brings me, the unrepentant sinner.
And so as I admittedly get lost in the excitement that is this day, Lord, redirect my vision to Jesus, the only Way.
My prayer then, Yahweh, is this: from now until my last breath, guide my steps as I stumble along in my journey away from the City of Man, and towards the City of God. Keep my eyes fixed on that which never falters, on that which never fails, on that which will never cease. Amen.
Foolishly, I have put my faith in earthly powers. I have become wrapped up in the squabbles of men, believing that humanity can somehow right what has gone wrong. Forgive me Lord; I ought to know better.
There is no Hope apart from You. You hold history in your hands, and I am ashamed to admit that I have given men the faith I owe You.
It is true Lord, that You work through powerful men. But it is also true that You work through the weakest of men. I think of the criminal hanging next to You on the cross, who at his dying hour came to know Life to the fullest. What comfort that brings me, the unrepentant sinner.
And so as I admittedly get lost in the excitement that is this day, Lord, redirect my vision to Jesus, the only Way.
My prayer then, Yahweh, is this: from now until my last breath, guide my steps as I stumble along in my journey away from the City of Man, and towards the City of God. Keep my eyes fixed on that which never falters, on that which never fails, on that which will never cease. Amen.
Monday, November 3, 2008
On the "redistribution of wealth"
Ok, let's get serious here. Obama's tax plan, labeled "socialist", will not result in the downfall of capitalism in our beloved USA. Nor will it lift the lower class to the level of equality with the middle class. Nor will it bring the upper class to a level of equality with the middle class. It is, yes, a change in how taxes are paid, but that happens with every president, and yet our economic system lives on.
If you really believe that Obama's "socialism" will so drastically change the system that there will be "no incentive to work hard" then I have two responses: 1) I might question YOUR patriotism, and perhaps your stewardship, and 2) Try quitting your job after he's elected, and see what happens. Do you think you'll still be as well off as before? Of course not, that's just stupid.
If you want to argue that Obama's tax plan will adversely affect the economy, then do it. That, at least, is a point worth arguing. But please cut out the socialist/Marxist BS; it's only preying on the fearfully ignorant, and that's just not very nice.
If you really believe that Obama's "socialism" will so drastically change the system that there will be "no incentive to work hard" then I have two responses: 1) I might question YOUR patriotism, and perhaps your stewardship, and 2) Try quitting your job after he's elected, and see what happens. Do you think you'll still be as well off as before? Of course not, that's just stupid.
If you want to argue that Obama's tax plan will adversely affect the economy, then do it. That, at least, is a point worth arguing. But please cut out the socialist/Marxist BS; it's only preying on the fearfully ignorant, and that's just not very nice.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
This is just too important
Wow. What a campaign season. I've never seen anything like this. Sure, that's because I've never been so informed as I am this year. And sure, it's because I've only been alive for 6 elections, only 2 or 3 of which I cared at all about. However, I get the feeling that there are many much older and wiser than me that have never seen a campaign like this before.
First of all, there was a tight race in the Democratic primary between a white woman and a black man. It would have been history if either had won, and of course, they were facing each other. So that was crazy. It turned out the the democrat's "dream ticket" of Obama and Clinton did not happen, and so it appeared there would be no female candidates in Election '08. Wait, enter Sarah Palin.
And we're off...A very old and experienced Senator from Arizona running with an attractive, young Governor (for 20 months) from a state with 670,000 people that is not, well, your typical state. In the other corner we have a young and eloquent Afrincan-American Senator (for 4 years) from Illinois, and on his ticket is long-time Senator Joe Biden, whose expertise lies in foreign policy and education. That will make for a very interesting campaign.
Change, first championed by Obama in the primaries and quickly adopted by McCain, is the goal. We want to change Washington, and we should. We want to change our reputation in the world, and we should. But, it has become evident that much more than Washington needs changing.
Not unpredictably, the candidates have encountered racism, sexism, and stereotyping from all angles. Both sides of the divide are guilty. While the "official" campaigns are busy mis-representing or just plain lying about each others' policies, the "unofficial" campaigns are busy doing things much more disturbing.
From the Republican persuasion, there are those who are creating lies (i.e. distractions) about Obama: He's a Muslim; he's a terrorist; he's not a natural born citizen; he's a socialist--all lies to create fear in the minds of Americans. But that's just the start, like the first fallen dominoe in a chain of millions. The rest of the dominoes are ignorant Americans propelled by said fear, who don't care to check the facts, and who turn to the next dominoe and regurgitate the loathsome paranoia all over them. Am I saying that all Republicans are like this? Absolutely not! Nothing could be further from the truth. But the number of them that are is very alarming.
And for every ignorant Republican, there's an ignorate Democrat. The liberal strategy has been to paint McCain as Bush Jr's junior. For many democrats, that's all they need to hear. Their mind is made up. They don't need to check out McCain's policies, because in their mind McCain is Bush, and Bush is responsible for every problem in America (please sense my sarcasm.) The Democrats want to scapegoat Bush and sink him in America's misfortune, and they want to chain McCain to him.
This election is just too important to rest on the votes of the enthusiastic ignorant. Both sides have intellectuals that make a great case for their candidate. In order to choose between two compelling arguments, you must be able to listen to both sides. If you can't, you're allowing yourself to be a puppet. If more Americans are puppets than those who are not, then Democracy in the United States is a farce, because it's really just two puppetmasters letting their puppets fight.
I'm reminded of the robot wars that I've seen on TV. If you haven't seen them, these guys build these robots for combat, and put them in a ring and let them go at it. But when the battle is over, who gets the worst of it? Yep, the robots. When McCain or Obama loses, they'll go back to the Senate and continue to live above the rest of us, and will probably try again in 4 years (well, maybe not McCain, but...). What if the robots called a cease-fire and turned to those holding the remotes and asked, "why should I?"
First of all, there was a tight race in the Democratic primary between a white woman and a black man. It would have been history if either had won, and of course, they were facing each other. So that was crazy. It turned out the the democrat's "dream ticket" of Obama and Clinton did not happen, and so it appeared there would be no female candidates in Election '08. Wait, enter Sarah Palin.
And we're off...A very old and experienced Senator from Arizona running with an attractive, young Governor (for 20 months) from a state with 670,000 people that is not, well, your typical state. In the other corner we have a young and eloquent Afrincan-American Senator (for 4 years) from Illinois, and on his ticket is long-time Senator Joe Biden, whose expertise lies in foreign policy and education. That will make for a very interesting campaign.
Change, first championed by Obama in the primaries and quickly adopted by McCain, is the goal. We want to change Washington, and we should. We want to change our reputation in the world, and we should. But, it has become evident that much more than Washington needs changing.
Not unpredictably, the candidates have encountered racism, sexism, and stereotyping from all angles. Both sides of the divide are guilty. While the "official" campaigns are busy mis-representing or just plain lying about each others' policies, the "unofficial" campaigns are busy doing things much more disturbing.
From the Republican persuasion, there are those who are creating lies (i.e. distractions) about Obama: He's a Muslim; he's a terrorist; he's not a natural born citizen; he's a socialist--all lies to create fear in the minds of Americans. But that's just the start, like the first fallen dominoe in a chain of millions. The rest of the dominoes are ignorant Americans propelled by said fear, who don't care to check the facts, and who turn to the next dominoe and regurgitate the loathsome paranoia all over them. Am I saying that all Republicans are like this? Absolutely not! Nothing could be further from the truth. But the number of them that are is very alarming.
And for every ignorant Republican, there's an ignorate Democrat. The liberal strategy has been to paint McCain as Bush Jr's junior. For many democrats, that's all they need to hear. Their mind is made up. They don't need to check out McCain's policies, because in their mind McCain is Bush, and Bush is responsible for every problem in America (please sense my sarcasm.) The Democrats want to scapegoat Bush and sink him in America's misfortune, and they want to chain McCain to him.
This election is just too important to rest on the votes of the enthusiastic ignorant. Both sides have intellectuals that make a great case for their candidate. In order to choose between two compelling arguments, you must be able to listen to both sides. If you can't, you're allowing yourself to be a puppet. If more Americans are puppets than those who are not, then Democracy in the United States is a farce, because it's really just two puppetmasters letting their puppets fight.
I'm reminded of the robot wars that I've seen on TV. If you haven't seen them, these guys build these robots for combat, and put them in a ring and let them go at it. But when the battle is over, who gets the worst of it? Yep, the robots. When McCain or Obama loses, they'll go back to the Senate and continue to live above the rest of us, and will probably try again in 4 years (well, maybe not McCain, but...). What if the robots called a cease-fire and turned to those holding the remotes and asked, "why should I?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)