"... The very financial companies that tried to prevent individual Americans from having some kind of an opportunity to bail themselves out from their individual financial troubles are now rushing to the government to assist them in their financial troubles. " (Amy Goodman, 2008)
Remember a few years ago when the big fat bottoms in Congress bent us all over for the financial industry and made it more difficult for Joe Schmo to file bankruptcy? Those same pimp politicians are again helping screw you in the ass by rewarding that same industry's criminally irresponsible behavior with $700 billion of your money. We're just a pimper's paradise, to quote Bob Marley, more than happy to give our hard-earned cash to banks and finance companies who charge us interest for our patronage, or to put it in 401(k)s that assure us of nothing but richer CEOs moving farther away from we unwashed masses. We meekly submit to the entire credit bureau gulag, where someone checking your credit immediately hurts your credit, but removing a credit bureau mistake or an instance of fraud is virtually impossible.
And for what? So we can buy shit RIGHT NOW! IMMEDIATELY! that we cannot immediately afford without giving economic handjobs to Visa and American Express. That's really it, peeps. We enable the most predatory individuals and entities in the world so we can buy things for which we don't have the ready cash.
So don't be fooled. This "bailout" is not necessary to preserve the health of our nation. Quite the contrary, it is a desparate (but predictable) attempt to perpetuate the current fundamentally diseased credit-based economic paradigm, with the added purpose and result of redistributing income from you and me to the already obscenely wealthy.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
"...the poor stay poor and the rich get rich/that's how it goes..."
Is anyone at all surprised that we are bailing out the richest and whitest guys at the heads of some of the most irresponsible corporations, while poor and multicolored folks (some certainly with eyes bigger than their pocketbooks) face foreclosure? If you are surprised, you shouldn't be. Most of the economic infrastructure in this country is in place to funnel wealth to those already possessed of great wealth. Most of our "law enforcement" is in place to protect the haves from the have-nots and the want-to-haves. These structures are working quite well in the manner in which they are intended to work.
"Roughly 60 percent of the economic gains in our country went to just to the top .05% of taxpayers. When comparing gains overall throughout the taxpayer base, the so-called middle class had economic gains of just 10% from 1979 to 1997 while America’s wealthiest rose 157% (after taxes). When factoring in the cost of inflation, a 10% gain over almost 20 years actually translates into a loss." (Paul Krugman, NYT, 2002)
Contrary to Saint Ronald the Second Coming of Holy Jesus H. Christ Reagan and his Kool-Aid-drinking Branch Davidian Scientologist-I'll-hook-you-and-Katie-Holmes-up-to-a-fake-machine-followers, that shit does not trickle down; nor is it intended to do so. When Reagan and his circle-jerk Democratic congresses passed legislation deregulating S&Ls, Reagan said "I think we hit the jackpot." Ask John Keating McCain about who cashed in. It sure as hell wasn't the majority of Americans. The same ethic, or lack thereof, holds true with the recent bailouts. Royalty gets their asses saved, the offending CEOs retire with tens of millions, and poor folks get the shaft. To talk about those numbers, of course, is to engage in class warfare or "the politics of envy." Facts are anathema to the Plutocracy. They want us to get all pissed off about queers and abortion while they wage true and effective economic warfare against the rest of us.
So what do we do? It will take a major shift of perspective. The problem is, most of us decry the imbalance now, but would quickly shut up about it and enjoy being part of the Plutocracy if we just had the coin. So we work our fingers to the bone, neglect our kids, and "invest" (which means giving your money to those same rich irresponsible CEOs to play with and lose), all in the hope that we might acquire some of the same expensive, shiny and unnecessary crap that Bob Nardelli acquired through the literal blood and sweat of his employees.
I don't claim purity; I do compromise and buy my boys the slightly more expensive cereal with dried fruit in it, and I do occasionally replace my guitar strings. but I can honestly aver that I have no interest in a BMW or a chic condo. I am perfectly happy with a roof, food, and my used Ford Focus. Hell, if I hadn't totaled it, I would still proudly be driving my 1999 Chevy Prizm. Should I ever get married (admittedly an unlikely proposition), it will not be with an overpriced and blood-soaked little rock.
I don't really want to preach, but the only way to effectively counterract the wholesale redistribution of money from you to guys like Ken Lay, John McCain and Barack Obama is to spend less of it. The Plutocracy wants, in fact desperately NEEDS, you to be in debt, because they own the debt and, by extension, you. The same CEO shipping jobs from Nebraska to China laughs all the way to his summer home when some Nebraska kid goes into hock for a huge truck he can't afford. So spend less. Keep your money and quiet that laughing asshole down. Don't buy a bigger house than you can afford and pay off Ass-boy's yacht with your interest payments.
Much peace
"Roughly 60 percent of the economic gains in our country went to just to the top .05% of taxpayers. When comparing gains overall throughout the taxpayer base, the so-called middle class had economic gains of just 10% from 1979 to 1997 while America’s wealthiest rose 157% (after taxes). When factoring in the cost of inflation, a 10% gain over almost 20 years actually translates into a loss." (Paul Krugman, NYT, 2002)
Contrary to Saint Ronald the Second Coming of Holy Jesus H. Christ Reagan and his Kool-Aid-drinking Branch Davidian Scientologist-I'll-hook-you-and-Katie-Holmes-up-to-a-fake-machine-followers, that shit does not trickle down; nor is it intended to do so. When Reagan and his circle-jerk Democratic congresses passed legislation deregulating S&Ls, Reagan said "I think we hit the jackpot." Ask John Keating McCain about who cashed in. It sure as hell wasn't the majority of Americans. The same ethic, or lack thereof, holds true with the recent bailouts. Royalty gets their asses saved, the offending CEOs retire with tens of millions, and poor folks get the shaft. To talk about those numbers, of course, is to engage in class warfare or "the politics of envy." Facts are anathema to the Plutocracy. They want us to get all pissed off about queers and abortion while they wage true and effective economic warfare against the rest of us.
So what do we do? It will take a major shift of perspective. The problem is, most of us decry the imbalance now, but would quickly shut up about it and enjoy being part of the Plutocracy if we just had the coin. So we work our fingers to the bone, neglect our kids, and "invest" (which means giving your money to those same rich irresponsible CEOs to play with and lose), all in the hope that we might acquire some of the same expensive, shiny and unnecessary crap that Bob Nardelli acquired through the literal blood and sweat of his employees.
I don't claim purity; I do compromise and buy my boys the slightly more expensive cereal with dried fruit in it, and I do occasionally replace my guitar strings. but I can honestly aver that I have no interest in a BMW or a chic condo. I am perfectly happy with a roof, food, and my used Ford Focus. Hell, if I hadn't totaled it, I would still proudly be driving my 1999 Chevy Prizm. Should I ever get married (admittedly an unlikely proposition), it will not be with an overpriced and blood-soaked little rock.
I don't really want to preach, but the only way to effectively counterract the wholesale redistribution of money from you to guys like Ken Lay, John McCain and Barack Obama is to spend less of it. The Plutocracy wants, in fact desperately NEEDS, you to be in debt, because they own the debt and, by extension, you. The same CEO shipping jobs from Nebraska to China laughs all the way to his summer home when some Nebraska kid goes into hock for a huge truck he can't afford. So spend less. Keep your money and quiet that laughing asshole down. Don't buy a bigger house than you can afford and pay off Ass-boy's yacht with your interest payments.
Much peace
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night alive as you and I..."
I am weary of talking about unions, but I can't let regurgitated Hannity propoganda go unanswered.
Much like the consistently intellecually dishonest right-wingers who claim that real wages have gone up, but casually skate over the fact that they're not speaking in constant dollars, Maury plucks out select pieces of my argument for the necessity of organized labor and dissembles. Acting on the pretense that his argument is honest and not just more sophomoric Karl Rove spin, I will grace it with serious answers.
Q) "Are you trying to tell me if an employee at Wal-Mart, which abhors unions, were to lose their arm in an accident, they would have no recourse?"
A) No, I am not. I have no doubt that a worker permanently crippled at a WalMart would be compensated (I am less certain he or she would be set for life.) ... right now. Because of the threat of work stoppages, i.e.: because of the rise of organized labor, the government stopped supporting and joining in the abuse of workers and passed laws to meet some of the workers' demands. Every one of those laws was fought tooth and nail by Management, and by much of government. Let's be clear: the Oligarchy/Plutocracy didn't and doesn't give two shits about the health or safety of its workers. The laws in question were passed not because of any ethical or moral code, but only because organized labor held the power to delay and diminish profits; because workers organized and said enough. Should the threat of work stoppages and the accompanying threat of delayed or diminished profits disappear, we would without question see workers' protections diminished and ultimately go by the wayside. It could take 10 years, or 20 or 50; but without the real threat of an organized workforce halting production, Walmart or Home Depot, and the politicians in their pockets, would happily let an employee bleed out on the back loading dock. Don't kid yourself otherwise. Furthermore, Walmart and other non-union corporations provide benefits solely out of fear that their workforce could unionize. I have sat through the anti-union screeds at some big box retailers, and it's easy to see the cause and effect.
Here's the real deal: Maury and wingnuts like him are offended by the pinko commie idea that workers might get together and try to snag a bigger piece of the pie. Their position is inherently contradictory crap, of course. Management constantly colludes in an attempt to depress wages and benefits. In the wingers' bizzaro world, it's considered Capitalism for management to use the resources gained on the backs of workers to organize and hire lawyers and create committees to figure out how best to decrease compensation for those workers; but it's considered anti-American Communism for workers to organize in an attempt to increase their compensation. What a load of selective, anti-competitive crap. Management can organize and try to get the most out of isolated employees, but workers can't organize to try to get the best deal that they can. Hmm...Suppressing competition: sounds pretty anti-Capitalist to me, but there you go. The nuts don't really want a free market where EVERYONE can pursue their own best interests. They want a market where the bottom 99% pursues the best interests of the upper 1% (The truly disgusting thing is that Maury and Co. want you to believe the two are the same thing). Should unions go away, you'll see Maury's World reinstated as quickly as the police goons killed the preacher in the Grapes of Wrath.
Oh, and John McCain is as much a maverick as I am a saint.
Much Peace
Much like the consistently intellecually dishonest right-wingers who claim that real wages have gone up, but casually skate over the fact that they're not speaking in constant dollars, Maury plucks out select pieces of my argument for the necessity of organized labor and dissembles. Acting on the pretense that his argument is honest and not just more sophomoric Karl Rove spin, I will grace it with serious answers.
Q) "Are you trying to tell me if an employee at Wal-Mart, which abhors unions, were to lose their arm in an accident, they would have no recourse?"
A) No, I am not. I have no doubt that a worker permanently crippled at a WalMart would be compensated (I am less certain he or she would be set for life.) ... right now. Because of the threat of work stoppages, i.e.: because of the rise of organized labor, the government stopped supporting and joining in the abuse of workers and passed laws to meet some of the workers' demands. Every one of those laws was fought tooth and nail by Management, and by much of government. Let's be clear: the Oligarchy/Plutocracy didn't and doesn't give two shits about the health or safety of its workers. The laws in question were passed not because of any ethical or moral code, but only because organized labor held the power to delay and diminish profits; because workers organized and said enough. Should the threat of work stoppages and the accompanying threat of delayed or diminished profits disappear, we would without question see workers' protections diminished and ultimately go by the wayside. It could take 10 years, or 20 or 50; but without the real threat of an organized workforce halting production, Walmart or Home Depot, and the politicians in their pockets, would happily let an employee bleed out on the back loading dock. Don't kid yourself otherwise. Furthermore, Walmart and other non-union corporations provide benefits solely out of fear that their workforce could unionize. I have sat through the anti-union screeds at some big box retailers, and it's easy to see the cause and effect.
Here's the real deal: Maury and wingnuts like him are offended by the pinko commie idea that workers might get together and try to snag a bigger piece of the pie. Their position is inherently contradictory crap, of course. Management constantly colludes in an attempt to depress wages and benefits. In the wingers' bizzaro world, it's considered Capitalism for management to use the resources gained on the backs of workers to organize and hire lawyers and create committees to figure out how best to decrease compensation for those workers; but it's considered anti-American Communism for workers to organize in an attempt to increase their compensation. What a load of selective, anti-competitive crap. Management can organize and try to get the most out of isolated employees, but workers can't organize to try to get the best deal that they can. Hmm...Suppressing competition: sounds pretty anti-Capitalist to me, but there you go. The nuts don't really want a free market where EVERYONE can pursue their own best interests. They want a market where the bottom 99% pursues the best interests of the upper 1% (The truly disgusting thing is that Maury and Co. want you to believe the two are the same thing). Should unions go away, you'll see Maury's World reinstated as quickly as the police goons killed the preacher in the Grapes of Wrath.
Oh, and John McCain is as much a maverick as I am a saint.
Much Peace
Thursday, September 11, 2008
"Tepid disinterest. I guess I expected fire or ice."
So an old flame looked me up on Facebook and got in touch with me a few weeks ago. Not being sure of her motivations (but knowing something of her current situation from a mutual friend), I answered her correspondence with pleasant, if somewhat terse, aplomb. Her response is above. Her no nonsense assessment, and our ensuing conversations, left me wondering about the same things she did.
Let me be clear: this woman was a flame back when I still knew what fire was. Ours was not a casual relationship, and neither of us were casual individuals. In our youth and foolishness, we managed to break both of our hearts, but I thought until quite recently that said phenomenon had no lasting effect on me.
Also to be quite clear: she is now very happily married with a child and contacted me only with the (conscious) purpose of catching up after 14 years.
Through the course of our back and forth, I was reminded than this chic was not only wicked smart, but that she was, as always, bold, direct and uncomfortably perceptive. It has been many long years since I looked at a woman with an idea of long-term discernment; since I have reflected upon the necessity of passion in myself and my peers, and actively searched for it in another person. To be quite honest, in the last decade or so I have consciously preferred a sort of detached and world-weary warmth in my associates.
Our correspondence was a serious splash of cold water in the aforementioned warmth. Given our history (I up and moved to Chicago for her), and the tumultous nature of our separation 14 years ago, I owed her something more than just clever rejoinders, and I soon found myself drawn into actual real (and revealing) communication. Just like old times, sort of; but with some boundaries. Nothing inappropriate, nothing I would worry about her husband reading; just real remembered intimacy resurrected in the here and now. I was a little unsettled by the ease with which I gave up the goods, and by the fact that she apparently still operates with an openness and intensity I lost (or at least eschewed) a long time ago.
Whether or not she was someone with whom I could have shared my life is not the central question (though I did allow myself a moment or two of self-indulgent regret for what might have been, and it might have been extraordinary, if I had had the maturity or awareness to see it). What I find disconcerting is the conspicuous day-today absence of the intense and open person I used to be. My correspondence with my ex reached a natural and necessary conclusion, but I find myself hungry for that level of communication and intimacy, and I wonder at the habit of resignation (she called it being placated) I have chosen. I wish her all the happiness she can manage; I am left wondering how much I myself can handle.
Much peace,
thomasj
Let me be clear: this woman was a flame back when I still knew what fire was. Ours was not a casual relationship, and neither of us were casual individuals. In our youth and foolishness, we managed to break both of our hearts, but I thought until quite recently that said phenomenon had no lasting effect on me.
Also to be quite clear: she is now very happily married with a child and contacted me only with the (conscious) purpose of catching up after 14 years.
Through the course of our back and forth, I was reminded than this chic was not only wicked smart, but that she was, as always, bold, direct and uncomfortably perceptive. It has been many long years since I looked at a woman with an idea of long-term discernment; since I have reflected upon the necessity of passion in myself and my peers, and actively searched for it in another person. To be quite honest, in the last decade or so I have consciously preferred a sort of detached and world-weary warmth in my associates.
Our correspondence was a serious splash of cold water in the aforementioned warmth. Given our history (I up and moved to Chicago for her), and the tumultous nature of our separation 14 years ago, I owed her something more than just clever rejoinders, and I soon found myself drawn into actual real (and revealing) communication. Just like old times, sort of; but with some boundaries. Nothing inappropriate, nothing I would worry about her husband reading; just real remembered intimacy resurrected in the here and now. I was a little unsettled by the ease with which I gave up the goods, and by the fact that she apparently still operates with an openness and intensity I lost (or at least eschewed) a long time ago.
Whether or not she was someone with whom I could have shared my life is not the central question (though I did allow myself a moment or two of self-indulgent regret for what might have been, and it might have been extraordinary, if I had had the maturity or awareness to see it). What I find disconcerting is the conspicuous day-today absence of the intense and open person I used to be. My correspondence with my ex reached a natural and necessary conclusion, but I find myself hungry for that level of communication and intimacy, and I wonder at the habit of resignation (she called it being placated) I have chosen. I wish her all the happiness she can manage; I am left wondering how much I myself can handle.
Much peace,
thomasj
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thank Goodness for Amy Goodman
I know, I know....lazy post; but not enough people follow Democracy Now! We hate independent media in this country. Check this story.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/5/maverick_author_paul_waldman_on_free
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/5/maverick_author_paul_waldman_on_free
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
