I know these are still the primaries and I usually don't pay that close attention, but there are some really crazy things these candidates have been saying on the campaign trail:
Herman Cain: "We need a leader, not a reader." No Herb, we need educated folks making key decisions who can READ as well as listen. That's how you lead, sir.
Mitt Romney: "PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air." *Facepalms* #Mitt_fail
Rick Perry: "I will tell you: It's three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the... what's the third one there? Let's see... OK. So Commerce, Education and the... The third agency of government I would... I would do away with the Education, the... Commerce and... let's see... I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops." .... don't feel bad Rick. There are other things that you could've forgotten like the .... let's see. I can't ... Sorry, oops.
Newt Gingrich: "The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument." Coming from a socialist fear monger like yourself, you don't seem to have a problem with special interests governing because after all, special interests are people too.
Michele Bachmann: "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." ... volunteers herself for the study that she can live on carbon dioxide alone. Reason #412 why politicians shouldn't try to pretend to be scientists.
Rick Perry: "Juarez is reported to be the most dangerous city in America." ... which would be accurate if only Juarez was actually in America.
Rick Santorum: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." ...because he's okay with making white people's lives better, but if you're black - whoa now ... that's just crazy talk.
But then it comes back to Newt.
Newt lives for soundbytes. Unfortunately for him, his soundbytes tend to follow him. So when he comes out all pious and moral ... he casually forgets that he's been married three times, with relationships that were overlapping, not to mention getting rid of his wives when they got sick and yet having the audacity to say that gays represent harm to the institution of marriage. We hadn't even begun to pry the door regarding his desire for an "open marriage" with his second wife.
Now I'm divorced. I don't have a problem with people who marry and get divorced, but you can't hold yourself as being a beacon of family issues when you're peeing on the institution. You lose credibility the moment that you want to be a values candidate for the White House. That's why the exchange between Newt and John King represents a candidate who lives the double life. "Do as I say, not as I do." For a party that focuses squarely on morality and having a warped sense of being ideologically square with God ... I'm dismayed when candidates and those that support them ... find themselves in questionable waters like this. Thankfully the press is NOT giving Newt a free pass on his transgressions.
I don't condemn what Newt did or didn't do in his marriages. That's his business.
...but he loses that morality license and reasonable expectation of privacy the moment he wants to start condemning others for being less than moral.
Stone? Meet glass house.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Loss of Hope
My hiatus from SpoonsRant was something that I didn’t anticipate. I thought I would continue to blog about all things political. After all politics continues to happen regardless of what’s happening in our daily lives. But I found my frustrations growing with this administration. It had nothing to do with the weak tea party or the subsequent Republican floggings about why Obama is bad this week. My focus for the last three years has been squarely on our President and the Democratic party.
I was disappointed that there was an overemphasis placed on cooperative government. Obama reached far too often across the aisle … and ended up selling the store, the dog, the cat, the parakeet, grandma … and getting nothing in return. The Republicans managed to marginalize Obama’s political capital and they weren’t going to turn loose. Democrats remained too unfocused and scattered across the political spectrum (Landreu, Nelson and other conservative Democrats) that ultimately lacked cohesion.
It was thanks to these centralist Dems that awarded power back to the Republicans. It was thanks to Obama benching his platform because the job was too tough to pass it. The country ran with no steward. The helm just kept going with the ebb and flow of the sea current. The captain wasn’t on the bridge – leading – as much as he was trying to quiet the crew … with over half of them fighting him on every single solitary thing.
What got lost in the last two years – is the fact that Republicans refused, every morsel of their being, to work with Democrats or this President on the overwhelming majority of legislation coming out. That forced Obama and the Democrats to continually give up ground – and their fights were watered down and lost. Reid lost respectability. Pelosi fought inconsistently. Americans lost out.
Hope … was lost.
Now that we’re entering the last leg to determine who Obama’s opponent is going to be, I’m back to wondering what Obama is going to say next. I’m wondering how he’s going to be able to justify the stuff he has done over the last three years. Yes – he’s done plenty. He’s done big things … he’s done a lot of medium and little things. He had such high hopes. He had such a vision. He energized those that helped get him elected to fulfill those ambitions.
While the finger pointing can be squarely on the Republicans, the Democrats did their fair share of eating their young. Obama himself became a microcosm of being too idealistic and not being able to reach as far as he wanted. It hasn’t been until the last 3-4 months that we’re finally seeing a commander that’s commanding. Someone who has finally said “enough” and did something big, bold and bad … he called out the Republicans and put it on the line. He finally started calling the Republican’s bluff. Lines are drawn in the sand now … and that’s what Obama should’ve been doing when the R’s decided they were going to behave like insolent disrespectful children.
For as long as we have the likes of Fox and Rush continuing their epic distortions and incredibly self-serving biases … Obama doesn’t stand a chance. He was patient. He tried, kept trying, regardless of what it meant to him politically, this President kept his arm extended while the Republican party spat on him. There is no shame for Republicans and that’s why I can find no respect for them.
I was disappointed that there was an overemphasis placed on cooperative government. Obama reached far too often across the aisle … and ended up selling the store, the dog, the cat, the parakeet, grandma … and getting nothing in return. The Republicans managed to marginalize Obama’s political capital and they weren’t going to turn loose. Democrats remained too unfocused and scattered across the political spectrum (Landreu, Nelson and other conservative Democrats) that ultimately lacked cohesion.
It was thanks to these centralist Dems that awarded power back to the Republicans. It was thanks to Obama benching his platform because the job was too tough to pass it. The country ran with no steward. The helm just kept going with the ebb and flow of the sea current. The captain wasn’t on the bridge – leading – as much as he was trying to quiet the crew … with over half of them fighting him on every single solitary thing.
What got lost in the last two years – is the fact that Republicans refused, every morsel of their being, to work with Democrats or this President on the overwhelming majority of legislation coming out. That forced Obama and the Democrats to continually give up ground – and their fights were watered down and lost. Reid lost respectability. Pelosi fought inconsistently. Americans lost out.
Hope … was lost.
Now that we’re entering the last leg to determine who Obama’s opponent is going to be, I’m back to wondering what Obama is going to say next. I’m wondering how he’s going to be able to justify the stuff he has done over the last three years. Yes – he’s done plenty. He’s done big things … he’s done a lot of medium and little things. He had such high hopes. He had such a vision. He energized those that helped get him elected to fulfill those ambitions.
While the finger pointing can be squarely on the Republicans, the Democrats did their fair share of eating their young. Obama himself became a microcosm of being too idealistic and not being able to reach as far as he wanted. It hasn’t been until the last 3-4 months that we’re finally seeing a commander that’s commanding. Someone who has finally said “enough” and did something big, bold and bad … he called out the Republicans and put it on the line. He finally started calling the Republican’s bluff. Lines are drawn in the sand now … and that’s what Obama should’ve been doing when the R’s decided they were going to behave like insolent disrespectful children.
For as long as we have the likes of Fox and Rush continuing their epic distortions and incredibly self-serving biases … Obama doesn’t stand a chance. He was patient. He tried, kept trying, regardless of what it meant to him politically, this President kept his arm extended while the Republican party spat on him. There is no shame for Republicans and that’s why I can find no respect for them.
Monday, January 23, 2012
So We Were Right All Along...
The New Yorker magazine has an incredible quote from "two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enteriprise Institute:
"One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition"
Read more at the New Yorker magazine: click here
A very interesting read about how Obama tried to assert himself as a post-ideological politician following his election bid.
"One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition"
Read more at the New Yorker magazine: click here
A very interesting read about how Obama tried to assert himself as a post-ideological politician following his election bid.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The Inner Discussion with a fake Republican
The Republican populists tend to invoke the: "if only everyone would work, there wouldn't be any problems." It's a common theme. All problems would be solved if everyone would get jobs at McDonald's and other places like that. It's not that I don't condemn those who have prospering careers are fast food restaurants, but the stigma and stereotype is that these types of places don't pay very well and don't have a lot of benefits. You could include WalMart in this group - but I'm focused on fast food because of a conversation I over heard at Arby's today.
A worker was showing up ... a leader was asking to see how they were doing. It was apparent that the worker was in ill-health and was coming back to work. The team leader was sympathetic and was genuinely concerned. It was nice to see the exchange. The worker was asked about her daughter as she had been under the weather too apparently. The worker said her daughter was fighting a fever of 106 ... unknown what, if any medical attention this woman got for her girl ... but an internal dialogue between me and a hypothetical Republican transpired in my head:
Republican: "I'm glad to see this mother is off the welfare dime and is working hard."
Me: "She's working hard - at a rate of $7/hr."
R: "But at least she has a job."
Me: "Alright, but she has no health care because of her position. Are you okay with that?"
R: "Well she should assert herself so that she can go back to school and get a better job."
Me: "That's fine and dandy in a perfect world, but she likely has more than one job just to try to make ends meet. If she has no health insurance, how can she pay to have her child get the medical attention she needs ... a 106 temperature is actually life threatening."
R: "I'm sorry her child is going through that, but it's not my problem."
Me: "Then why not have a single payer health care system?"
R: "Because it's socialism."
Me: "So is driving your car on a public road or going into a public library or having the police respond to a break-in at your residence."
R: "Those are necessary elements for a society."
Me: "Why isn't health care included as a necessary element for a society?"
R: "Because socialism stunts the growth of health advances, it removes freedoms and the government tells us what to do."
Me: "For profit health care stunts the growth of a flourishing society. It removes any chance of receiving health care and government protects the health insurance companies right to deny coverage."
R: "Health care companies have a responsibility to their stockholders."
Me: "Health care professionals have an ethical responsibility to those they care for ... they don't have an ethical responsibility to their bottom line."
R: "The woman should be grateful she even has a job."
Me: "I'm sure she is grateful. So you have no problem with this woman inheriting thousands of dollars in health care costs who is working at a fast food establishment trying to do the right thing for her family?"
R: "Not my responsibility, she should've done more to apply herself in school."
Me: "But the Republican position is that not everyone needs an education, that there are jobs like fast food that don't need an education or college - yet you assert that this woman should've applied herself better in school. How do you reconcile that?"
R: "It's not society's responsibility to take care of her."
Me: "But it's corporatism that has now taken a responsible member of society and have burdened them in debt."
R: "Not my problem. Society can't take care of everyone."
Me: "Agreed to an extent. I do think that we're all products of our choices, but our society has changed so dramatically with each generation - going from a single breadwinner to a two-household income situation and families are struggling."
R: "Shit happens to everyone. I can't be responsible for everyone who bought the flat LCD screen when they should've been investing their money."
Me: "Investing? If everyone invested their money - you'd bring this economy to a grinding halt."
R: "No it wouldn't - there would still be supply and demand."
Me: "With no demand, there's too much supply, people lose their jobs because no one is buying their product or service."
R: "That's ridiculous, everyone would buy something."
Me: "Not according to your critique about flat LCD screens. If everyone were to invest their money and not get LCD screens, manufacturers wouldn't hire people to make those screens, companies couldn't invest that money to developing newer, better TVs and WalMart would furlough those people who stock the LCD screens due to diminished sales."
R: "That's too simplistic..."
Me: "But it's the same supply v. demand concept you create - adjusting for the conditions of everyone investing the money you want them to. So if everyone was as responsible as you, if everyone pulled themselves up by their bootstraps just like you, then the world would be righteous?"
R: "Something like that. I earned everything I have. I wasn't given anything for doing the right thing."
Me: "You were too. You were afforded every paved stone that has been placed at your feet by every previous generation. To say you were not given some benefit isn't accurate."
R: "I don't owe anyone anything, nor was I given anything."
Me: "Did you invent the light bulb?"
R: "No, but -"
Me: "...but you benefit from Thomas Edison's invention and can go into a store and purchase such an invention to use in your residence."
R: "Yes..."
Me: "So you are a benefactor of someone else's labor."
R: "That's completely simplistic. I could credit God for the same thing for inventing air."
Me: "That's true. The question is - what have you given back to society?"
R: "I give it to those crooks in Washington who steal it and they give it to lazy asses who won't work. They just smoke their Parliaments and eat bon-bons all day long."
Me: "But aren't they supporting industries you might have stock in? So while they might be subsidized and buying tobacco or sugar foods, you're still getting back benefits in the form of dividends aren't you?"
R: "Well ... I .... what?"
A worker was showing up ... a leader was asking to see how they were doing. It was apparent that the worker was in ill-health and was coming back to work. The team leader was sympathetic and was genuinely concerned. It was nice to see the exchange. The worker was asked about her daughter as she had been under the weather too apparently. The worker said her daughter was fighting a fever of 106 ... unknown what, if any medical attention this woman got for her girl ... but an internal dialogue between me and a hypothetical Republican transpired in my head:
Republican: "I'm glad to see this mother is off the welfare dime and is working hard."
Me: "She's working hard - at a rate of $7/hr."
R: "But at least she has a job."
Me: "Alright, but she has no health care because of her position. Are you okay with that?"
R: "Well she should assert herself so that she can go back to school and get a better job."
Me: "That's fine and dandy in a perfect world, but she likely has more than one job just to try to make ends meet. If she has no health insurance, how can she pay to have her child get the medical attention she needs ... a 106 temperature is actually life threatening."
R: "I'm sorry her child is going through that, but it's not my problem."
Me: "Then why not have a single payer health care system?"
R: "Because it's socialism."
Me: "So is driving your car on a public road or going into a public library or having the police respond to a break-in at your residence."
R: "Those are necessary elements for a society."
Me: "Why isn't health care included as a necessary element for a society?"
R: "Because socialism stunts the growth of health advances, it removes freedoms and the government tells us what to do."
Me: "For profit health care stunts the growth of a flourishing society. It removes any chance of receiving health care and government protects the health insurance companies right to deny coverage."
R: "Health care companies have a responsibility to their stockholders."
Me: "Health care professionals have an ethical responsibility to those they care for ... they don't have an ethical responsibility to their bottom line."
R: "The woman should be grateful she even has a job."
Me: "I'm sure she is grateful. So you have no problem with this woman inheriting thousands of dollars in health care costs who is working at a fast food establishment trying to do the right thing for her family?"
R: "Not my responsibility, she should've done more to apply herself in school."
Me: "But the Republican position is that not everyone needs an education, that there are jobs like fast food that don't need an education or college - yet you assert that this woman should've applied herself better in school. How do you reconcile that?"
R: "It's not society's responsibility to take care of her."
Me: "But it's corporatism that has now taken a responsible member of society and have burdened them in debt."
R: "Not my problem. Society can't take care of everyone."
Me: "Agreed to an extent. I do think that we're all products of our choices, but our society has changed so dramatically with each generation - going from a single breadwinner to a two-household income situation and families are struggling."
R: "Shit happens to everyone. I can't be responsible for everyone who bought the flat LCD screen when they should've been investing their money."
Me: "Investing? If everyone invested their money - you'd bring this economy to a grinding halt."
R: "No it wouldn't - there would still be supply and demand."
Me: "With no demand, there's too much supply, people lose their jobs because no one is buying their product or service."
R: "That's ridiculous, everyone would buy something."
Me: "Not according to your critique about flat LCD screens. If everyone were to invest their money and not get LCD screens, manufacturers wouldn't hire people to make those screens, companies couldn't invest that money to developing newer, better TVs and WalMart would furlough those people who stock the LCD screens due to diminished sales."
R: "That's too simplistic..."
Me: "But it's the same supply v. demand concept you create - adjusting for the conditions of everyone investing the money you want them to. So if everyone was as responsible as you, if everyone pulled themselves up by their bootstraps just like you, then the world would be righteous?"
R: "Something like that. I earned everything I have. I wasn't given anything for doing the right thing."
Me: "You were too. You were afforded every paved stone that has been placed at your feet by every previous generation. To say you were not given some benefit isn't accurate."
R: "I don't owe anyone anything, nor was I given anything."
Me: "Did you invent the light bulb?"
R: "No, but -"
Me: "...but you benefit from Thomas Edison's invention and can go into a store and purchase such an invention to use in your residence."
R: "Yes..."
Me: "So you are a benefactor of someone else's labor."
R: "That's completely simplistic. I could credit God for the same thing for inventing air."
Me: "That's true. The question is - what have you given back to society?"
R: "I give it to those crooks in Washington who steal it and they give it to lazy asses who won't work. They just smoke their Parliaments and eat bon-bons all day long."
Me: "But aren't they supporting industries you might have stock in? So while they might be subsidized and buying tobacco or sugar foods, you're still getting back benefits in the form of dividends aren't you?"
R: "Well ... I .... what?"
Friday, January 06, 2012
The Occupy, Tea Bag, 99% Problem
I just love how the Republicans and Tea Bag crowd continue to decry the Occupy Wall Street movement. Little do they know but at least when it comes to the Tea Bag party ... they are not unlike their Occupy breathren. Both groups vocally protest their dissatisfaction with the way things are being run. One group chooses to blame the government, the other group blames the fat cats.
Tea Baggers come out against Occupy Wall Street - OWS come out against the Baggers and there's a free for all somewhere in Central Park. It's not unusual to have these sprig parties sprout out every election cycle. There was the Green party, the Ross Perot party, the Gary Coleman party (okay - that was a typo..) But the prevailing two parties have remained relatively unscathed throughout history. That's not going to change anytime soon - but the reality is that as populist as some candidates have been (ahem, Obama) ... what matters is their service to the American people. Despite the Republican view on this, I subscribe to the belief that our electorate is there to represent the American people ... not American corporations and businesses.
That's why I haven't signed onto the OWS crowd as much as I've embraced the 99% movement. Because it's the 99% that continues to work hard everyday, see to their child's education, care and provide for their family while getting hammered by the lack of rise when it comes to salaries. That's why there's no single breadwinners in families these days. That's why both parents are needing to work to make ends meet and try to lay some sort of foundation for their family's future. Benefits are getting slashed, health care is out of reach for so many Americans, and there's a significant amount of the right side of the aisle that has NO PROBLEM with it. Our previous President once said that it's "uniquely American" to have such problems....
"Corporations are entitled to maximize their profits."
"Corporations have a duty and responsibility to their shareholders."
"It's not up businesses to take care of their employees..."
Really?
These are the folks you're protecting?
This is the philosophy you subscribe to?
The Tea Baggers and Republicans that continue to defend big business - they themselves fall well within the 99%, they continue to protect big industry, big banks, big pharma and big oil ... for reasons that simply don't make sense. The illusion that if you give the rich enough money - it'll trickle down to you - is a proven falsehood. The rate of salary increases have remain stagnant since Reagan's infamous boondoggle. The rich remain rich, while the poor remain poor and the middle class finds themselves on the endangered species list.
Even though they themselves are equally susceptible to the other 99%'ers out there in terms of job and benefit security. Sure - they have a nice paying job and can complain about others not doing enough to get their own damn job. Easy for them to say when unemployment has suffered mightily under the great recession. Easy for them .... until they find themselves on their own receiving end of it. Companies have no loyalty to their employees - as we've seen with the shift of jobs overseas. If you get a life-threatening condition - Sarah Palin's death panels will instantly be enacted to ensure that because you have become a liability of the company and you will lose your job and your benefits. It's all about profits, right Sarah?
Try treating cancer on unemployment after you've already emptied out your life's savings that you had HOPED was going to buoy your retirement ... and let's see if you still want to protect big pharma.
These folks are equally affected by the deregulation of food, water, air, and work conditions. Is profit really worth it if your water is laced with ignitable gas? Or the beef you get at the store tainted and contaminated? Or the factory you work in has asbestos in the walls and ceilings? Is the profit worth it to you then? The 99% seeks the balance against businesses and corporations from polluting and endangering employees lives for profit. A well known company that won't settle $300k in OSHA fines and making work condition improvements while guarding their CEO's $4 million salary (and $6 mil mansion) just doesn't resonate well with the 99%ers. It's not that we don't think a CEO is worth $4 million. "The market sets the rate" - and I'm okay with that, but if you're doing it at the EXPENSE of others - then I'm not going to be okay with that. Whether its petitioning to loosen pollution controls or having agencies turning a blind eye to their unfair business practices. "Everything in the name of profit" has become the new mantra for the 21st century, "damn the employees and the world we build it on, I want my 4th yacht because I've grown tired of the first 3."
Elizabeth Warren, who is now running for Senate in Massachusetts has it right. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
That's not socialism folks. That's being socially responsible. The false information of Rush, the banter of Beck and the mis-guided network known as Fox ... all do their part to press forward with the fear of socialism. Even though they casually neglect to point out that we already live in a pretty fair amount of socialism as it is ... not everything can or should be turned into a capitalized profit. Elizabeth's point is simple: everybody is responsible for paying back to society in order to get back from society the kinds of things we all enjoy. The problem is that with corporations going overseas and doing everything they can to avoid paying their taxes like G.E., then there is no investment happening back in the country that allowed them to flourish to begin with. Anyone who believes that's a form of socialism really needs to examine their history and look back at what socialism actually was back in the days of the Soviet Union - who was a Socialist Republic. The nation was impoverished and kept that way ... there was no 1%, there was no middle class, there were no SUV's or WalMarts where you could buy your flat screen TV using your Visa card. If you truly think you know what socialism is - then you can clearly see that this country is not even close to the big red scare like Fox continues to advertise.
If you're finding yourself protecting the 1%'ers ... then maybe you should begin to ask yourself why. When the majority of the 99%'ers make up folks on the Democrat and Republican side - it's no longer a political issue, but an ideological one. It's not that I want all of us to feel entitled to what they have. That's not my argument. But when these companies focus on profit over responsibility - then that's my argument. If you're not going to show much loyalty to the country that gives you the right to have your business, or to the employees that work hard for your company ... then you really need to sit down and examine why your loyalties are with businesses who conduct themselves as cowardly as they do.
Are you trying to protect your job? Your stock portfolio? Are you content being complicit as these companies lay off workers or break the laws - forcing them to work over 40 hours but not be entitled to the benefits of a full time employee? Are you sleeping well at night with your $100/quarter dividend check because the company you're invested in wants to lie and cheat to stay ahead? Is that the capitalism dream that you subscribe to?
Is that your definition of what America is about?
Then I challenge you to examine how you got to think about yourself over your country. Were you misguided by the man sitting behind the golden microphone who thinks pretty highly of himself? Or were you misguided by the network that claims to be fair and balanced - yet is anything BUT fair and balanced? If you're offended that I'm tackling your two big idols it's because I take great offense of those that seek to put the country behind its citizens and the companies that have enjoyed an incredibly open expanse when it comes to making profit hand over fist.
This country was founded with a unified, hand-in-hand approach that made us stronger than any nation around. While Rush and Fox are entitled to spew whatever opinions they care to - they're doing so irresponsibly and for the sake of themselves. I'm not espousing that we need to revert to a Soviet Socialist regime, but there has got to be a balance with this out of control "it's all about me" attitude that it's okay to disavow the principles of this country ... just so you have some spare change in the jar at the end of the day.
Morally - even Jesus would be mortified.
Tea Baggers come out against Occupy Wall Street - OWS come out against the Baggers and there's a free for all somewhere in Central Park. It's not unusual to have these sprig parties sprout out every election cycle. There was the Green party, the Ross Perot party, the Gary Coleman party (okay - that was a typo..) But the prevailing two parties have remained relatively unscathed throughout history. That's not going to change anytime soon - but the reality is that as populist as some candidates have been (ahem, Obama) ... what matters is their service to the American people. Despite the Republican view on this, I subscribe to the belief that our electorate is there to represent the American people ... not American corporations and businesses.
That's why I haven't signed onto the OWS crowd as much as I've embraced the 99% movement. Because it's the 99% that continues to work hard everyday, see to their child's education, care and provide for their family while getting hammered by the lack of rise when it comes to salaries. That's why there's no single breadwinners in families these days. That's why both parents are needing to work to make ends meet and try to lay some sort of foundation for their family's future. Benefits are getting slashed, health care is out of reach for so many Americans, and there's a significant amount of the right side of the aisle that has NO PROBLEM with it. Our previous President once said that it's "uniquely American" to have such problems....
"Corporations are entitled to maximize their profits."
"Corporations have a duty and responsibility to their shareholders."
"It's not up businesses to take care of their employees..."
Really?
These are the folks you're protecting?
This is the philosophy you subscribe to?
The Tea Baggers and Republicans that continue to defend big business - they themselves fall well within the 99%, they continue to protect big industry, big banks, big pharma and big oil ... for reasons that simply don't make sense. The illusion that if you give the rich enough money - it'll trickle down to you - is a proven falsehood. The rate of salary increases have remain stagnant since Reagan's infamous boondoggle. The rich remain rich, while the poor remain poor and the middle class finds themselves on the endangered species list.
Even though they themselves are equally susceptible to the other 99%'ers out there in terms of job and benefit security. Sure - they have a nice paying job and can complain about others not doing enough to get their own damn job. Easy for them to say when unemployment has suffered mightily under the great recession. Easy for them .... until they find themselves on their own receiving end of it. Companies have no loyalty to their employees - as we've seen with the shift of jobs overseas. If you get a life-threatening condition - Sarah Palin's death panels will instantly be enacted to ensure that because you have become a liability of the company and you will lose your job and your benefits. It's all about profits, right Sarah?
Try treating cancer on unemployment after you've already emptied out your life's savings that you had HOPED was going to buoy your retirement ... and let's see if you still want to protect big pharma.
These folks are equally affected by the deregulation of food, water, air, and work conditions. Is profit really worth it if your water is laced with ignitable gas? Or the beef you get at the store tainted and contaminated? Or the factory you work in has asbestos in the walls and ceilings? Is the profit worth it to you then? The 99% seeks the balance against businesses and corporations from polluting and endangering employees lives for profit. A well known company that won't settle $300k in OSHA fines and making work condition improvements while guarding their CEO's $4 million salary (and $6 mil mansion) just doesn't resonate well with the 99%ers. It's not that we don't think a CEO is worth $4 million. "The market sets the rate" - and I'm okay with that, but if you're doing it at the EXPENSE of others - then I'm not going to be okay with that. Whether its petitioning to loosen pollution controls or having agencies turning a blind eye to their unfair business practices. "Everything in the name of profit" has become the new mantra for the 21st century, "damn the employees and the world we build it on, I want my 4th yacht because I've grown tired of the first 3."
Elizabeth Warren, who is now running for Senate in Massachusetts has it right. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
That's not socialism folks. That's being socially responsible. The false information of Rush, the banter of Beck and the mis-guided network known as Fox ... all do their part to press forward with the fear of socialism. Even though they casually neglect to point out that we already live in a pretty fair amount of socialism as it is ... not everything can or should be turned into a capitalized profit. Elizabeth's point is simple: everybody is responsible for paying back to society in order to get back from society the kinds of things we all enjoy. The problem is that with corporations going overseas and doing everything they can to avoid paying their taxes like G.E., then there is no investment happening back in the country that allowed them to flourish to begin with. Anyone who believes that's a form of socialism really needs to examine their history and look back at what socialism actually was back in the days of the Soviet Union - who was a Socialist Republic. The nation was impoverished and kept that way ... there was no 1%, there was no middle class, there were no SUV's or WalMarts where you could buy your flat screen TV using your Visa card. If you truly think you know what socialism is - then you can clearly see that this country is not even close to the big red scare like Fox continues to advertise.
If you're finding yourself protecting the 1%'ers ... then maybe you should begin to ask yourself why. When the majority of the 99%'ers make up folks on the Democrat and Republican side - it's no longer a political issue, but an ideological one. It's not that I want all of us to feel entitled to what they have. That's not my argument. But when these companies focus on profit over responsibility - then that's my argument. If you're not going to show much loyalty to the country that gives you the right to have your business, or to the employees that work hard for your company ... then you really need to sit down and examine why your loyalties are with businesses who conduct themselves as cowardly as they do.
Are you trying to protect your job? Your stock portfolio? Are you content being complicit as these companies lay off workers or break the laws - forcing them to work over 40 hours but not be entitled to the benefits of a full time employee? Are you sleeping well at night with your $100/quarter dividend check because the company you're invested in wants to lie and cheat to stay ahead? Is that the capitalism dream that you subscribe to?
Is that your definition of what America is about?
Then I challenge you to examine how you got to think about yourself over your country. Were you misguided by the man sitting behind the golden microphone who thinks pretty highly of himself? Or were you misguided by the network that claims to be fair and balanced - yet is anything BUT fair and balanced? If you're offended that I'm tackling your two big idols it's because I take great offense of those that seek to put the country behind its citizens and the companies that have enjoyed an incredibly open expanse when it comes to making profit hand over fist.
This country was founded with a unified, hand-in-hand approach that made us stronger than any nation around. While Rush and Fox are entitled to spew whatever opinions they care to - they're doing so irresponsibly and for the sake of themselves. I'm not espousing that we need to revert to a Soviet Socialist regime, but there has got to be a balance with this out of control "it's all about me" attitude that it's okay to disavow the principles of this country ... just so you have some spare change in the jar at the end of the day.
Morally - even Jesus would be mortified.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
The Big Thaw....
It's been a painful three years to watch the goings on in Washington. Admittedly - I've went into hibernation. I deliberately distanced myself from the political hashing and rehashing because there simply was no point to get upset or angry with the political climate. Republicans don't care, Democrats don't care either. Americans care and I'm not sure that's something either party fully understands yet.
I've distanced myself from my familiar political haunts - mainly because they were proving themselves to be equally divisive spin-masters as the other side has been. There's so much political media pandering going on - that it's impossible to really gauge a politician's real view point without them pausing and thinking through the mind games of "what's best for me."
In Reflection... In 2008, many of us believed we had a candidate that would be our fiercest advocate. While I believe he was very well intentioned - the realities of the Washington culture transformed him into something completely unrecognizable. My posts diminished as it felt like many of us were abandoned by someone who was leading the charge to make a difference. In that span of time -- we watched someone who was constantly extending his hand - trying to rally both sides to adopt his vision.
The "Respect" Factor...Republicans should be ashamed at how they have treated this President - if they actually knew and felt shame. Even with the incredible bumblings of George W., I respected his role as President. There was none of this: "He's not MY President" flatulence. I so desperately want to turn to those folks and have them arrested because if Obama is not your President then you are here illegally and you need to be deported. In all of my rants about the previous administration - as much as I hated what his policies were doing to this country - I never said he was "not MY President."
Grow up.
Race Is Still an Issue... The tragic thing is that this kind of disrespect is now acceptable because Obama is "lesser" somehow. I don't mean to play the race card - but I find those that hide behind their disrespect are being majorly disingenuous about how they really feel about a black President. If you're going to hate, then hate - the very least you can do is own it and expose it for who you really are. Don't hide - be proud of it. At least be honest without the Rush Limbaugh-esque "I have black friends" as an excuse for your hatred of the man.
If you don't like his politics - then say so. The problem is - most people who rail against Obama are the exact same ones that benefit from his policies.
Thaw or Hibernation... Does this mean there's a thaw coming for Spoon's Rant ... or will I sleep back in slumber? I really don't know the answer to that. I've seen things from Obama that have gotten my attention - but I've also seen things that still concern me. He has a lot of explaining to do and a lot of repair work with his base. He's lost the support of the left wing - but then I don't think many left wingers want another mistake to end up in the White House.
...I've been wrong on that before though... who would've thought Bush would be elected twice in a row?
I've distanced myself from my familiar political haunts - mainly because they were proving themselves to be equally divisive spin-masters as the other side has been. There's so much political media pandering going on - that it's impossible to really gauge a politician's real view point without them pausing and thinking through the mind games of "what's best for me."
In Reflection... In 2008, many of us believed we had a candidate that would be our fiercest advocate. While I believe he was very well intentioned - the realities of the Washington culture transformed him into something completely unrecognizable. My posts diminished as it felt like many of us were abandoned by someone who was leading the charge to make a difference. In that span of time -- we watched someone who was constantly extending his hand - trying to rally both sides to adopt his vision.
The "Respect" Factor...Republicans should be ashamed at how they have treated this President - if they actually knew and felt shame. Even with the incredible bumblings of George W., I respected his role as President. There was none of this: "He's not MY President" flatulence. I so desperately want to turn to those folks and have them arrested because if Obama is not your President then you are here illegally and you need to be deported. In all of my rants about the previous administration - as much as I hated what his policies were doing to this country - I never said he was "not MY President."
Grow up.
Race Is Still an Issue... The tragic thing is that this kind of disrespect is now acceptable because Obama is "lesser" somehow. I don't mean to play the race card - but I find those that hide behind their disrespect are being majorly disingenuous about how they really feel about a black President. If you're going to hate, then hate - the very least you can do is own it and expose it for who you really are. Don't hide - be proud of it. At least be honest without the Rush Limbaugh-esque "I have black friends" as an excuse for your hatred of the man.
If you don't like his politics - then say so. The problem is - most people who rail against Obama are the exact same ones that benefit from his policies.
Thaw or Hibernation... Does this mean there's a thaw coming for Spoon's Rant ... or will I sleep back in slumber? I really don't know the answer to that. I've seen things from Obama that have gotten my attention - but I've also seen things that still concern me. He has a lot of explaining to do and a lot of repair work with his base. He's lost the support of the left wing - but then I don't think many left wingers want another mistake to end up in the White House.
...I've been wrong on that before though... who would've thought Bush would be elected twice in a row?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
