Presidents aren't noble; they're just ambitious.
Or, so goes the conventional wisdom. Many agree that to run for the president of any nation, especially a western, world-leading, industrialized nation, and particularly the United States, takes a great amount of ambition, and says something about the ego of that person. No argument here. That's why I'm an artist. No ego required.
Or is there? Okay, so maybe you knew I was going there. Well, that still makes the question no less sensible. The question being: Are we, who pursue the arts, any more noble or any less ego-driven, than a presidential candidate?
Well, frankly, I don't know. But let's at least try to examine it.
At first glance, the answer may seem to be no. Many artists work in obscurity, and never seek the limelight. They are happy trading sketches or prints, etc., with fellow artists, or providing work for their family's enjoyment. Many simply create art for their own enjoyment. They make something, then they admire it themselves. Some try to sell their work, not because they want fame and fortune, but because they only want to do art full-time, and so would prefer to have their income derive from what they love. But they seek no more than enough profit to live without worry and to continue to afford to make their art.
Likewise (believe it or not), many politicians are very similar. Whatever their views, they believe that they have something to offer their community, and many politicians, though getting plenty done, happily work in relative obscurity. Who's the city councilperson for District 12 in New York City? Who's the mayor of Minden, Nevada? Did you know a state senator in Nebraska makes just $12, 000 a year? Chances are that you know none of the three. And there's nothing wrong with that. Nor do I (or, at least I didn't before writing this).
However, there are a substantial number of artists working toward eminence, and they are probably not greatly disproportionate to the number of politicians doing the same. I (for a time) was working toward notoriety, and I am friends with several very talented artists in many different disciplines doing the same. Obviously (or maybe not) we are not doing art just for fame. There are many other things we could do to more easily achieve that goal. We all love art, and do it because we love it. As well, we all feel that we have something important to say about (or to contribute to) the world we live in, and we all think this is information that we need to get out there, or no one may ever hear / see / feel it, etc. However, we would like some notoriety and financial stability to accompany it.
So, are our goals 100% noble? Of course not. We are human. We change our minds on issues. We learn. We grow. We're stubborn. We regress. We're cynical; all of those wonderful things that human beings are and do.
So why shouldn't a politician be expected to do the same? Granted, a politician's ambitions are probably more dangerous than an artist's. The great oppressive regimes in the world weren't created by artists. Now, before you get up in arms, I know Hitler was an artist, but people didn't follow him on those merits. However, it would be naive of me to say that art and its control didn't play a very important role in those regimes. Art absolutely swayed people. If oppressive leaders were the premise, arts were the supporting argument.
Still, politicians can't be expected to be completely noble, in fact, just as artists, they can often times be quite ignoble, and that is why the checks and balances system is so important. Artists don't need a checks and balances system (at least these days) because no one cares about us until it's too late. But politicians do, so we can avoid the "too late" scenario.
So, the looming, slightly rephrased, question remains: Are we, who pursue the arts, any more noble or any less ego-driven, than a political aspirant?
Short answer: No. But given power, we're likely less dangerous.
FYI:
Minden, NV has no mayor. It is governed by five elected advisory Town Board members.
NYC District 12 Councilman - Larry Seabrook (as of 9/29/08)
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Real Life Makes for a Painful Movie
I thought I was in a bad comedy this morning by the creators of Scary Movie (3 and onward), Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Superhero Movie, etc., (yes, worse than those), when, on my way to work, I was passed, in succession, by two young black women, unrelated to each other, who were both pregnant. It's not that two is a lot, it's just that they were walking not more than 15 feet apart from each other in the same direction, and came off of the same bus. I was walking in the opposite direction. It was as if someone had just made a throwaway comment in one of those movies and this was the related descriptive scene.
I work in a poor neighborhood, which in some twisted way, makes me feel good, because though the neighborhood is black, there is not a high incidence of crime. Certainly there's plenty of niggerish behavior, but fortunately, it hasn't (largely) degenerated (yet) into violence and theft. But what I hadn't thought about before, is the high incidence of teenage pregnancy. These women were no more than 18, probably right at 18, and likely 16 or 17. I call them women because once you bear a child, unfortunately you can be a child no more. But make no mistake, in terms of age and mental maturity (if not innocence), these were children; teenagers.
I realized I had no idea how high the incidence of teenage pregnacy was in the black community - my community. Sure, I've read the statistics, but numbers on a page are not the same as living something day to day, and day to day, I see many pregnant mothers, as well as mothers with born children, and in many cases, mothers with both. For some reason it never dawned on me until this morning (which I know makes me an idiot), but this is a huge problem. Let me correct myself - I knew this was a huge problem. Several years ago I even began the process of creating a photoessay that deals with this issue (among many others in the black community). However, what I mean to say is, I had never experienced the problem on a daily basis like this.
Now, frankly, it's the mothers who really experience this, and I'm not trying to make their hardships and experiences about me. But what I mean is, I've never been around it to this degree, and it is troubling.
It has me thinking, again...
I work in a poor neighborhood, which in some twisted way, makes me feel good, because though the neighborhood is black, there is not a high incidence of crime. Certainly there's plenty of niggerish behavior, but fortunately, it hasn't (largely) degenerated (yet) into violence and theft. But what I hadn't thought about before, is the high incidence of teenage pregnancy. These women were no more than 18, probably right at 18, and likely 16 or 17. I call them women because once you bear a child, unfortunately you can be a child no more. But make no mistake, in terms of age and mental maturity (if not innocence), these were children; teenagers.
I realized I had no idea how high the incidence of teenage pregnacy was in the black community - my community. Sure, I've read the statistics, but numbers on a page are not the same as living something day to day, and day to day, I see many pregnant mothers, as well as mothers with born children, and in many cases, mothers with both. For some reason it never dawned on me until this morning (which I know makes me an idiot), but this is a huge problem. Let me correct myself - I knew this was a huge problem. Several years ago I even began the process of creating a photoessay that deals with this issue (among many others in the black community). However, what I mean to say is, I had never experienced the problem on a daily basis like this.
Now, frankly, it's the mothers who really experience this, and I'm not trying to make their hardships and experiences about me. But what I mean is, I've never been around it to this degree, and it is troubling.
It has me thinking, again...
Here's to Friday (or Christmas Every Weekend)
Today is Friday, and I've come to feel that Friday is the best day of the week. It's the best day because if you don't completely hate your job, you get to spend time during the day working, thereby making money, and in the evening you can stay up as late as you want because you know you don't have to work the next day (for us weekday-ers). For some, that translates into going out to a dance club or a bar or a party or any number of nighttime events. For others, it translates into curling up with their lover and having a mini movie marathon. For others it translates into getting some personal work or hobbies done and sleeping in the next day. And still, for others, it translates into a night of energy-draining, mindless, mind-blowing, semi-coma the next morning, sex. For some it translates into all (or most) of the above.
For me, it means none of the above, as, due to a lack of exercise over the past year and a half, I have the energy for almost none of those things. And, because I work as a temp, I rarely have the money either. I do stay up though, because I can. It's like being a kid again in some way; a day (or evening) to regain the innocence and freedom I lost to rent payments, student loan payments, utility payments, credit card payments, tax payments, go nowhere jobs, murdered dreams and an adult body (and the hair to go with it). I can (subconsciously) be the kid who was finally allowed to stay up after a week of (in my case, not very) strong effort at school. I still enjoy Friday, because it's the anticipatory day. The day before the big day. The day before it all slowly starts to go to pieces, and subsequently, downhill. It's Christmas Eve.
Saturday is OK, but most people waste half of the day sleeping Friday off. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I personally love it. It just makes for a lot of rushing around to do things in half-a-day that could be done more leisurely with a whole day. Saturday is the equivalent of Christmas day. I try to get up early on Saturday. Sometimes it's very easy. Most times it is not. Whether I'm tired or not, sometimes I stay in bed just because I can. Now, granted, "staying in bed" for me really only extends to about 10am at the latest, and I naturally wake up around 7am on most days, period. That likely makes my Saturday a bit longer than others'. Still, despite the ability to sleep in remoreselessly (I'm positive that's not a word), Saturday kind of sucks. It's good in the morning, when you unwrap the present of "sleeping in", but for me, Christmas day always ended with a bit of a let down. Though not impoverished, my family had very little money, and after the presents, there wasn't much else. There was the cleanup of the wrapping paper, the discovery that the toy I wanted to play with the most needed batteries, and that my parents had forgotten to buy them (or in some cases, couldn't afford them until the following week). So there was all the elation of Christmas morning, followed by the gradual decline in spirit throughout the day.
My parents did all they could (and many Christmas' it was considerable), but even as the understanding child I was, it was still a bit of a letdown. And so, that is how Saturday feels. After the intital fun of sleeping in, and maybe even some morning-sex, there come the tasks of cleaning the house, doing the laundry, going to the bank, going to the post office, going to the store, etc., etc., etc. If you're lucky, maybe you get to go the park or the museum or play sports, or something, and hanging with friends and/or family may take some of the edge off. However, the chore requirements always introduce some let down, as so much of the remaining day is consumed by them.
Sunday (for me) is the day after Christmas. It's relaxing, and you may have little to do, but you know that the next day, things will largely be back to "normal" and the "holiday spirit" has already started to fade, if it hasn't completely done so already. Many are using the morning to relax after a chore and activity-filled Saturday, but they (who work) know the evening becomes the time when all the preparation for the next workday begins. The hair starts getting done, the clothes are laid out, the lunch is made, and the earlier bedtime is reintroduced.
I would wish for everyday to be Friday, but Friday can't be Friday without Saturday and Sunday, otherwise Friday becomes Monday, and that's the last day I look forward to seeing.
Come Sunday, the holidays are over.
Back to the regular, cruel world.
For me, it means none of the above, as, due to a lack of exercise over the past year and a half, I have the energy for almost none of those things. And, because I work as a temp, I rarely have the money either. I do stay up though, because I can. It's like being a kid again in some way; a day (or evening) to regain the innocence and freedom I lost to rent payments, student loan payments, utility payments, credit card payments, tax payments, go nowhere jobs, murdered dreams and an adult body (and the hair to go with it). I can (subconsciously) be the kid who was finally allowed to stay up after a week of (in my case, not very) strong effort at school. I still enjoy Friday, because it's the anticipatory day. The day before the big day. The day before it all slowly starts to go to pieces, and subsequently, downhill. It's Christmas Eve.
Saturday is OK, but most people waste half of the day sleeping Friday off. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I personally love it. It just makes for a lot of rushing around to do things in half-a-day that could be done more leisurely with a whole day. Saturday is the equivalent of Christmas day. I try to get up early on Saturday. Sometimes it's very easy. Most times it is not. Whether I'm tired or not, sometimes I stay in bed just because I can. Now, granted, "staying in bed" for me really only extends to about 10am at the latest, and I naturally wake up around 7am on most days, period. That likely makes my Saturday a bit longer than others'. Still, despite the ability to sleep in remoreselessly (I'm positive that's not a word), Saturday kind of sucks. It's good in the morning, when you unwrap the present of "sleeping in", but for me, Christmas day always ended with a bit of a let down. Though not impoverished, my family had very little money, and after the presents, there wasn't much else. There was the cleanup of the wrapping paper, the discovery that the toy I wanted to play with the most needed batteries, and that my parents had forgotten to buy them (or in some cases, couldn't afford them until the following week). So there was all the elation of Christmas morning, followed by the gradual decline in spirit throughout the day.
My parents did all they could (and many Christmas' it was considerable), but even as the understanding child I was, it was still a bit of a letdown. And so, that is how Saturday feels. After the intital fun of sleeping in, and maybe even some morning-sex, there come the tasks of cleaning the house, doing the laundry, going to the bank, going to the post office, going to the store, etc., etc., etc. If you're lucky, maybe you get to go the park or the museum or play sports, or something, and hanging with friends and/or family may take some of the edge off. However, the chore requirements always introduce some let down, as so much of the remaining day is consumed by them.
Sunday (for me) is the day after Christmas. It's relaxing, and you may have little to do, but you know that the next day, things will largely be back to "normal" and the "holiday spirit" has already started to fade, if it hasn't completely done so already. Many are using the morning to relax after a chore and activity-filled Saturday, but they (who work) know the evening becomes the time when all the preparation for the next workday begins. The hair starts getting done, the clothes are laid out, the lunch is made, and the earlier bedtime is reintroduced.
I would wish for everyday to be Friday, but Friday can't be Friday without Saturday and Sunday, otherwise Friday becomes Monday, and that's the last day I look forward to seeing.
Come Sunday, the holidays are over.
Back to the regular, cruel world.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A little help?
I currently work as a temp at a community college, where it's my job to sign people up for GED testing and classes. We have this free program (as many institutions do) to help those in the surrounding community acquire the ability to attend college. As I field several hundred calls and walk-in inquiries a day, it has become apparent to me that no one has our phone number or knows the name of our department. Students and staff alike are routinely transferred or forwarded to my phone and desk from other places that they have incorrectly called or visited. This has led me to wonder what the hell is going on? Why does no one know who we are, and why is it so difficult to contact us? At the outset, one might wonder if it is the ineptitude of those trying to reach us. On closer inspection, one discovers (for an as yet undetermined reason) that getting information on just about any place is nearly impossible. Even in the "cyberspace age", old or broken links, as well as misdirection, is pervasive. Why is this? I must re-ask the now cliche' question: What makes businesses think that less service is better business? Even for programs, services and businesses that generally want to be found.
For example: I recently needed to locate a nearby Staples store. I searched online, and after getting to the overloaded front page of their website, I finally found a tiny little link, off in a corner, that read "Store Locator". Great. I usually know where to look on a page to find such a thing, but because their home page is so busy, it took me nearly seven or eight minutes to see theirs. I clicked on it, and located the store I wanted. I got a phone number, which did not go to the actual store (though the site led me to believe it did), but instead went to a call center. The call center then transferred me to the store. Once I was transferred to the store, no one answered for an extended period, then when they did, they transferred me to the wrong department.
Now why would all of this happen? Well, corporate doesn't want you to walk into a store when you can buy online. The employees don't realize it, but they have been poorly trained in handling customers, in order to better serve corporate's goals. If everyone moves to online purchasing, corporate can then start closing stores, laying people off (those very same low-wage, poorly-trained salespeople), dramatically cutting their overhead in the process. Of course, their online prices are somewhat cheaper, but it is more than made up for (on your end) by the shipping charges. Sure, Staples doesn't get that money, it goes to FedEx or UPS or whomever, but that makes little difference to your pocket. It still stings.
Case in point, I was merely looking for a $2 sketch pad that I thought they might carry. They didn't have it in-store or online, but if they had, the shipping charges to have them send it to me were well in excess of double the cost of the pad. However, they (institutionally) did everything imaginable to keep me from 1.) talking to a human and 2.) coming into the store, effectively making it impossible (if not just very difficult) to buy it any other way (from them). All this, by the way, while doing everything imaginable to eliminate competition so that, despite the poor service, you have to spend your money with them. Guess it's the American way.
But why is this the case at a college or university, like the one at which I work? Surely, they must want students, as it means more revenue and exposure. This one is less obvious to me. Perhaps the gigantic bureaucracies which run colleges and universities are to blame. No one knows what the other is doing, every call is passed off and redirected and ultimately, students and prospective students are lost in the shuffle. Or perhaps academia is subject to the same trends as business. With more offerings online, they can cut some overhead by not having on-campus classes. Fewer buildings means lower real estate costs. As well, fewer professors can teach more classes online, allowing the schools to hire less. More students, fewer teachers and expenses, as well as the support staff that accompanies those things.
I don't know the answer, but I know it's infuriating. A little help? Anyone?
For example: I recently needed to locate a nearby Staples store. I searched online, and after getting to the overloaded front page of their website, I finally found a tiny little link, off in a corner, that read "Store Locator". Great. I usually know where to look on a page to find such a thing, but because their home page is so busy, it took me nearly seven or eight minutes to see theirs. I clicked on it, and located the store I wanted. I got a phone number, which did not go to the actual store (though the site led me to believe it did), but instead went to a call center. The call center then transferred me to the store. Once I was transferred to the store, no one answered for an extended period, then when they did, they transferred me to the wrong department.
Now why would all of this happen? Well, corporate doesn't want you to walk into a store when you can buy online. The employees don't realize it, but they have been poorly trained in handling customers, in order to better serve corporate's goals. If everyone moves to online purchasing, corporate can then start closing stores, laying people off (those very same low-wage, poorly-trained salespeople), dramatically cutting their overhead in the process. Of course, their online prices are somewhat cheaper, but it is more than made up for (on your end) by the shipping charges. Sure, Staples doesn't get that money, it goes to FedEx or UPS or whomever, but that makes little difference to your pocket. It still stings.
Case in point, I was merely looking for a $2 sketch pad that I thought they might carry. They didn't have it in-store or online, but if they had, the shipping charges to have them send it to me were well in excess of double the cost of the pad. However, they (institutionally) did everything imaginable to keep me from 1.) talking to a human and 2.) coming into the store, effectively making it impossible (if not just very difficult) to buy it any other way (from them). All this, by the way, while doing everything imaginable to eliminate competition so that, despite the poor service, you have to spend your money with them. Guess it's the American way.
But why is this the case at a college or university, like the one at which I work? Surely, they must want students, as it means more revenue and exposure. This one is less obvious to me. Perhaps the gigantic bureaucracies which run colleges and universities are to blame. No one knows what the other is doing, every call is passed off and redirected and ultimately, students and prospective students are lost in the shuffle. Or perhaps academia is subject to the same trends as business. With more offerings online, they can cut some overhead by not having on-campus classes. Fewer buildings means lower real estate costs. As well, fewer professors can teach more classes online, allowing the schools to hire less. More students, fewer teachers and expenses, as well as the support staff that accompanies those things.
I don't know the answer, but I know it's infuriating. A little help? Anyone?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Fight Club '08
Another day, another post. With the (tantamount) collapse of the investment banking industry, and the conversion of the United States into France (or some similar semi-socialist Western European republic), I think of my fiancee'. She says we should have just let the banks collapse and started over again. I wholeheartedly agree. It would have hurt many, including the international markets, but maybe then, we could have some sort of moratorium on greed and the (huge) negative side of laissez-faire capitalism. Maybe then (maybe), poor, red-state people would finally start to see the Republican party for what it currently is - the party of the rich red-state people.
So, what am I, (country accent) "Some sorta damned communist?" Well, yes, frankly, to a large degree. But that doesn't mean I'm wholly against the "on paper" Republican philosophy. By the tenets of the REAL Republican party, I could be a Republican. I believe in small government. I believe in "pull yourself up by your bootstraps...". I believe in low taxes. I believe in self-determination and I believe in free AND FAIR trade. In fact, I believe in no government, everyone pulls his weight, no taxes, completely open trade and completely individual determination. Much like life would be on a small commune. So, I guess that makes me a Republican Communist.
But ay, here's the rub. In reality, the Republicans are all about big government, higher taxes, restricted trade, and party determination of what the individual should do. And we can look at all of this. So, let's do so.
SMALL GOVERNMENT
The Republican party, as it exists currently, advocates some of the largest, and sweeping government, and the least individual determination that the nation has seen. The party wants to determine whether gays (individuals) can be married to each other by passing legislation opposed to it (government). The Republican party, as it exists currently, wants to determine a mother's (individual) right to choose to have an abortion by passing legislation banning it (government). The Republican party, as it exists currently, wants to determine whether or not a citizen without insurance (individual) receives medical treatment by passing legislation against universal health care (government). Republicans are the very ones who support the legislation that bans the individual's right to decide when he / she should die. If you are in the hospital, in unimaginable pain, with a terminal illness, the Republicans want the government to tell you (the individual) that you are not allowed to have assisted suicide. Yet, if they lose millions in the stock market and pull the trigger on themselves, that is acceptable. They can have what they want. You can't. Each of these examples is an individual, and very personal right.
The Republicans, as they now sit, want to take these from you. They want the government to legislate whether two individuals who sincerely love each other can have the benefits a marriage certificate provides. They want the government to legislate an individual mother's right to carry a child to term, when that mother is no more prepared to take care of that child than she was to make it in the first place. Further interesting, is the Republicans' nearly unwavering support of the death penalty which, it is well documented, disproportionately affects poor, underprivileged Americans, and especially blacks. The current Republicans know that the child will have little opportunity in life, but in the apt and cogent words of my fiancee', Republicans want to punish any woman who conceives a child - even in cases of rape and incest, so they'll have someone to sentence to death in 17 years - or less (in Texas, a 15 year old was once sentenced to death). This way they can guarantee the further existence of prisons and we all know prisons are big business. Apparently, dooming a child to a life of little opportunity and much distress is perfectly acceptable.
So, the republicans want the government to determine who gets married, who gets to live, who gets to die, who gets health care, and let's not forget the famous "Patriot" Act, which allows the United States government to spy on ordinary American citizens domestically, supposedly in an effort to fight foreign terrorists internationally. That makes perfect sense, right? Oh, and by the way, if, in the future this is found completely illegal and unconstitutional (you know, like it is right now, but the conservatives have loopholed their way out of prosecution for now), they want the companies who assist in it to be immune from prosecution, under the guise of "They were just doing what they were ordered to do." Nazi troops only did what they were ordered to do. The American soldiers at Abu Ghraib only did what they were ordered to do. Let me also add that this is a major point where I diverge from Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama (along with his position on the death penalty).
This all sounds like a lot more and a lot bigger government intrusion on our daily lives - at least to me.
LOW TAXES
Which party now wants to use taxpayer money to bail out the private financial companies that their buddies run? Where will all that taxpayer money come from? Well, taxpayers, of course. Let me appendix that by saying this is another point where I diverge from Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. He agrees with the bailouts (at least as of now). he only reason the republicans voted the measure down (despite it being introduced by their party) was that there were too many concessions for the average American. Go figure that one out: We're giving too much to the victims and not enough to the perpetrators.
As well, Republicans are known for (and proud of) being the party that spends the most on the military and weapons and war technology. More money for more spying on Americans and more weapons to keep them in place if they get out of line, as well as to assert our military dominance over the rest of the world. Where does that money come from? Taxpayers. So the Republicans are comfortable with corporate welfare but not individual welfare. Billion dollar corporations need the government's help, but not the impoverished individual. That sounds like the party that has lost focus on what the government's role is supposed to be. To stand up, help and defend those who can not do so for themselves. Indeed, instead of defending the weak, they build the military to suppress them.
PULL YERSELF UP BY YER BOOTSTRAPS
Well, the current Republican party has made this all but impossible. As Sen. Obama quipped, most no longer have boots to put straps onto. Additionally, many are in health states too poor to allow them to even lift their own weight, and lack adequate insurance coverage to help them get the care they need. Frankly, if the previous two sections of this essay were taken into account by the party, one could pull themselves up.
FREE TRADE
Laughable. It should actually be called: Free Trade Among Nations (including oppressive totalitarians) That Support the United States.
CONCLUSION
So why did I title this post: Fight Club '08? Well, one, it was an effort (I believe successful) to be cryptic. Two, because I envision a Marxist revolution (adapted to the time) to be the answer; the failure of the banks and credit companies, and the collapse of the investment banking industry, and a "reboot" if you will, of the United States' and world's economy. The difference is, I don't get to plant dynamite at the base of these institutions' headquarters.
So, what am I, (country accent) "Some sorta damned communist?" Well, yes, frankly, to a large degree. But that doesn't mean I'm wholly against the "on paper" Republican philosophy. By the tenets of the REAL Republican party, I could be a Republican. I believe in small government. I believe in "pull yourself up by your bootstraps...". I believe in low taxes. I believe in self-determination and I believe in free AND FAIR trade. In fact, I believe in no government, everyone pulls his weight, no taxes, completely open trade and completely individual determination. Much like life would be on a small commune. So, I guess that makes me a Republican Communist.
But ay, here's the rub. In reality, the Republicans are all about big government, higher taxes, restricted trade, and party determination of what the individual should do. And we can look at all of this. So, let's do so.
SMALL GOVERNMENT
The Republican party, as it exists currently, advocates some of the largest, and sweeping government, and the least individual determination that the nation has seen. The party wants to determine whether gays (individuals) can be married to each other by passing legislation opposed to it (government). The Republican party, as it exists currently, wants to determine a mother's (individual) right to choose to have an abortion by passing legislation banning it (government). The Republican party, as it exists currently, wants to determine whether or not a citizen without insurance (individual) receives medical treatment by passing legislation against universal health care (government). Republicans are the very ones who support the legislation that bans the individual's right to decide when he / she should die. If you are in the hospital, in unimaginable pain, with a terminal illness, the Republicans want the government to tell you (the individual) that you are not allowed to have assisted suicide. Yet, if they lose millions in the stock market and pull the trigger on themselves, that is acceptable. They can have what they want. You can't. Each of these examples is an individual, and very personal right.
The Republicans, as they now sit, want to take these from you. They want the government to legislate whether two individuals who sincerely love each other can have the benefits a marriage certificate provides. They want the government to legislate an individual mother's right to carry a child to term, when that mother is no more prepared to take care of that child than she was to make it in the first place. Further interesting, is the Republicans' nearly unwavering support of the death penalty which, it is well documented, disproportionately affects poor, underprivileged Americans, and especially blacks. The current Republicans know that the child will have little opportunity in life, but in the apt and cogent words of my fiancee', Republicans want to punish any woman who conceives a child - even in cases of rape and incest, so they'll have someone to sentence to death in 17 years - or less (in Texas, a 15 year old was once sentenced to death). This way they can guarantee the further existence of prisons and we all know prisons are big business. Apparently, dooming a child to a life of little opportunity and much distress is perfectly acceptable.
So, the republicans want the government to determine who gets married, who gets to live, who gets to die, who gets health care, and let's not forget the famous "Patriot" Act, which allows the United States government to spy on ordinary American citizens domestically, supposedly in an effort to fight foreign terrorists internationally. That makes perfect sense, right? Oh, and by the way, if, in the future this is found completely illegal and unconstitutional (you know, like it is right now, but the conservatives have loopholed their way out of prosecution for now), they want the companies who assist in it to be immune from prosecution, under the guise of "They were just doing what they were ordered to do." Nazi troops only did what they were ordered to do. The American soldiers at Abu Ghraib only did what they were ordered to do. Let me also add that this is a major point where I diverge from Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama (along with his position on the death penalty).
This all sounds like a lot more and a lot bigger government intrusion on our daily lives - at least to me.
LOW TAXES
Which party now wants to use taxpayer money to bail out the private financial companies that their buddies run? Where will all that taxpayer money come from? Well, taxpayers, of course. Let me appendix that by saying this is another point where I diverge from Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. He agrees with the bailouts (at least as of now). he only reason the republicans voted the measure down (despite it being introduced by their party) was that there were too many concessions for the average American. Go figure that one out: We're giving too much to the victims and not enough to the perpetrators.
As well, Republicans are known for (and proud of) being the party that spends the most on the military and weapons and war technology. More money for more spying on Americans and more weapons to keep them in place if they get out of line, as well as to assert our military dominance over the rest of the world. Where does that money come from? Taxpayers. So the Republicans are comfortable with corporate welfare but not individual welfare. Billion dollar corporations need the government's help, but not the impoverished individual. That sounds like the party that has lost focus on what the government's role is supposed to be. To stand up, help and defend those who can not do so for themselves. Indeed, instead of defending the weak, they build the military to suppress them.
PULL YERSELF UP BY YER BOOTSTRAPS
Well, the current Republican party has made this all but impossible. As Sen. Obama quipped, most no longer have boots to put straps onto. Additionally, many are in health states too poor to allow them to even lift their own weight, and lack adequate insurance coverage to help them get the care they need. Frankly, if the previous two sections of this essay were taken into account by the party, one could pull themselves up.
FREE TRADE
Laughable. It should actually be called: Free Trade Among Nations (including oppressive totalitarians) That Support the United States.
CONCLUSION
So why did I title this post: Fight Club '08? Well, one, it was an effort (I believe successful) to be cryptic. Two, because I envision a Marxist revolution (adapted to the time) to be the answer; the failure of the banks and credit companies, and the collapse of the investment banking industry, and a "reboot" if you will, of the United States' and world's economy. The difference is, I don't get to plant dynamite at the base of these institutions' headquarters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)