There is an economic concept known as "discretionary" income. This refers to money that people earn which is above and beyond what they need to pay for their basic living expenses.
For example, let's say someone earns $3000/month, $36,000/year. Let's say further that the minimum it would cost this person for housing where they live is $1200/month; health insurance $200/month; food $400/month; car insurance, gas, amortized portion of purchase and repairs $250/month; other utilities such as gas, electric, trash, phone, $150/month, dental $50/month, clothing $50/month, personal products and cleaning supplies $100/month (shampoo, toothpaste, toilet paper, paper towels), and $100/month for an emergency fund. That means $2500/month is the minimum amount this person needs to pay their basic living expenses, without any extras. That means this person has $500/month, $6000/year in "discretionary" income.
Let's take another person earning $120,000/year, $10,000/month. Using the same figures, this person would have $7500/month in "discretionary" income. They could live reasonably on $2500/month, and therefore can do what they want with the $7500/month additional income. It is within their "discretion" to decide whether to save it or spend it and, if they spend it, whether to buy something of long-term value or buy expensive clothes that will have no value within two years. It is entirely within their discretion.
One approach to a progressive system of taxation is to set up a basic amount which is required for somebody to live reasonably every month. In this scenario, I have assumed $2500 is the minimum cost to live reasonably in a month. In a progressive tax system, the first $2500 of somebody's monthly income should not be taxed because, by definition, $2500 is the minimum each person needs to spend in order to have a reasonable life, to pay for the reasonable necessities of shelter, food, medical and dental, modest clothing, and transportation.
Assuming each person needs $2500/month for basic living expenses, that amount should be deducted from their gross income before any taxes are owed. The "standard" deduction from gross income, for purposes of calculating taxes, should therefore be $30,000 per year for a single person. Obviously for married couples, and people with children, each additional person in the family would "cost" less than the $30,000 for the first person. The second person's "costs," in other words, might only be $20,000, since they share the cost of the housing, utilities, and certain other expenses.
If the standard deduction was $30,000 for a single person, then anyone earning $30,000 or less would pay no taxes. Which is how it should be if it requires $30,000 for somebody to live with minimal standards. It's not the fault of the citizens that the cost of living has gone up so dramatically. The standard deduction, unfortunately, is frozen at some unreasonable figure which doesn't even come close to representing what it really costs for somebody to have a minimal lifestyle in this country.
Taxes should only be applied to discretionary income. The percentage of taxes should be progressive, or progressive upwards to reflect the higher income. For example, the first $10,000 of discretionary income might have a 10% tax rate. Everything between $10,001 and $30,000 of discretionary income might have a 20% tax rate. Everything between $30,001 and $70,000 would have a 30% tax rate, and so on. All income (regular and capital gains combined) above the amount of $250,000 should be taxed at 90%. Somebody earning $550,000 for example, would be taxed a progressive rate for everything above the minimum living standards, but would also be taxed at 90% of the $300,000 above $250,000.
So somebody earning $60,000 would pay $1,000 (10% of the first $10,000 of discretionary income, the amount between $30,000 and $40,000) plus $4,000 (20% of the amount between $40,001 and $60,000), for a total tax of $5,000.
Sounds low? Only because we're used to having so much of the tax burden transferred from the rich and the businesses to working Americans because of the tax changes under Reagan and Bush. They changed the tax structure so that the rich pay less, businesses pay almost nothing, and working people have to pay more and more taxes because of tricks like not raising the standard deduction to reflect the actual cost of living.
A progressive tax system, which we theoretically have, "progresses," starting at a low tax rate for low incomes, and going up to a high tax rate for higher incomes. What we have in our country is a system in which rich people and businesses have paid so much money in bribes to the politicians that our tax laws have been re-written so that everything is now regressive, not progressive. Sales taxes, for example, are regressive.
Let's take a state sales tax of 10%, for example. The person earning $24,000/year could easily spend 1/3 of that income buying items which are subject to the sales tax, so they end up paying 10% of $8,000, or an additional $800/year on sales taxes, let's say an additional 3% of their gross income is paid out in taxes. But for the person earning $120,000/year, most of what they do with their money is not subject to sales taxes, since much of the money is "invested" in real estate, or other investments to which sales taxes do not apply. So that person could end up spending under 1% of their income on sales taxes. Sales taxes are regressive, since they force lower-income people to pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes, while the rich pay less.
The reason that more Americans are broke is not because we are stupid, or even uneducated. There is a big push on now by the politicians and the business community to claim that the reason we have high unemployment is because we need to have more education for "our" workers so "we" can compete. This is such garbage. A pack of lies. Microsoft, for example, goes to India and Pakistan and recruits computer engineers to come to the U.S. and work on H1b visas, because they can pay them $11,000/year less than they would pay an American. In the meantime, well-educated American engineers in the computer as well as other fields have all been thrown out of work by U.S. corporations simply because the CEO wants cheaper labor.
The same is true in the building trades, with many highly qualified and well-trained Americans thrown out of work and replaced by truckloads of illegal immigrant workers brought into the country by coyotes, with the cooperation of the Bush administration and the Fox government in Mexico.
There is a systematic program in place in this country to throw more people out of work, eliminate taxes and all regulations which otherwise apply to businesses, cut the taxes for rich people, and steal everything that working people have, from the medical care, pensions, savings, homes. All of it has been looted and taken by the wealthiest and most powerful people in our country.
And the tax system has been changed to allow the rich to pay less, and force most Americans to pay more. Then the tax money is taken and given to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, to pay for wars, while our schools and bridges and freeways are allowed to deteriorate.
Changing the tax system would be a good place to start in trying to save our economy. The last administration as well as the current one have given billions of dollars of taxpayer money to the criminals on Wall Street, as well as running up debt which it will require generations to repay. If we started taxing the rich and businesses, we could begin the process of paying down the debt and investing in our own country again. And by increasing the standard deduction to what it really costs for people to live, we could reduce the tax burden on working people so they could afford to pay their bills without running up their credit cards.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
We Need To Redistribute Wealth Through A Progressive Taxation System.
Interesting article in the London Review of Books entitled "What Matters." Link below. The author argues that efforts to eliminate or minimize racism and sexism and homophobia have had no positive effect in changing society for the better, except for the benefits received by the small, elite group of women and minorities and gays who are now members of higher-paid professions. The lack of focus on inequality in income and asset ownership, or class differences, and the focus instead of racism and sexism, has allowed the situation for most people to deteriorate over recent decades.
I think his position can be summarized as follows: assuming that the top 20% of our society owns 80% of the country's assets, and takes home 80% of the country's income every year, then the bottom 80% of society is economically unequal -- they are denied their fair share of wealth. If we succeed in eliminating sexism and racism so that the top 20% has a representative number of whites and minorities, but the distribution does not change, then society as a whole has not benefitted. Society is just as unequal, and unfair, for 80% of its members, as it was during the height of racism and sexism.
It's an interesting analysis. It may be that it's easier for people to demand "equality" based on natural-born characteristics, and harder for people to demand economic equality based on a government-sponsored redistribution of wealth. In other words, most people might agree that it is wrong to refuse to allow any woman to go to law school. But they might not be able to articulate an argument about it being wrong to allow some of our citizens to have no home, no food, no money, no safety net. It's almost as if the powers that be might be willing to give up racism and sexism, but would never consider income redistribution.
Income redistribution is the legitimate purpose of a progressive tax system. When people earn ten million dollars, for example, a progressive tax system should take most of that money for public purposes. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that we should try to prevent any group of people from accumulating so much wealth that they can, essentially, put every single politician on their payroll, and control the country without ever having run for office. Which is what's happened in our country today.
For example, we used to have laws that prohibited one person or company from owning multiple TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, believing that democracy is best served when many voices can be heard. But some scum-bucket like Rupert Murdoch comes into this country and starts bribing politicians, and suddenly the laws are changed to allow him to buy up much of the media in the country and use it to promote fascist propaganda. Rich people destroy democracy, and that is why they should not be allowed to get too rich.
For another example, if Bill Gates had been taxed at 90% on his "earnings," maybe he wouldn't have charged the public so much for his crappy operating system, maybe he wouldn't have been so eager to keep competitors from entering the marketplace, maybe he wouldn't have devoted so much time to getting H1b visas to bring in 6-year immigrant labor and pay them less than Americans, all being the types of predatory conduct of people who know they're not going to pay much in taxes, so they are motivated to get as much as they can.
Of course a percentage of our taxes, and those from every country with any wealth, should be turned over to an NGO supervised fund for development, and used to end poverty in the third world. Why should a few ultra-rich people in this country have gold-plated toilets and multiple homes, while millions throughout the world starve? Why is it considered radical to say that this type of inequality must be ended?
We have gone through a period in which we theoretically have a national commitment to being more "fair" to our own people, but the end result is more unfair. Fewer people run everything, the politicians are openly selling their votes, a few rich people own and control all the media, we have more people out of work, more people homeless, fewer people can afford to own a home, states and cities are bankrupt, schools are underfunded, the rich pay less in taxes, more people have been forced into poverty. This isn't progress towards a more fair society. It's just a bit more mixed in terms of gender and race.
"What Matters"
Walter Benn Michaels
"Who Cares about the White Working Class"
edited by Kjartan Páll Sveinsson
"... [I]t would be a mistake to think that because the US is a less racist, sexist and homophobic society, it is a more equal society. In fact, in certain crucial ways it is more unequal than it was 40 years ago. No group dedicated to ending economic inequality would be thinking today about declaring victory and going home."
"In 1969, the top quintile of American wage-earners made 43 per cent of all the money earned in the US; the bottom quintile made 4.1 per cent. In 2007, the top quintile made 49.7 per cent; the bottom quintile 3.4. And while this inequality is both raced and gendered, it’s less so than you might think. White people, for example, make up about 70 per cent of the US population, and 62 per cent of those are in the bottom quintile. Progress in fighting racism hasn’t done them any good; it hasn’t even been designed to do them any good. More generally, even if we succeeded completely in eliminating the effects of racism and sexism, we would not thereby have made any progress towards economic equality. A society in which white people were proportionately represented in the bottom quintile (and black people proportionately represented in the top quintile) would not be more equal; it would be exactly as unequal. It would not be more just; it would be proportionately unjust. "... ...
"Thus the primacy of anti-discrimination ... performed the intellectual function of focusing social analysis on what she calls ‘questions of racial or sexual identity’ and on ‘cultural differences’ instead of on ‘the way in which capitalist economies create large numbers of low-wage, low-skill jobs with poor job security’. The message of Who Cares about the White Working Class?, however, is that class has re-emerged: ‘What we learn here’, according to the collection’s editor, Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, is that ‘life chances for today’s children are overwhelmingly linked to parental income, occupations and educational qualifications – in other words, class.’ "
Walter Benn Michaels teaches English at the University of Illinois, Chicago. His most recent book is The Trouble with Diversity; his next will be The Death of a Beautiful Woman: Form Now.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n16/mich02_.html
I think his position can be summarized as follows: assuming that the top 20% of our society owns 80% of the country's assets, and takes home 80% of the country's income every year, then the bottom 80% of society is economically unequal -- they are denied their fair share of wealth. If we succeed in eliminating sexism and racism so that the top 20% has a representative number of whites and minorities, but the distribution does not change, then society as a whole has not benefitted. Society is just as unequal, and unfair, for 80% of its members, as it was during the height of racism and sexism.
It's an interesting analysis. It may be that it's easier for people to demand "equality" based on natural-born characteristics, and harder for people to demand economic equality based on a government-sponsored redistribution of wealth. In other words, most people might agree that it is wrong to refuse to allow any woman to go to law school. But they might not be able to articulate an argument about it being wrong to allow some of our citizens to have no home, no food, no money, no safety net. It's almost as if the powers that be might be willing to give up racism and sexism, but would never consider income redistribution.
Income redistribution is the legitimate purpose of a progressive tax system. When people earn ten million dollars, for example, a progressive tax system should take most of that money for public purposes. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that we should try to prevent any group of people from accumulating so much wealth that they can, essentially, put every single politician on their payroll, and control the country without ever having run for office. Which is what's happened in our country today.
For example, we used to have laws that prohibited one person or company from owning multiple TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, believing that democracy is best served when many voices can be heard. But some scum-bucket like Rupert Murdoch comes into this country and starts bribing politicians, and suddenly the laws are changed to allow him to buy up much of the media in the country and use it to promote fascist propaganda. Rich people destroy democracy, and that is why they should not be allowed to get too rich.
For another example, if Bill Gates had been taxed at 90% on his "earnings," maybe he wouldn't have charged the public so much for his crappy operating system, maybe he wouldn't have been so eager to keep competitors from entering the marketplace, maybe he wouldn't have devoted so much time to getting H1b visas to bring in 6-year immigrant labor and pay them less than Americans, all being the types of predatory conduct of people who know they're not going to pay much in taxes, so they are motivated to get as much as they can.
Of course a percentage of our taxes, and those from every country with any wealth, should be turned over to an NGO supervised fund for development, and used to end poverty in the third world. Why should a few ultra-rich people in this country have gold-plated toilets and multiple homes, while millions throughout the world starve? Why is it considered radical to say that this type of inequality must be ended?
We have gone through a period in which we theoretically have a national commitment to being more "fair" to our own people, but the end result is more unfair. Fewer people run everything, the politicians are openly selling their votes, a few rich people own and control all the media, we have more people out of work, more people homeless, fewer people can afford to own a home, states and cities are bankrupt, schools are underfunded, the rich pay less in taxes, more people have been forced into poverty. This isn't progress towards a more fair society. It's just a bit more mixed in terms of gender and race.
"What Matters"
Walter Benn Michaels
"Who Cares about the White Working Class"
edited by Kjartan Páll Sveinsson
"... [I]t would be a mistake to think that because the US is a less racist, sexist and homophobic society, it is a more equal society. In fact, in certain crucial ways it is more unequal than it was 40 years ago. No group dedicated to ending economic inequality would be thinking today about declaring victory and going home."
"In 1969, the top quintile of American wage-earners made 43 per cent of all the money earned in the US; the bottom quintile made 4.1 per cent. In 2007, the top quintile made 49.7 per cent; the bottom quintile 3.4. And while this inequality is both raced and gendered, it’s less so than you might think. White people, for example, make up about 70 per cent of the US population, and 62 per cent of those are in the bottom quintile. Progress in fighting racism hasn’t done them any good; it hasn’t even been designed to do them any good. More generally, even if we succeeded completely in eliminating the effects of racism and sexism, we would not thereby have made any progress towards economic equality. A society in which white people were proportionately represented in the bottom quintile (and black people proportionately represented in the top quintile) would not be more equal; it would be exactly as unequal. It would not be more just; it would be proportionately unjust. "... ...
"Thus the primacy of anti-discrimination ... performed the intellectual function of focusing social analysis on what she calls ‘questions of racial or sexual identity’ and on ‘cultural differences’ instead of on ‘the way in which capitalist economies create large numbers of low-wage, low-skill jobs with poor job security’. The message of Who Cares about the White Working Class?, however, is that class has re-emerged: ‘What we learn here’, according to the collection’s editor, Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, is that ‘life chances for today’s children are overwhelmingly linked to parental income, occupations and educational qualifications – in other words, class.’ "
Walter Benn Michaels teaches English at the University of Illinois, Chicago. His most recent book is The Trouble with Diversity; his next will be The Death of a Beautiful Woman: Form Now.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n16/mich02_.html
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Learned Helplessness
There have been many reports in recent years that the U.S. government used psychiatrists and/or psychologists to assist in designing torture techniques to be used against Muslims in the middle east in connection with the U.S. War Against Afghanistan and Iraq. And maybe additional wars to come.
The reports are that the U.S. military trains its own people to survive torture and, in connection with that training, devised certain methods of torture that they believed no human being could withstand. Or at least at the conclusion of the use of these types of torture, the human psyche would be destroyed even if the body continued to function.
The desired outcome from the torture was to create in the prisoners a state of "Learned Helplessness." This is a term that comes from experiments done on dogs by an American psychiatrist who was invited by the CIA to lecture the U.S. military on his experiments, and his conclusions. Those lectures were, in turn, used by the CIA and the U.S. military in developing these torture techniques designed to destroy the human psyche.
The experiments done on animals, specifically dogs, showed the following: one group of dogs were put into a cage and given certain options for their behavior. They could, for example, try to escape, they could push a lever. But no matter what they did, no matter how hard they tried, they continued to be subjected to electrical shocks. They learned that they had no ability to stop the abuse. No matter what they did, the torture continued. When those dogs were allowed out of the cages, they simply laid down and submitted, no longer tried to avoid further abuse and torture. They had learned that they were helpless to have any control over their own lives.
This is the desired goal of the U.S. widespread torture programs in the middle east, as well as those which have been conducted in Central and South America by people trained by the U.S. at the School of Americas.
The original experiments were used as part of an investigation into depression and other forms of mental disease in which people feel helpless to do anything to improve their lives. No matter how bad the conditions, they are psychologically trained to believe that they must submit, they are helpless to change or to stop the abuse. This is probably a good explanation of the battered spouse, but also of large numbers of people in our society who are in unhappy relationships, or who are abused and mistreated in their work, but feel unable to try to make any changes. Often, changing jobs isn't a real solution if a country allows workers to be mistreated and underpaid, denied benefits or rights. So a state of learned helplessness exists in the American workforce. For good reason. They've been mistreated and abused, fired if they stand up for themselves, and have learned that they are helpless to stop the abuse.
Is it possible our entire society has been conditioned into a state of learned helplessness. No matter what people do, the government continues to simply take bribes from the corporations, lie to the people, conduct foreign wars of choice, steal our money, send our jobs overseas, give tax breaks to the rich and deny healthcare to the rest of us. This despite the historic number of people who got out and campaigned last year. All the people who believed in change are right now being taught the underpinnings of the state of learned helplessness.
Think about it: the Democrats control the House, have a 60-seat control of the Senate, and control the white house, and despite that they refuse to end the wars, they refuse to provide a real healthcare program for people, they refuse to create job programs, they refuse to hold the Bush administration responsible for its numerous violations of our constitution and other laws, they refuse to hold Wall Street responsible for its criminal theft from the public. They have, quite simply, done nothing for progressive or even for liberals since taking office, except to routinely bash us by calling us names. "The left won't like it," but they need to live with it. And we, as it turns out, are just now learning that we are completely helpless to do anything to affect what our government is doing.
Below is link to an article on the psychiatrist who developed the theory, and how it is the CIA and U.S. military used his theory to develop a program of torture designed not to get information, but instead to destroy human beings, to drive them crazy, to take away their will to live.
Naomi Klein argues in her book The Shock Doctrine that torture is often used after a coup to create a state of submission in the civilian population. Torture a few thousand, make it public, make it particularly brutal, get the information out to the rest of the public, and most people are likely to stop resisting, just do what they are told and try to survive.
We've heard a lot about the "ticking time bomb," by which people argue that we need to torture to find out whether someone has a nuclear weapon ready to go off in our country. But no one has ever provided any factual support to show that's why we began a program of systematic torture throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. Isn't it more likely that the torture program was designed from the outset to destroy human beings and create a state of submission among the other civilians, so the U.S. could keep its permanent military bases in the region, steal all the oil, bomb and attack the neighbors conveniently, with the majority of the population too terrified to do anything to stand up against them.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20354.htm
The reports are that the U.S. military trains its own people to survive torture and, in connection with that training, devised certain methods of torture that they believed no human being could withstand. Or at least at the conclusion of the use of these types of torture, the human psyche would be destroyed even if the body continued to function.
The desired outcome from the torture was to create in the prisoners a state of "Learned Helplessness." This is a term that comes from experiments done on dogs by an American psychiatrist who was invited by the CIA to lecture the U.S. military on his experiments, and his conclusions. Those lectures were, in turn, used by the CIA and the U.S. military in developing these torture techniques designed to destroy the human psyche.
The experiments done on animals, specifically dogs, showed the following: one group of dogs were put into a cage and given certain options for their behavior. They could, for example, try to escape, they could push a lever. But no matter what they did, no matter how hard they tried, they continued to be subjected to electrical shocks. They learned that they had no ability to stop the abuse. No matter what they did, the torture continued. When those dogs were allowed out of the cages, they simply laid down and submitted, no longer tried to avoid further abuse and torture. They had learned that they were helpless to have any control over their own lives.
This is the desired goal of the U.S. widespread torture programs in the middle east, as well as those which have been conducted in Central and South America by people trained by the U.S. at the School of Americas.
The original experiments were used as part of an investigation into depression and other forms of mental disease in which people feel helpless to do anything to improve their lives. No matter how bad the conditions, they are psychologically trained to believe that they must submit, they are helpless to change or to stop the abuse. This is probably a good explanation of the battered spouse, but also of large numbers of people in our society who are in unhappy relationships, or who are abused and mistreated in their work, but feel unable to try to make any changes. Often, changing jobs isn't a real solution if a country allows workers to be mistreated and underpaid, denied benefits or rights. So a state of learned helplessness exists in the American workforce. For good reason. They've been mistreated and abused, fired if they stand up for themselves, and have learned that they are helpless to stop the abuse.
Is it possible our entire society has been conditioned into a state of learned helplessness. No matter what people do, the government continues to simply take bribes from the corporations, lie to the people, conduct foreign wars of choice, steal our money, send our jobs overseas, give tax breaks to the rich and deny healthcare to the rest of us. This despite the historic number of people who got out and campaigned last year. All the people who believed in change are right now being taught the underpinnings of the state of learned helplessness.
Think about it: the Democrats control the House, have a 60-seat control of the Senate, and control the white house, and despite that they refuse to end the wars, they refuse to provide a real healthcare program for people, they refuse to create job programs, they refuse to hold the Bush administration responsible for its numerous violations of our constitution and other laws, they refuse to hold Wall Street responsible for its criminal theft from the public. They have, quite simply, done nothing for progressive or even for liberals since taking office, except to routinely bash us by calling us names. "The left won't like it," but they need to live with it. And we, as it turns out, are just now learning that we are completely helpless to do anything to affect what our government is doing.
Below is link to an article on the psychiatrist who developed the theory, and how it is the CIA and U.S. military used his theory to develop a program of torture designed not to get information, but instead to destroy human beings, to drive them crazy, to take away their will to live.
Naomi Klein argues in her book The Shock Doctrine that torture is often used after a coup to create a state of submission in the civilian population. Torture a few thousand, make it public, make it particularly brutal, get the information out to the rest of the public, and most people are likely to stop resisting, just do what they are told and try to survive.
We've heard a lot about the "ticking time bomb," by which people argue that we need to torture to find out whether someone has a nuclear weapon ready to go off in our country. But no one has ever provided any factual support to show that's why we began a program of systematic torture throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. Isn't it more likely that the torture program was designed from the outset to destroy human beings and create a state of submission among the other civilians, so the U.S. could keep its permanent military bases in the region, steal all the oil, bomb and attack the neighbors conveniently, with the majority of the population too terrified to do anything to stand up against them.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20354.htm
The Real Subway Stories
There is an e-mail going around which tells a story about Joshua Bell, a famed violinist, playing his violin inside the DC Metro/subway, and most of the commuters paid him no attention. It brought to my mind a movie I'd seen, excerpt below.
This was an HBO project. They asked New Yorkers to send in stories about things of interest that they had seen happen in the NYC subway system. Then some of the stories were made into pieces, tied together into a movie.
The excerpt below was a segment in the movie titled "Sax, Cantor, Riff." It was written and directed by Julie Dash. The singer is Taral Hicks, sax player is Kenny Garrett, and the Cantor is Dan Rous. It's my response to the violin e-mail.
People are paying attention more than you may know. Even if they're busy and rush past, I think most people enjoy the street musicians and others who show up in urban places, including the subways, to perform. They may not give money or stop to applaud, or even stop to watch, because they're busy. The reason they are in the subway is because they have to get somewhere. But I still think people notice, and their lives are enriched, their days improved in some way by the brief exposure to public art and entertainment.
This was an HBO project. They asked New Yorkers to send in stories about things of interest that they had seen happen in the NYC subway system. Then some of the stories were made into pieces, tied together into a movie.
The excerpt below was a segment in the movie titled "Sax, Cantor, Riff." It was written and directed by Julie Dash. The singer is Taral Hicks, sax player is Kenny Garrett, and the Cantor is Dan Rous. It's my response to the violin e-mail.
People are paying attention more than you may know. Even if they're busy and rush past, I think most people enjoy the street musicians and others who show up in urban places, including the subways, to perform. They may not give money or stop to applaud, or even stop to watch, because they're busy. The reason they are in the subway is because they have to get somewhere. But I still think people notice, and their lives are enriched, their days improved in some way by the brief exposure to public art and entertainment.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Any Day Now, I Shall Be Released
I like to walk in cities, feel the electricity coming up through my feet, look at the people, at the buildings. If I lived in San Francisco, and wasn't on these stupid crutches, I probably would have gone over to City Lights Bookstore today. Or maybe not, but I could have. The last time I was in SF I walked over there with J, or maybe R, and there is just not enough time to spend browsing in that store. Or walking in that city. Or any city, for that matter. I just love walking in cities.
I got a card yesterday from a friend of mine who I haven't seen or heard from in a very long time. What a delight that was. He's living in San Francisco again, which made me wish I was there and could have spent the day walking around with him, talking politics and baseball, getting a burrito at La Cumbre, browsing through bookstores, maybe drinking some coffee, catching up.
As soon as I get off of crutches I'm going to prepare for a new chapter in my life. To begin, my next chapter will not include crutches. I may need a cane for awhile -- can't decide if that's really old-lady, like do I need to buy a flowered rayon house dress and orthopedic shoes and supp-hose, dye my hair blue if I get a cane, learn to bake pies -- or maybe it will be really cool, now that I've exhausted the "my chute didn't open" line I could come up with a new one: my horse refused to take the last jump, and threw me instead. Something like that.
If I was artistic, I could paint little martini glasses with plastic stirers with cupie dolls on top all over the cane, and pretend that I'm carrying the cane because it's sophisticated, or maybe I tripped on my way out of some fabulous party. The cane would be temporary, and a real improvement over the crutches. But the fact is I want to be done with all of it. I want my life back!
They say every woman needs protection
They say every woman must fall
Still I swear I see my reflection
Somewhere so far above the Wall
I see my light come shining
From the West unto the East
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released
One more week of PT, then to the doctor on 9/28. I hope the doctor says I'm completely cured. Short of that, at least let me get off of these crutches. Let me drive. Release me from my confinement. I promise I'll be good. Any day now, any day now, I shall be released.
I got a card yesterday from a friend of mine who I haven't seen or heard from in a very long time. What a delight that was. He's living in San Francisco again, which made me wish I was there and could have spent the day walking around with him, talking politics and baseball, getting a burrito at La Cumbre, browsing through bookstores, maybe drinking some coffee, catching up.
As soon as I get off of crutches I'm going to prepare for a new chapter in my life. To begin, my next chapter will not include crutches. I may need a cane for awhile -- can't decide if that's really old-lady, like do I need to buy a flowered rayon house dress and orthopedic shoes and supp-hose, dye my hair blue if I get a cane, learn to bake pies -- or maybe it will be really cool, now that I've exhausted the "my chute didn't open" line I could come up with a new one: my horse refused to take the last jump, and threw me instead. Something like that.
If I was artistic, I could paint little martini glasses with plastic stirers with cupie dolls on top all over the cane, and pretend that I'm carrying the cane because it's sophisticated, or maybe I tripped on my way out of some fabulous party. The cane would be temporary, and a real improvement over the crutches. But the fact is I want to be done with all of it. I want my life back!
They say every woman needs protection
They say every woman must fall
Still I swear I see my reflection
Somewhere so far above the Wall
I see my light come shining
From the West unto the East
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released
One more week of PT, then to the doctor on 9/28. I hope the doctor says I'm completely cured. Short of that, at least let me get off of these crutches. Let me drive. Release me from my confinement. I promise I'll be good. Any day now, any day now, I shall be released.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Save The Mountain Lions. Stop Breeding People.
Since 1990, the mountain lion in California has been legally protected against being killed by "hunters," or against being captured and taken out of state for other purposes. The mountain lion is designated a "specially protected mammal," and there is a $10,000 fine, and possible one-year jail term, for anyone who violates these protective laws. If someone is endangered by a mountain lion (such as a rancher, or the rancher's animals), they can report any attacks to the appropriate authorities, who are responsible for capturing or killing the mountain lion if necessary. The California Fish and Game Code section 4800 et seq. was passed to protect some of the wild animals in the state of California who were being murdered as "sport."
The main danger to the wild animals of the world comes from the unrestricted growth in the population of human beings. We should start a program to "encourage" people to have 1/2 of a child only, to cut the world's population in half. After that, maybe we should cut it in half again.
But the public worshipping of people having multiple births, large families, as if that represented something positive, as opposed to being simply self-absorbed ignorant people too lazy to use birth control, or religious cultists who believe their preachers who tell them to have more and more kids, is ridiculous. The overpopulation of the world is leading to the exhaustion of all its resources, destroying habitats, exterminating the animals with whom we share the world by destroying their environment.
In California, for example, the unrestricted immigration into the state ("immigration" in this case meaning from other states as well as from outside of the country) has created a bubble based on debt followed by an economic state of collapse, overbuilding of grossly overpriced houses to cram more and more people into the state, misuse and exhaustion of water by throwing it onto more and more lawns, polluting the air with cars and polluting the ocean with chemicals used by people, and with waste products which result in beaches being closed to human use because of excessively high fecal matter floating in the water. Nothing good comes from the unrestricted growth and increase in population such as that which has occurred in California, as well as in many other parts of the world.
For example, what if we set up a fund to provide free sterilization to people in third world countries, and give them money if they get sterilized after having only one child. Many women would be thrilled to be able to control their reproduction. The churches would oppose this, but who cares. The churches are mostly responsible for the gross overpopulation which is destroying the world.
It is legally possible to protect certain wild animals. But if local authorities continue to allow the mass building of housing, destruction of the environment and replacement of everything natural with tract homes, then ultimately all the animals will die out with or without legal protection.
Some people want to change the laws, to allow "trophy" hunting of mountain lions. That's what they call it. Ignorant rich white men want to kill mountain lions, then have their picture taken with the corpse. I would propose that if anything, we might consider a law authorizing the "trophy" hunting of rich white men. And maybe of religious fanatics who won't stop breeding. If they want a big family, they can have one kid then adopt some of the orphans from Afghanistan whose parents we've blown to bits.
California Fish & Game Code section 4800. (a) The mountain lion (genus Felis) is a specially protected mammal under the laws of this state. (b) It is unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or any part or product thereof, ... (c) Any violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. ....
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Congress Refuses To Fund Acorn. Maybe We Should Cut Off Funding For Congress Until They Stop Appeasing the Republicans.
ACORN is a community-organizing group that basically tries to help poor people. The Republicans have repeatedly attacked ACORN because, as mentioned, they try to help poor people get organized. But for heaven's sake -- you'd think the Democrats would support a community-based organization like this. But you would be wrong.
Congress has once again bowed down to the Republican lunatics that have been attacking ACORN since last year's election, and have voted to cut off all federal funds for the group. Shame on the Democrats for supporting this punitive measure.
Congress claims there have been irregularities in ACORN. I've got news for Congress. The most corrupt organization in this entire country is Congress. Every single person in that organization takes bribes and sells their votes, then lies to the public about it. If Congress wants to clean things up, why don't they start with themselves. For example, why not pass real campaign finance reform. Why not pass laws making it illegal for anyone in Congress or their staff or representatives to communicate with anyone on any subject other than in public hearings? Why not make it illegal for Congresspeople to vote on any issue if they accepted money from the industry affected by the issue within the past two years, and make it illegal for them to accept money two years after the vote?
The idea of Congress calling any other group "corrupt" makes me want to throw up.
I see that the esteemed body of Congress has decided that instead of ending the wars, prosecuting the criminals, creating jobs or a health care program, they instead are going to begin holding hearings on soda pop. Really. Congressional hearings, testimony, about soda pop. Talk about a complete waste of time and money. They're probably going to shakedown the soda pop industry: either you pay us a hundred million in bribes, or we'll make it illegal for you to sell soda to kids! And no, I'm not a schill for soda pop. But I do think this is not an issue for Congress. Parents, keep it out of the home. Educators, keep it out of the schools. That's the best we can do. See, now you don't need the hearings -- I've already come up with the reasonable solution to the problem of kids drinking too much soda pop.
What's the reason for attacking ACORN? They registered lots of poor people and black people to vote last year. That's really what's going on here. And the Republicans have been attacking them ever since. ACORN not only advocates programs to help poor people, but also counsel and gives jobs to poor people. Obviously they will have their occasional employee problems, as does everyone. But what happened is that some right-wing organization started secret investigations, including taping (and allegedly falsifying claims) ACORN employees, maybe setting them up, then publicizing the tapes to claim that ACORN is violating the law.
The Republicans keep attacking. Storm clouds are gathering. They've got the fascists, the Nazis, the Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood, the lunatics, the secessionists, the segregationists and separatists and racists, all out in mass, angry mobs, armed and dangerous, terrorizing their neighbors. And what do the Democrats do in response, again and again: fold. Appeasement.
AP – "The House voted Thursday to deny all federal funds for ACORN in a GOP-led strike against the scandal-tainted community organizing group that comes just three days after the Senate took similar action. "ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization," said second-ranked House Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia. "
...
"On Monday the Senate voted 83-7 to deny housing and community grant funding to ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Republicans accelerated their attacks on the liberal-leaning group a year ago when ACORN, in conducting a massive voter registration drive, was accused of submitting some false registration forms."
"The Census Bureau, meanwhile, also has severed its ties with the group for the 2010 national census."
"Republicans have urged federal officials to go further by launching a comprehensive investigation of how ACORN spends and manages federal money. "
"'As long as taxpayers are subsidizing ACORN and its affiliates, we need to use every measure possible to ensure that those dollars are being spent and managed appropriately,' said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sponsor of the measure that passed the House. " [NOTE: SEE WHO IS SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE? THE BIGGEST MORONS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY]
"'President Obama needs to indicate whether he'll sign this bill and join us in ending all taxpayer funds for this corrupt organization,' House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said after the vote."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn
Congress has once again bowed down to the Republican lunatics that have been attacking ACORN since last year's election, and have voted to cut off all federal funds for the group. Shame on the Democrats for supporting this punitive measure.
Congress claims there have been irregularities in ACORN. I've got news for Congress. The most corrupt organization in this entire country is Congress. Every single person in that organization takes bribes and sells their votes, then lies to the public about it. If Congress wants to clean things up, why don't they start with themselves. For example, why not pass real campaign finance reform. Why not pass laws making it illegal for anyone in Congress or their staff or representatives to communicate with anyone on any subject other than in public hearings? Why not make it illegal for Congresspeople to vote on any issue if they accepted money from the industry affected by the issue within the past two years, and make it illegal for them to accept money two years after the vote?
The idea of Congress calling any other group "corrupt" makes me want to throw up.
I see that the esteemed body of Congress has decided that instead of ending the wars, prosecuting the criminals, creating jobs or a health care program, they instead are going to begin holding hearings on soda pop. Really. Congressional hearings, testimony, about soda pop. Talk about a complete waste of time and money. They're probably going to shakedown the soda pop industry: either you pay us a hundred million in bribes, or we'll make it illegal for you to sell soda to kids! And no, I'm not a schill for soda pop. But I do think this is not an issue for Congress. Parents, keep it out of the home. Educators, keep it out of the schools. That's the best we can do. See, now you don't need the hearings -- I've already come up with the reasonable solution to the problem of kids drinking too much soda pop.
What's the reason for attacking ACORN? They registered lots of poor people and black people to vote last year. That's really what's going on here. And the Republicans have been attacking them ever since. ACORN not only advocates programs to help poor people, but also counsel and gives jobs to poor people. Obviously they will have their occasional employee problems, as does everyone. But what happened is that some right-wing organization started secret investigations, including taping (and allegedly falsifying claims) ACORN employees, maybe setting them up, then publicizing the tapes to claim that ACORN is violating the law.
The Republicans keep attacking. Storm clouds are gathering. They've got the fascists, the Nazis, the Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood, the lunatics, the secessionists, the segregationists and separatists and racists, all out in mass, angry mobs, armed and dangerous, terrorizing their neighbors. And what do the Democrats do in response, again and again: fold. Appeasement.
AP – "The House voted Thursday to deny all federal funds for ACORN in a GOP-led strike against the scandal-tainted community organizing group that comes just three days after the Senate took similar action. "ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization," said second-ranked House Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia. "
...
"On Monday the Senate voted 83-7 to deny housing and community grant funding to ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Republicans accelerated their attacks on the liberal-leaning group a year ago when ACORN, in conducting a massive voter registration drive, was accused of submitting some false registration forms."
"The Census Bureau, meanwhile, also has severed its ties with the group for the 2010 national census."
"Republicans have urged federal officials to go further by launching a comprehensive investigation of how ACORN spends and manages federal money. "
"'As long as taxpayers are subsidizing ACORN and its affiliates, we need to use every measure possible to ensure that those dollars are being spent and managed appropriately,' said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sponsor of the measure that passed the House. " [NOTE: SEE WHO IS SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE? THE BIGGEST MORONS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY]
"'President Obama needs to indicate whether he'll sign this bill and join us in ending all taxpayer funds for this corrupt organization,' House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said after the vote."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)