I Love Techology, but…

I really do love technology. I wouldn’t have the ability to share ideas and thoughts which are so important to me without my computer and the internet. I wouldn’t have my kindle which gives me access to tons of books rather inexpensively on which I base my writing. I wouldn't have been able to write the books I have written. I love electricity the powers all this stuff. I love driving around and seeing the wonders of our countryside. I love having roads that make these trips possible. I love going south in the winter to be warm and play more golf with technically created forgiving clubs. Technology is wonderful but.

Do we really need to have a new and better computer coming on the market every month or two? That is just market driven greed by folk who know how to manipulate us. Do I need to have the new kindle Fire which would show me more things in color, a cheap ipad? No my computer gives me all that. Does anyone need an ipad, iphone or iwhatever. I think Steve Jobs was a genius that created marvelous and valuable technology, but he also kept his architecture to himself so others couldn’t mess with product or profits. Bill Gates is a nice guy who build a wonderful PC empire, but he was also in essence a thief who bought an operating system for the PC for $50,000 and the sold it to IBM for millions.

You know we are all suckers falling for the latest consumer products most of which we do not need but are bamboozled into thinking so by persuasive product campaigns. Our form of capitalism has been corrupted. We no longer built things that meet real needs but create needs for things we don’t need. I read recently of a Swedish firm that recently made millions by created a filter straw, so you can suck up water for most any polluted river and have clean drinking water. That’s valuable in world where most don’t have access to clean water. But in this country we spend billions on bottled water rather than turning on the tap. That’s nuts. And we are suckers. We love our Walmarts and their cheap products but they come at the expense of folk working who get lower wages and few benefits and have drive the small business out of business.

We are especially suckers for continuing to coddle and makes legislation to benefit the ultra rich. What did they do? Essentially nothing, just take from the knowledge base created by the rest of us and find ways of scooping more than their fair share of the profits. Elizabeth Warren is so right when she said, “there is nobody in this country who got rich on their own.” We are dependent upon what has gone before us and their knowledge base. In my religious life I liked using the phrase, “Jesus loves me this I know for my mother told me so.” Our faith and beliefs are dependent on those who go before s and share them.

If you build a better mousetrap you should get rewarded for it, but you should give thanks to all the mousetrap builders who went before you.

Jesus said, “where you treasure is you heart is also.” We need to think far more clearly what we treasure in this country. We are debtor nation in more ways than one.

Babysitter Teachers

I'm passing along this great piece I found on Facebook posted by an old student of mine (40 some years ago) Dan Boonstra who posted it from Marcia Brandt who I do not know but thank.

‎"Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the dhours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be............ $19.50 a ...day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and planning - that equals 6 1/2 hours)! Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to babysit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day... maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries). What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is! The average teacher's salary (nationwide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77 per day/30 students = $9.25 per 6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student -- a very inexpensive babysitter and they even EDUCATE your kids! WHAT A DEAL!!!! Make a teacher smile; re-post this to show appreciation for all educators and future educators."

James Cone

James Cone is another of Bill Moyers interviewees. He is a black theologian who “grew up in the shadow of the lynching tree. The lynching tree story goes back to a time when black children wanted to sit under the same tree that white children sat at school and asked school authorities for permission to do that. Then three nooses where hung from that tree. The school didn’t take the incident seriously but after a bit of violence and the arrest of black students for 2^nd degree murder the case took on newsworthy significance; the students were called the Jena Six. After a public outcry charges were reduced. Moyers also relates the song sang by Billy Holliday, “Strange Fruit” which also relates to lynching of blacks.

Recently I learned that following the civil war, slavery continued but in the form of arrest and threats of black people. They were arrested primarily in the south on any convenient charge and the “sold” to white folk to work wherever. This continued up to WWII.

Back to Cone who teaches systematic theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Who uses the symbol of lynching to compare to the Cross Christ died upon. He uses that imagery to talk to his classes and elsewhere which often makes white folk tend to cringe. It rather puts we white folk in the place of the Romans who crucified Christ; a bad feeling.

Then I thought of an old secretary of mine who would frequently disagree with the parables Jesus told as being basically unfair. The one that comes to mind was the prodigal son who asked for and got his inheritance and then lived a frivolous life only to return home broke and dispirited. Whereupon his father threw a party much to the consternation of the prodigal’s son who had stayed home and worked. “It’s not fair,” she would say. What I saw at work in this thinking is that she saw herself as the faithful home staying son and not the prodigal. The point I believe Jesus was making is that we are all prodigals who run away from God on a constant basis and then come back begging when life turns against us. It is a matter of who you identify with. Thus oppressed folk often have an easier time understanding the gospel good news because of that oppression.

In the past I identified with the civil rights movement and wanted to march against the social inequity. I had empathy with the women’s movement and became part of the church work to work on equality, and so on. Then it was pointed out to me by a caring person who actually belonged to one of those oppressed groups that I was not black nor a woman and I should spend my time working with white folk to change attitudes of prejudice and wrong doing. So, now I understand I am not a black, female, lesbian, Jew or Arab, blind, crippled endangered species etc. But I am a person who seeks to follow in the path of Jesus doing things in thanks to God and for my brothers and sisters no matter what the color, creed or belief system is. And I am the prodigal who forgets that constantly and comes crawling back to God for forgiveness and acceptance.

We constantly have to ask ourselves are we the oppressors or the oppressees? I think that is a large part of the Marches on Wall Street are about; the feeling of oppression. And to a lesser extent it is also reflected in the Tea Party movement, but neither group has a clear agenda; they just feel oppressed. If that feeling leads us to reform and to promote the common good, then these movements will have a positive effect upon our society. If they seek just to become part of the oppressors, we will have moved nowhere.

I also wonder about the upper 1% of the population and how they see themselves. Do they see themselves as the suppressors, those who lynch, or the crucifiers? Or do they justify their position the way we humans justify themselves? Or do they see themselves as the faithful sons who stayed at home and deserve their father’s/countries’ blessings?

While we seek justice and equity in our country, we also need to acknowledge our own prideful ways and own up to the fact that we are all prodigals.

The good I see coming from the current unrest in the country is in realizing that folk looking upon a man on a cross, lynched by his oppressors, began a movement that changed the world and still can. But for that to happen we always need to accept the humility of the prodigal.

Gleanings from a conversation with Holly Sklar by Bill Moyer

Henry Ford had the great idea of paying his workers a good wage so that they could become consumers of the product he was making, cars. And it worked. Today we seem to have lost that common piece of sense.

Today a couple with 3 fulltime minimum wage jobs cannot make ends meet. That is a sad commentary on our economic system. Today many two income families do not have the buying power of a single income family before. Minimum wage buying power is now less than it was in the 50’s. The inequality of wealth is like that of the 20’s before the Great Depression. All of this taking place while our economy has grown. Working hard to improve your life just doesn’t do it anymore.

Sixty per cent of the workforce make their living by hourly wages and 80% in production or nonsupervisory work. These are the one that have suffered the most. Our infrastructure is crumbling, we have the biggest debt and were are not fixing the problems. We spend less on research and development and our educational system is not competitive with other developed countries.

During the Reagan administration was our longest time without an increase in minimum wage. He was also the union busting president; remember the air traffic controllers fired. And this has continued. Studies show than when union wages increase there is an overall benefit to the economy. But today people are too worried about losing their job to bargain for higher wages; they will just send your job abroad. The middle class is shrinking and more are working at poverty level jobs.

When FDR instituted the minimum wage he talked about a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Now we complain it will hurt small businesses. If that is the case there are a lot of small business that just are competitive if they keep their workers in poverty.

So where does the money go? It goes to the rich folk. Executives in corporations have pretty much doubled their share of company revenue in the last decade. The rich are getting richer while the rest are getting poorer unlike Reagan’s promised that the tide would lift all boats. What we have is a type of greed at the top that is not tolerated in other industrialized nations. We have the great inequality of these nations and the highest rates of poverty.

Other nations have invested in going green and thus developed their economies. We are also the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care. As a result we have higher child mortality rates and a lower living standard.

All of this has contributed to being extreme high levels of personal debt. Thus the mortgage crisis, huge college debts, and retirement losses.

We need to invest in green technology, provide universal health care (taking a great burden off small businesses) and quit pouring money into the pharmaceutical companies protected from competition by the government as well as insurance companies.

If we do not up the wages for common people this country will continue to have greater and greater problems. But for now the rich seem to own the government to the detriment of the nation.

Not on Fox News

This video link gets at some really important issues about why we are where we are economically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wK1MOMKZ8BI

Revanchism

Sam Tanenhaus wrote a book called The Death of Conservatism, which is on my list for my for my Kindle. It was written just before the Tea Party reared its head. I learned about him from Bill Moyers Journal. Tanaehaus distinguishes between the conservatism of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck and the conservatism of Edmond Burke and William F. Buckley, a significant distinction in my estimation. Though I am liberal in outlook I have respected conservatism since Barry Goldwater and find much of merit in it. But I have little respect for what has been done in recent years in the name of conservatism, which, in my opinion, has become extreme to the nth degree.

Tenenhaus shows the difference between what he calls realism and revanchism. Revanchism he defines as what has been taken away in American conservatism to the radical ideology rampant today. It comes from the French word for “revenge,” a politics of vengeance. They go absolutely against conservatism defined by Edmond Burke in the 18^th century who is well known for his support of the American Revolution. Burke warned against extremism and dogmatic orthodoxy, which we see today. Today we don’t even recognize those who hold to philosophical conservatism such as Fareed Zakaria (see and earlier blog on him) as conservatives. He and folks of his ilk have left the conservative movement. Or modern conservatism has moved from Edmund Burke to Rush Limbaugh.

A pivotal point Tanenhaus sees took place in 1965 which the John Birch Society, who are much like modern Tea Party movements who view politics in a conspiratorial way. They saw Eisenhower as a Communist agent along with 80% of the government. True conservatives such s William Buckley indulged them thinking they were absurd but at least anticommunist, but eventually they said “enough.” Race has also played a part in modern conservatism as seen by some of Obama’s great detractors such as Joe Wilson who shouted “You lie,” during Obama’s State of the Union address. Edmund Burke talked about a civil society, but modern conservatism seems quite uncivil.

Perhaps Dick Cheney reflects the worst of this when he claimed his company, Halliburton had made millions of dollars without any help from the government; when in fact it all came from the government; defense contracts. They reflect the myth of rugged individualism as the greatness of the country rather than the common good. Thus the radical evangelisms, free marketers, or authoritarian conservatives agree on one thing that liberals are out to destroy them, therefore they much be destroyed at all costs; like the modern Republican agenda to defeat Obama as their number one priority.

All of this has given rise to the modern conservatism reflected in the Reagan and Bush administrations which have little resemblance to traditional conservative values and introduced and economic system and has raised havoc in the country. Those conservatives who tried to promote the old conservative philosophy were marginalized and stripped of power. Modern conservatives are very good at shouting and rallying troops but they are anti-intellectual and have lost touch with their roots.

I have a great deal of respect for traditional conservatism and worthy adversaries, and the times of civil debate. I have no respect for modern Republican candidates, with the exception of Mitt Romney. They have no agenda no vision except to be against liberals. It is a sad state of affairs.

The Vision of James K. Galbraith

James K. Galbraith is the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, both are incredible and talented economists that have significant voices in the world of economics. Bill Moyer’s Journal has an excellent conversation with him on the state of our current economy. I will attempt to bring some of his ideas to you for your consideration.

The conversation began with talks of fear. The fear we have now in comparison to the fears of 1929 when the stock market crashed. Galbraith sees we have a great advantage over those folk in that we have experienced the New Deal, thus a model and a network that wasn’t in place then: deposit insurance, Social Security, government as lender when needed. We have the resources but we need the resolve to use them.

He is a bit hard on Alan Greenspan and the era of deregulation which created the morass we find ourselves in. All this result in distrust: customers don’t trust banks, banks don’t trust each other bankers don’t trust corporations which lie; “a poisoned well,” in his terms.

The problem is worst in Europe in that they lack the institutions of the New Deal such as a central bank. He sees their problems as systemic and our as policy issues.

He talks about folk like me in retirement and their fears. We who invested in the stock market have taken big hits in our retirement incomes. Yet there is the underpinning of Social Security which supports 40% of retired folk who have no other income. SS is also 50 to 60% of retirement income of our generation.

Galbraith’s solution to today’s problems is spending. The American dollar is still the standard currency of the world and we have great credit and can borrow on very low rates 4.3%. The deficit is high (see Republican administrations) but not crippling. We have to get used to it in order to get the economy moving or stabilizing the economy which makes for spending and more jobs. The other option is do nothing and let the government collapse. We have lenders, especially the Chinese perfectly willing to lend us money.

Galbraith sees that those who took control over the government over the past 30 plus years were not interested in reducing the government as claimed (a conservative principle) but used it for private benefit. For example the desire to privatize Social Security, make Medicare give maximum profit to pharmaceutical companies, trade agrees to promote self interests; a Predator State.  Turning regulations over to those who needed to be regulated failed to maintain the interests of the public. Skewed capitalism.

To fix the system we need to get good regulations back so it rewards the efficient and progressive businesses. Bank regulations should be clear to follow, end offshore tax havens and the like.

Galbraith says we cannot prosper without a private economy nor can we prosper without an effective autonomous government that thinks for itself.

In terms of the world perception of American Galbraith believes that the world has lost confidence in our sense of responsibility in invading Iraq and merely self-serving rather than for mutual security. And they have lost trust in our systems for legality, transparency and security.

For the economy to recover and expand we need a new strategy. The big problems now are environment and energy which could employ many.

Speaking about Obama he says you cannot compare his situation to FDR’s in that the world was ready for major change because of the Great Depression. The people in authority seem to want to continue the policies that have created our crisis. The rich and getting richer and like it. We have to reinstitute control such as the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking. It would benefit small banks. He would also lower eligibility of Medicare to 55 which would help workers who hang on to jobs just for medical benefits.

Galbraith has recommended that anyone who wants a job should be able to get a job at $8 per hour or the like, such as the Jobs Corp working with neighborhood conservation and home health care. Keeping folk on the “dole” is more costly than putting them to work and less debilitating to people.

Galbraith sees our country facing a test that will determine our future, creating a responsible government and developing technologies to benefit the world. To make sure the government works for the common good not just special interests.

Church Lifecycles

In a recent Christian Century blog recently is learned the average age of an American is 38, the average age of church members is 58. More than half of the members of mainline churches are over 65. The average life expectancy in America is 78. Meaning one third of the members of mainline churches will die in the next 15 years.

That gives one pause doesn’t it?

The church we attend pretty well reflects those numbers as a mainline church. We also have a new pastor who came with new ideas and new ways of doing things. He is a kid magnet; they flock to him like the proverbial Pied Piper. Of course, those kids have parents and they are coming. The church looks different and sounds different. Some of us old foggies may find this a bit disconcerting saying, “We never did it that way before.” What I believe this young pastor is doing is building a new church inside or alongside the old church, maintaining both. It is a good way of addressing the problems mentioned above.

If one is familiar with the life cycles of churches (I am) they have a birth, youth, middle age, old age and death, like human beings. So, churches will grow up and then die if they follow a normal course. You have to intercede in the cycle if a church is to continue. Or, you start building a new church inside an existing church exactly the way we’re doing.

I’m pleased. Beside, he’s (the new pastor) my golf partner.

Flat Tax Benefits

The Flat Tax sounds so fair, but isn’t. That should be blatantly obvious but isn’t. It infers that all folk benefit equally from the infrastructure and they don’t. I suppose we could do away with all taxes and just pay as you go. If a business wants to ship it product, let them build the roads to ship it. If it wants educated people to work for them, educate them themselves. If they want to advertize their products let them build the communications networks. Let them do all the research and development on their own.

A function of government is to redistribute wealth so that all benefit from the infrastructure of society. Those who have more should contribute more. Simple.

As to how the 999 Cain plan flat tax would benefit folk, see the following graph. Sorry for its length.

Cycles in Household Deficit Spending

Hugh's post got me thinking. The Fed publishes a lot of fun data if you're an analytical junkie like me. Check out the report on Household Financial Obligations ratios for instance. Here is the average Household Debt Service Ratio (think: debt to income ratio) for the last 30 years.

Is there reason for hope here? Things seem to be nearing a kind of cyclical 'bottom', implying the consumer has paid down some debt, essentially having 'recharged' and is now ready for further debt punishment. :-)

But of course this comes with some 'but's: DSR down at these levels owes a lot to interest rates being REALLY low -- consumers have paid down debt some, but not by as much as is implied by these ratios. If you're down to a DSR of 10% and it's 1980 with interest rates in the teens, you're overall debt is pretty low. If you're at the same 10% ratio with the prime rate at 3.25% you're sitting on a lot more debt.

What's it all mean? I'm not exactly sure. But it's interesting.

Personal Deficit Spending

The Demand Side Economics Blog is full of very useful information, but often hard to decipher. That’s general when I call on PK to figure things out for me. But here is one in their last blog that I do understand and makes a great deal of sense.

Folk complain that the government ought to operate as we ordinary folk do and not spend more than we make. Makes sense right? Well, Shiller on the blog says that if you own a home you are indeed involved in deficit spending like most governments. You could counter and say “I can sell my house.” which I find nearly impossible in this market. But the government could also see a national park and things of that nature.

Face it, we are debtor nations just like the government. Our personal debt is equal to the national debt. That is part of the capitalist system.

Israel Raises Taxes on the Rich

Another tidbit from Mother Jones. Nine days ago the Israeli cabinet responded to several months of demonstrations about the high cost of living and so they agreed to increase taxes on corporations and folk with high incomes. Now here is the fun part, high incomes include folk who annual incomes is over $130,000 a year. Wow!

They also decided to cut their defense budget by 5%, 850 million over the next couple of years. Bear in mind that we pay 18% of their military budget. Looks like a good cost cutting place for us as well.

Tea Party Feud

Mother Jones reports about a feud going on amongst the Tea Party folk. The feud is between Amy Kremer, co-chair of the Tea Party Express and Jenny Beth Martin, co-coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots (which Kremer helped found.) The once good buddies now seem to hate each other’s guts and are suing and saying nasty things about each other. It’s very messy and a fun read but I’ll refrain from the details here.

Most interesting to me is all the donated money the Tea Party members are wasting suing each other. It delights my depraved little heart. Long may the feud continue.

Plenitude Economy

This is an amazing link about how a post consumer society could be. Very creative!

http://vimeo.com/26573848

Ask not what your church and do for you but what you can do for your church.

Pardon my messing with President’s Kennedy’s memorable speech, but it makes the point I want to make.

Over the years I have heard people complain about churches and about pastors and how they have failed to give them what they wanted. I remember calling on folk who loved to tell me about previous pastors or churches that they had had and how much they appreciated and loved them. It was an obvious comment on my lack in comparison. Made me feel like Charlie Brown as Lucy always pulled the football away from his kicking it at the last minute, as I kept on calling on these folk. But it is human nature to complain and we do it in church as we do with everything else.

But what bothers me the most about this is what lies behind such complaints. Why do we go to church? Why do we associate with church goers? Now for some it is merely a social outlet and the religious part just isn’t very important to them. From that standpoint I get the complaints, they shop for churches the way they shop for other things to meet their needs and wants.

But I believe the church exists primarily for us to say thanks to God for creating us and giving us abundant gifts. Secondly, we gather to work together to do God’s work here on earth as ambassadors of Jesus. We share faith and commitment and seek to be good citizens in God’s kingdom. Working with conflicted churches inevitably we find they have forgotten about their calling and shared ministry and are solely engaged in personality issues.

If you are going to complain about the church it should not be about your particular druthers and your needs and wants, but whether it is faithful to our common calling to be the disciples of Jesus.

I Want My Glass-Steagall Act Back

I have some vague memories of when the Glass Steagall Act was repealed in 1980 but I didn’t really see the implications of what it did, just a bit of uneasiness. Banking was banking and investment banking didn’t seem much different from commercial banking. But my what an impact it has made on our society, particularly in relation to banks being less and less responsible and more removed from the people they do business with. Nor did I see the uncontrolled greed it would lead to. So, I want it back. I know we’ve made some changes but I don’t thing enough. Rather than my trying to explain the Act, here’s the stuff from Wikipedia for what it’s worth.

Glass–Steagall Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the 1933 Act establishing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. For the 1932 Act by the same sponsors, see Glass–Steagall Act of 1932.

The Banking Act of 1933, Pub. L. No. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933, was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.^[1] It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D—Va.) and Congressman Henry B. Steagall(D—Ala.-3). Some provisions of the Act, such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).^[2][3]

The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. This repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms.

Letter from Desmond Tutu

The following letter was sent to the Presbyterian Church by Archbishop Desmond Tutu following the church's decision to ordain gay and lesbian as church leaders. I thought it worth sharing.

Dear Brother in Christ,

I am writing you with the request that you share these thoughts with my brothers and sisters in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.):  

It is incumbent upon all of God’s children to speak out against injustice.  It is sometimes equally important to speak in solidarity when justice has been done.   For that reason I am writing to affirm my belief that in making room in your constitution for gay and lesbian Christians to be ordained as church leaders, you have accomplished an act of justice.

I realize that among your ecumenical partners, some voices are claiming that you have done the wrong thing, and I know that you rightly value your relationship with Christians in other parts of the world.  Sadly, it is not always popular to do justice, but it is always right.  People will say that the ones you are now willing to ordain are sinners.  I have come to believe, through the reality shared with me by my scientist and medical friends, and confirmed to me by many who are gay, that being gay is not a choice.  Like skin color or left-handedness, sexual orientation is just another feature of our diversity as a human family.  How wonderful that God has made us with so much diversity, yet all in God’s image!   Salvation means being called out of our narrow bonds into a broad place of welcome to all.

You are undoubtedly aware that in some countries the church has been complicit in the legal persecution of lesbians and gays.  Individuals are being arrested and jailed simply because they are different in one respect from the majority.  By making it possible for those in same-gender relationships to be ordained as pastors, preachers, elders, and deacons, you are being a witness to your ecumenical partners that you believe in the wideness of God’s merciful love. 

For freedom Christ has set us free.  In Christ we are not bound by old, narrow prejudice, but free to embrace the full humanity of our brothers and sisters in all our glorious differences.  May God bless you as you live into this reality, and may you know that there are many Christians in the world who continue to stand by your side.

God bless you.

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu (Cape Town, South Africa)

Corporations as Persons

The Huffington Post had an interesting article about Corporations as persons a couple days ago. It went into the history dealing with the French Revolution as to this came about which I will not go into but leave a link at the end of this article if you to read it.

Is a corporation a person? At the beginning of the article they have a quote from the Wall Street protesters that’s interesting: , "I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."  Corporations came into being to protect individuals from going belly up if there business failed. So the corporation came into being as a government entity to protect such individuals. Thus these businesses are protected by the government for the benefit of the investors.

Now the irony in this is the ballyhoo we have about getting government out of messing with corporations by regulating them. Good grief Charlie Brown, they are a government creation, so why wouldn’t the government have the right to have some say so about how they operate. However, some whacko Supreme Court judge in 1873 wrote that a corporation was a person with all the rights of a person in this country. He wrote this for all the wrong reasons; read the article. So, we can think of corporations as persons but with rights other persons, such as you or me, don’t have. Weird.

I was reading an interview with Greg (the Shark) Norman in a golf magazine this morning (my daily devotional reading) where he complained that President was anti-corporate. Greg Norman was a great golfer and an incredible businessman, thus his bias. I think the viewpoint Norman espouses is shared by many but I think it is also incorrect. Obama is not against corporations but I think he sees the need to reestablish regulations that have disappeared over the last 35 years which has resulted in the incredible imbalance of wealth in the country. Now, corporate American and those who benefit most from its wealth have far too much influence over the government. They can give secretly to their congressional pawns, they have maneuvered the courts to benefit themselves, their lobbyists write our laws, and they have usurped the rights and voting power of common people, these super people. It is not right.

We need a strong corporate America but it should not come at the expense of those not protected by corporate laws. As I mentioned in the previous article the government primary responsibility is the promote the general welfare of the country, not to cater the a select few.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/corporate-citizenship-corporate-personhood-paris-commune_n_1005244.html?igoogle=1

To Promote the General Welfare

America is pictured as the land of dreams. The vision of the new country is that a person can aspire and capture dreams of a better life for self and for others. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written with this mindset in mind. The president of the country was to lead the country towards this dream, the congress was to pass legislation to make those dreams possible and the Courts to insure there would be equal justice for all.

But the dreams are all tainted. In the 1800’s they were tainted by runaway economics that pushed us from riches to rags in violent cycles that unnerved the country. In the 1900’s the government sought to control the violent fluctuations and provide a safety net of it citizens and it worked pretty well.

In the 21^st Century the dreams seem under attack again. We know the figures that the wealth is concentrated in small percentage of people who appear to have the means to elect who they please and enact the legislation and removed legislation to continue their dominance in the land.

Is that not the impetus behind Occupy Wall Street movement? The inherent unfairness of the current policies of the land are being demonstrated against. It seems a valid protest that the media was slow to report, but with its growth now must report. And this group bears little resemblance to the Tea Party movement, aside from disgruntlement. The Tea Party felt betrayed and left out but they blamed the wrong people for the destruction of the American dream. They were exploited by the very people who caused the fears and distrust.

We don’t need less government we need more government that reflects the American dream set forth in the Constitution. As citizens there are rights would should expect and demand. These are some the rights I believe citizens should have. (our Bill of Rights needs augmenting for today’s world.)

·         An economic system that is fair and open to all.

·         The right to health care of each citizen

·         The right to bargain for fair wages

·         The right to have a safety net to ensure all citizens can live a descent life even if catastrophes happen in their lives.

·         The right to fair election where each voice is as important as another.

·         The right to age with dignity despite changes in economics.

·         The right to as much education as each desire without undue financial burdens.

·         A progressive tax system where those with the most pay the most.

And with these rights come responsibilities; to name a few:

·         The responsibility of being politically aware in order to vote intelligently

·         The responsibility of care for fellow citizens.

·         The responsibility to serve ones country (I would reinstitute the draft, but not require the draftees to serve only in armies.)

·         The responsibility to live within one means. (Our personal debt equals our national debt.)

·         That if you break the rules of society you must repay society for the damage you have done (that does not infer incarceration.)

·         The responsibility to speak fairly without malice and plain lying.

·         The responsibility to treat all others citizens with respect.

I am sure that you can add to each of these lists. But we need to dream, and then make every effort to capture our dreams. May our dreams promote the general welfare.

Joel 2.28b “I will pour out my Spirit on every kind of people: Your sons will prophesy, also your daughters. Your old men will dream, your young men will see visions.”

Liberal Arts Education

Rick Scott, the governor of Florida and a sweetheart of the Tea Party doesn’t believe in liberal arts education. He believes that colleges need to teach science and technology, engineering and mathematics and not bother with the social sciences. Or, in his words, “we don’t need a lot of anthropologists in the state.” He wants degrees that translate, in his opinion, into jobs. Now he would include in college curriculum economics and business management, but I would guess it would be microeconomics he would encourage rather than macroeconomics.

I’ve heard this argument most of my life. College kids saying just give me the courses I want and can use. Forget English, history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and the like, they’re just a waste of my time. Or, a lot of college kids want technical college degrees but the term B.A. or B.S. behind them. A lot of colleges, especially online colleges are giving them exactly what they want.

As a result of all this, in my humble opinion, we have a lot the technically capable folk who have a very limited understanding the world in which they live, the history of how we got here, and little about social interaction based upon reason. It is also pretty well known and documented that a college degree just means you are educable, and the particular degree means little in terms of earning power.

Historically college professors and academic type folk tend to be liberal in their politics and business folk tend to be conservative. So, Scott may well have a political agenda in his ideas about college education. He wants more people like himself, with a business degree and a law degree and was a trucker.

In my opinion all college degreed folk need competency in English, so they can communicate understandably, the need sociology and psychology to understand how the human psyche works, they need political science to become sensible voters, they need basic economics to understand how economies work on more than just a personal level, and a little philosophy and the ability to analyze and think clearly couldn’t hurt. We need broadly educated people to make solid decisions in an increasing complicated world.

More so, we need college graduates that are informed on social, moral, and ethical values. Colleges need to provide guidance in this area as well. Some time ago I read that business school found that the needed to add business ethics to their curriculum as their graduates just lacked understanding in this area. It is all too easy today to form “bottom line” thinking, “the end justifies the means,” attitudes and an ethics of convenience. As our society becomes increasing secular and materialistic, core ethical values are being lost. The actions of Wall Street and Bank CEOs speak loudly in this area as they heap bonuses upon themselves and turn a blind eye to a hurting middle class. Without good moral values our ability to trust diminishes and the fear mongers flourish. 

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~ Mohandas Gandhi

First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they get scared. Then they fight you. Then you win. ~ William Rivers Pit variation  [http://www.truth-out.org/bank-it-theyre-scared/1318020817]

Pitt’s take on the demonstrations on Wall Street and elsewhere.

Obama – Regan Comparison

I read a recent Time magazine article comparing President Obama and President Regan. I was surprised by the comparison. There do seem to be some stylistic similarities in their ability to speak to people and present a positive message rather and the negative messages and fear tactics of most presidential campaigners. But after that I have a hard time seeing the similarities.

Time talked about Regan being a complex man, whereas I always saw him as a bit sophomoric in his understanding of things. Remember he’s the guy who promised to lower taxes, increase spending (military) and balance the budget and got people to believe him and his trickledown/supply side economics. Of course, it couldn’t and didn’t work. He increased the debt by 189% more than anyone since include George W. Bush at 86%. (see my Sept 27 post.) Obama truly is a very smart man with the credentials to back it up if one goes to check.

I believe most economists would agree that decreased debt during a recession is absolutely the wrong thing to do. President Obama, however, listening to the people, seems to try to that while stimulating the economy and getting folk back to work. But we need more stimulus (with the exception of war spending) to get the economy rolling. Working on the debt, which is important, needs to be addressed fully when the economy is strong. We need more New Deal thinking and less protect the rich thinking, to get our infrastructure back on line and to make us competitive in the world and our middle class from constantly losing ground.

In comparison it seems to me Regan spun fairy tales that sounded good but lacked substance. I believe Obama espouses hope for the future but is more reality based in his message and beliefs. It is just too bad he has a congress that wants to do nothing at all, and just cater to the rich that bought them their seats.

P.S. Time has been known as a conservative magazine but in recent times they seem as fed up with the Republican agenda as many of us are. I find it strange.

Herman Cain’s 9 9 9 tax plan or is it a 6 6 6 tax plan?

You have probably heard by now of Herman Cain, the new poster boy for the GOP and his 999 tax plan: replacing the current tax system with, 9% income tax, 9% national sales tax, 9% corporate tax. His claim is that it would raise the same amount of revenue as is raised now but would boost economic growth.

Of course, no one can really figure out whether his claim is true or not. It seems to me however, it is just another version of trickle down economics. Especially the 9% national sales tax bit. It sounds good, but is really a regressive tax putting a greater burden on the poor one more time. And you would have to add the state sales taxes to that. Having everyone pay 9% income tax is again a regressive tax is that approximately 22% taxpayers, mainly low-income earners pay no taxes; thus their dollars are taken away.

As to corporate taxes, which are just passed along to customers, it does seem fair that they pay for roads, sewer, water etc,the public services they use along with the rest of us. Who knows how much that is.


Remember also this is the guy who said, "If you're not rich blame yourself." in reaction to the Wall Street protesters, and "Demonstrating against Wall Street is like demonstrating against capitalism." Seems more like demonstrating against GREED to me.

What Religion Do You Hate the Most?

Sociologists  Robert Putnam and David Campbell published a book in 2010, American Grace. In that book they did a poll to see which religion Americans hated the most. These are the results for the top three; ready for this? 1)Buddhists, 2)Muslims, 3)Mormons.

With all the public hype and the need to blame entire populations for the misdeeds of a few of their members I unfortunately get number 2, wrong as it is. But one and three; you’ve got to be kidding.

Buddhists! Why on earth do American’s hate Buddhists? In just boggles my mind. The average American I would guess does not know squat about Buddhism. Ever hear of a Buddhist war, a Buddhist terrorist, a Buddhist bully? Siddhartha Gautama who later became known as Buddha, was a rich kid in India who just wanted to find a better more fulfilling life. He wanted to find a way for people to escape suffering and pain. He lived in the 5^th Century BCE. He left the good life to seek a path and story goes while he sat under a Bodhi tree meditating he became enlightened. He then taught that path of enlightenment to others, a middle way, as he expressed it. He was 35. The middle way was between self-indulgence and self-mortification. For the life of me I can’t find much wrong with that. But there his followers sit the most hated group in America.

I also don’t get the hatred of Mormons. Again, my guess is the average American doesn’t know squat, or maybe a little squat about Mormonism. Mike Huckabee once suggested that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. He should know better. My guess is that most Americans also don’t think Mormons are Christians; they are. Like most religious belief systems Mormonism of the Joseph Smith days (the founder of Mormonism) and the Mormonism of today is much different as the theology of most religious belief systems change and evolve over time.

I remember when I was in campus ministry presiding with a Roman Catholic Priest at a marriage between a Mormon and a Roman Catholic. No big deal.

Hating anyone should go against anyone’s religion. It is just stupid and the folk who promote that hate mongering bring judgment upon themselves.

Or, as Forest Gump said, “Stupid is and stupid does.”