Taking Action : Anarchy & the Money Train

It is obvious that those who were elected or appointed to keep a check and balance on the executive/corporate branch are, if not outright complicit conspirators, inept to the point of utter uselessness. It is also clear that the will of the people, as expressed by several polls and reflected the in the last Congressional election cycle, is being ignored. Lastly, the media, corporate-owned and sponsored, will no longer and nevermore act the whistle-blowing, investigating, and independent-minded voice it was intended to be by those who enshrined the rights of the press within the first few frames of our Constitution. Let’s face it folks, unless you want to obediently follow their plans for you, there is only one recourse left to the people.

I have no idea how that is going to happen and I sure as hell don’t think we can pull it off unless we can do it while the majority of our armed services are scattered all over the globe as they currently are now. Riots and civil unrest do get the attention of our leaders, because that sort of behavior causes a drop in stock prices and commerce which, in case you haven’t noticed yet, is the raison d’etre of the American government. If we slow down or impede the cash flow to the wealthy aristocracy, even if for a day, they will begin to buckle. This entire Iraq War is about that cash flow. Union busting is all about cash flow. Trade deals are all about cash flow. Lowered environmental standards are all about cash flow. It’s all they care about.

We unionize. We blockade. We protest. We riot. We revolt. We stop the money train. We join hands in defying them. They cannot do it without us, and we cannot stop them without each other.

Ultimately, and sadly, the wealthy elites and their personal protectors in government will have to be taken out and shot. Yeah, I know these are strong words, but you have to consider history and realize with whom we are dealing. Do you think they have any regrets when it comes to killing to make or protect an investment? The capitalists consider whatever damage they inflict upon humanity and nature as ‘collateral’. The accumulation of wealth and the power to control resources and labor is the only creed they know and, as history shows time and time again, they will go any length and make any justification in defending or promoting their greed.

My grandfather may have been an ardent Socialist at heart, but he never understood why the Russian Revolution had to be so brutal and unforgiving. He left the Soviet Union with his family under a cloud of disillusionment and disgust. I see now maybe what he didn’t see then and have come to understand why it is that the Bolsheviks had to destroy, kill, and erase every vestige of the old system and its holders. The fact remains that those regimes won’t let go of their power without fighting a ruthless and cruel war in response. Even were we to permit them to walk away with what they have accumulated and then accede to social and economic reform, they would adamantly refuse and unleash their armies and police to suppress any dissent or, even should they go peacefully, eventually return to reclaim what they believe to be their manifested ‘birthright’.

The violent anarchists of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries served as messengers of much needed political and social change. Those anarchists inspired many to stand up, and speak out. They set in motion the downfall of monarchies and erased class divisions around the globe. Those separations have returned and the keepers of the wealth and power have learned a lesson that we have long since forgotten in our heated jealousy to emulate and imitate those who dominate our culture and politics. We must become anarchists of some sort, either in word, in action, or in demeanor. It would be a start and perhaps, as we saw in both in 19^th century Europe and the US, this anarchy could be the harbinger of greater social change and social justice.

Is peaceful change possible when those we elect ignore the people? I am no longer hopeful. Perhaps with peaceful defiance, an anarchy that stops the flow of wealth is what they need to jolt the ruling classes back into a social consciousness. If not, this nation will suffer either dictatorship or worse. If they refuse to hear your words, then it becomes required for them to feel your presence.

Take Action!

Look, It's Not Just Islam

In recent times, due to the many arrests of American Moslems committing fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and other crimes, there has been a lot of ballyhooing regarding the interaction of Islam and our rule of law. Still riding the nationalistic fervor of 9-11, these xenophobes attack the entire Moslem community for something which is not exclusive to Islam. It is an overall attitude into which fundamental religionists are raised. I know. I was raised around it, too.

See, the problem with the Moslem community is not that they are Moslem or that they originate from a different continent or culture. One does not have to arrive at our shores from New Fuckistan in order to possess the same sort of problems that we see with many Moslem communities in various nations around the globe. We have enough Christian, Mormon, and Jewish Americans, born and raised right here in the Good Ole US of A that exhibit that same type of casual indifference, if not even outright hostility, toward the established rule of law, who will flaunt the law when it suits their religious or political ends. Yet, in either case, the religionist feels that if his god sanctions or doesn’t explicitly forbid a particular act, one can look the other way if it conflicts with secular law.

(Examples: Honor killings of disobedient daughters, polygamy, the murder of physicians who perform abortions, election fraud, and lying to federal regulators in order to get more federal tax dollars for their institutions.)

Not everyone who isn’t religious is free from this particular sin either. Average people tend to disregard laws they feel are immoral or just plain impractical. For example, most of us have smoked marijuana or used another person’s prescription medication knowing full well that it was illegal, realizing those laws are misguided for various reasons. Some of us might even make repairs on our homes without consulting or getting the approval of city inspectors. Many others might boost their tax deductions a little more than they should to get a larger refund. That is normal, expected behavior. Some will go to Canada or Mexico to get cheaper prescription drugs and smuggle them back into the US. Given the right incentive, people will bend the rules a little. However, this doesn't mean that those people possess an utter disdain for the rule of law in general. Most people in this group will cite practical concerns as their reason for civil disobedience.

However, once we add religion into this mix, over and above the possible personal dislike for certain statutes, we have a person who is no longer acting on his own for his own earthly purposes, but now he is doing it for the ‘lord’, and this act, even if punishable on Earth, will receive an ultimate reward in the hereafter. A religious person believes that God's law is the ultimate authority on all issues governing behaviors and interaction. Orthodox Jews and Moslems alike prefer to settle their differences via own internal legal systems rather than go through secular courts. Like the Hebrew National hot dog they "Answer to a Higher Authority". Essentially, this belief fosters and attitude of non-compliance and even, in some cases, a complete rejection of civil codes and statutes. They aren't just common criminals, they are, what I call, 'Anarchists for God'. They see our laws as inferior to their own religious views and doctrines and, though not always contrary, still of the ‘lesser’ variety.

In addition, consider that our fundamental religionist may also believe that those of other faiths are not ‘saved’ or possessed by ‘evil’. We become, in their eyes, as second-class, misguided children, spiritual inferiors, or, at worst rebellious infidels. Judaism and Islam both possess two sets of rules for believers and non-believers with the ultimate goal of having everyone come to believe in some way. The infidel’s law, the mental product of infidel society, is to be ignored and that obfuscation is justified by this religious double standard. In their minds, the infidels and gentiles enact laws to protect themselves and each other and, to the devout fundamentalist, acting within the infidel's legal boundaries means that he is now enabling a system that his god most likely abhors. Non-believers are also imagined to be hostile to religionists. Using the secular system also allows the infidels and gentiles a view into their religious world; a world they would rather leave closed off to prying outside eyes whenever possible.

This is not to say that members of a religious community who commit criminal acts do so solely because of their faith. That is far from true. Criminals are criminals and the religious criminals use the religion and cultural differences as a shield from apprehension or capture. Still, if they can justify their act through the religion, it gives them the added comfort of not having the gods upset with their actions. Co-religionists as well, might turn a blind eye to such criminality because it would draw undue attention to the community and blacken their reputation among neighbors. Yet still, this attitude of superiority and a sense of being ‘above the human law’ contribute to that disregard.

Secular-Atheist types like me might not follow the absolute letter of the law either, but we also don't harbor any fantasies concerning divine systems of absolute morality and eternal justice emanating from some invisible, intangible higher power with dreams that it supersedes or supplants the established, secular legal system. I have no delusions of mankind authoring a perfect legal or political system that everyone can follow without hesitation, but at least the secular outlook avoids the absolute moral constructs and, therefore, can remove from the law outmoded, impractical considerations. We don’t claim perfection, but we can, when our system works best, strive for the next best thing.

Delusions of Health?

The supporters of the health care status quo in the US are defending a system, if the situation is to be judged by their own words, that doesn’t exist in any reality that I’ve encountered thus far. According to the advocates for the privatized, profit-driven health ‘management’ industry, you can see any doctor any time you wish anywhere that you prefer and be treated for anything right away. Excuse me, but except for the very famous or the incredibly wealthy that hasn’t been the case in the US for at least 20 years running. I’m left to ask at this point, exactly what country are they talking about?

I have a typical HMO plan that costs my employer somewhere between $280 and $320 per month. If I suffer abdominal pain that isn’t too severe, I can call my primary care physician and schedule an appointment. As a rule, I have never waited less than one week to get into see him and, by that time, the symptoms which plagued me have usually already passed. Then, when finally I do get to see this doctor and he refers me to the next level of ‘care’, I must again wait another week for the next appointment! So now, I have gone two weeks longer without having my condition treated and, in case you didn’t notice, I had co-pays along the way as well. Welcome to American Health Care! Hardly the fast and efficient service the privateers say they perform.

This reminds me of a joke my father, having spent his childhood in the Soviet Union, used to tell. It suits the situation perfectly.

A group of western dignitaries were in the Soviet Union and wanted to visit one of the local schools as a gesture of good will and international friendship. The commissar headmaster was notified by the political office, and together they prepared a carefully scripted question and answer session to be asked by the visitors and answered by the children. Each child was coached to respond in the most positive and enthusiastic manner.

On visiting day, the children were lined up in the gymnasium in perfect Soviet order, wearing neat school uniforms, and standing at military-like attention.

The first child was asked “Do you like your teachers?”

“Soviet Union has nicest teachers!”

The next child was asked “Does the school serve good food!”

“Soviet Union serves the best food!”

Another child was queried “Do you have time for recreation?”

“Soviet Union is best place for lots of playtime!”

This assembly went on for some time with each subsequent response being pretty much the same as the previous one. The Soviet Union was obviously the greatest place on Earth.

Just then, as they were about to end the program, the leading dignitary heard a little boy in the back of the gym start to cry. The visitor walked down the row of students and asked “What is the matter? Why are you crying?” The little boy looks up, wipes his runny nose and says “I want to go to the Soviet Union!”

A Cardinal's Sad Haiku

She calls to her crimson mate
He answers not
Cats watch from the window

Hummingbird's Haiku

Answering the flower’s beckon

Laden while aloft

Home Precious Spoils!

Sham 'n' Scam : Fake Personal & Want Ads

Classified advertisements, especially those designed for dating and employment, are riddled with misleading and false statements. The singles magazines that one might get for free at a newsstand are filled with phony descriptions of fictional men and women seeking romance and companionship. This is an easy and simple scam to get you, the lonely love-seeker, to fork over your hard earned dollars in the hope that the person whose ad you just paid $28.95 to answer will possibly answer you back. Sure, you just listened to a human voice, but it’s just a recording made in 2002. If she or he doesn’t ever call you back, well, that just means you weren’t a match and you should try again with another ad.

I actually tested this out myself a few years back with several different singles magazines and about $300.00. They market these magazines usually to ‘professionals’, you know, people with money. Of the dozen ads I answered, I never received a response from any one of them. Not one. This, in spite of choosing ads that suited me and carefully wording my replies to suit the advertiser. I even misrepresented myself just a wee bit in several. Now, you might say that my little sampling proves nothing and you’d be sort of right. Yet, compare that with a personal ad I placed on a local (and free) venue not six weeks ago, wherein I received over twenty-five responses in one week, without having to embellish my credentials at all!

Now you might think it crazy that companies would post phony or misleading job ads, but it’s true. I’ve known it for years. Yet, did you know that your resume is meant to be rejected before they even begin the interview process? They want your resume so that they can tell the federal government they tried, and then they can now bring in guest workers and work to get them green cards. Corporations do NOT want American workers. The Department of Labor approves this practice.

It is interesting that when we talk about unemployment or the inability of many highly skilled or educated people to find jobs, that many will pick up the Sunday paper or go to Monster.com and point out the hundreds of jobs posted for various positions. They, naturally and naively, believe there are jobs to be had for everyone. Well, such is not the case. The postings are a legalized misdirection to allow companies to exclude Americans from the work force.

Watch the video posted below and tell me just how corporations and our legal system are good for America or American workers. This is the video the HR companies and guest worker advocates don’t want you to see. They tell Congress and the American people that Americans aren’t available for the jobs yet, as this video shows, they aren’t really interested in hiring Americans at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

So much for all the crap about corporations ‘creating’ jobs! Such bullshit. Class warfare is alive and well. Stop defending the corporations! They don't give a shit about you.

What Happened to My Life? (The American Worker)

Worker: I am now a production slave to seven machines of the kind I used to design on Unigraphics and Cadkey.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: The company is owned by a Wall Street investment firm. And the good news is we beat the Chinese and Mexican divisions in quality, and speed. The bad news is, I give up breaks, and lunches to keep up with production.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: I am on call 24 / 7 to come in and keep up the production quota. This is expected by the company (unofficially).

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: It costs me $3000 a year, NOT to use my medical insurance, but these are the best benefits that that can be found now.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: Since my Military service, I have spent 3000 hours in classroom technical training, as requested by the Business community, and the Government because they needed tech workers. Those jobs are now located in India, China, or performed by imported workers for a fraction of what I was earning.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: I make $5.00 LESS an hour than I made 25 years ago and my dollar goes nowhere near as far.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE A JOB!

Worker: When laid off from my last job, as a last resort, I applied at farms and orchards, (you know, the jobs Americans won’t do), and was deemed over-qualified for the position and denied work.

Capitalist: SHUT UP, AT LEAST YOU HAVE...ERR...HAD A JOB! FREE MARKETS MUST BE PROTECTED! GLOBAL ECONOMY! INDIVIDUALISM! BLAH BLAH BLAH.......

Re: What happened to your life?

Well, that is an easy question answer. Unregulated, ruthless and truth-less Capitalism happened to your life. You became too expensive for them even after all the hoops you jumped through while trusting them that everything would still be alright. If they just paid less in taxes, less for your health care, had less government safety regulations, and maybe outsourced a few non-technical positions to “There-went-my-job-istan”, then you would be perfectly safe and weather the ensuing economic storm that snatched up many of your co-workers. You, my friend, are a huge sucker to have ever believed them.

It’s not all your fault, the corporations and the venture capitalists spend millions of dollars to convince everyone that they were really ‘benefactors’ and wonderful people running almost charity-like institutions. “We create jobs!” Really? Where are they creating jobs now? All around us for the last 30 years, we have seen the degeneration of American production and wages, and now, when it finally hits the white-collar sector, do we see even one little bit of outrage.

Do not ever believe that this is some result of ‘market forces’. Look back to the corporate advertising and lobbying of 30 and 40 years ago, and you see today in their vision of the future. This was a deliberate strike at worker’s rights, fair wages, and fair trade built upon the premises of Capitalism and the re-establishment of political and economic power into the hands of the few. They have so much propagandized and muddled the common man’s head with nonsense that even when reality strikes hard and sudden, the American whose wages and lifestyle are diminished will continue, even to the death, to defend the Capitalist who put him into that horrible predicament. They use you, throw you away, and then you fight for their honor! THAT is power.

Karl Marx was right. He viewed human history and he personally bore witness to the horrors wreaked upon workers, families, and children by that never-ending greed machine we refer to as the Industrial Revolution. He knew then that it was sustained only through morally reprehensible labor practices and it remains so today.

They don’t give a shit about anyone.

Wall Street Confidential : Cramer On Games Hedge Funds Play

The very foundations of capitalism are corrupt. It is a big game of manipulation and lies.

Bleeding & Pissed-Off

From the Progressive Daily Beacon:

The 'bleeding heart Liberal' - the person who hoped to stop nonsensical wars being perpetrated for no reason other than creating safe new markets for corporations to either sell their product in, or to enslave the population so that they could sew cheap clothing designed only to increase profits and CEO annual salaries. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' was the person who hoped to end global poverty and feed hungry Americans. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' who had warned of global warming long before it became fashionable and even before Exxon and other corporations began paying propagandists to refute its existence. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' was the person who fought to protect drinking water, rivers, lakes, and wetlands from unnecessary corporate pollution. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' was the person who fought for living wages, vacation time, and medical benefits for America's workers. The 'bleeding heart Liberal' was the person who fought for programs to feed the elderly and ensure, after retirement, that they had affordable healthcare.

The so-called bleeding heart Liberal was shamed into near extinction by thugs and snake oil salesmen. That's too bad really, because there was a time 'bleeding heart Liberals' were willing to fight for what was right. What could be more right than America's humanity?

The Republican will ask me ‘not to be so angry’ or not to speak in ‘shrill tones’. It makes sense that he should request my silence really. No criminal ever wants the victims or witnesses to cry foul or fight back. The tough-talking conservatives want us, the American people of good conscience, to maintain a gentle, compliant state of non-resistance to any of their efforts to turn this great land into a fascist corporo-stocracy. Too bad for those mother fuckers. As one commenter so aptly put it, “The death of the bleeding heart liberal is maybe a good thing. We are transformed, thanks to the GOP, into “Pissed-off Progressives.” Passivity in the face of Republican policy and rhetoric is an admission of defeat. Do not ever let them shut you down by demanding that you be ‘polite’ or ‘civil’. Fuck them and fuck that. When human beings are being exploited and tortured as a matter of public policy, I am going to be very mad about it. There are no punches pulled and no holds barred.

I hope the Democrats in Congress (are you listening Nancy?) understand this and adopt an entirely offensive and non-conciliatory posture when dealing with the GOP. There is no reason to negotiate with those elements bringing us into perpetual wars, torture, erosions of civil liberties, and the bankrupting of social programs, while contaminating the American ideal through the merger of big mega-business and the force of federal government. None whatsoever. If we accept incremental changes in policy, and there is no reason to do so, it must on OUR terms, and never theirs. Negotiating with them will just mean more wasted time and more needless suffering.

Some of us are still fighting the good fight and remember that anger is justified in the face of ongoing atrocities. This bleeding heart has always pumped red, thick human blood; never oil, depleted uranium, or stores of gold. It pumps compassion for victims and anger at those who cannot bear themselves to show others simple human considerations and empathy. I will hate the warmongers. I will not feel sorry for the false victims and pretentious yes-men who front them. I will speak to truth loudly. I will not be ashamed to stand up for what is just and right. If they want me quiet, they will have to kill me.

Good luck with that. Nature will probably beat them to it.

The Charedi 'War' on Computers?

From HaAretz:

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish group declares war on computers

Every Gerrer Hasid with a computer can expect a house call in the near future, meant to persuade him to get rid of the treyf device. Those with an Internet connection - the height of spiritual contamination, which only a few members of the community have rabbinical permission to use, and that for work purposes only - will receive special attention.

The purpose of the campaign is not to threaten computer users with sanctions, but rather to explain the "spiritual dangers" to which they and members of their household are exposed. If the Gerrer rebbe so wished, members of the community say, he would have ordered the computers removed from his followers' homes. But the Rebbe is not doing so, perhaps because he, Rabbi Yaakov Aryeh Alter, knows how difficult it is to round up the horses once the stable door has been left open. And so, the campaign's purpose is informative: Every shtibl [small synagogue] is to appoint two people to go from house to house with the message that it is preferable not to have a computer at home.

HaAretz is one of those periodicals that allows for comments from readers. I’ll post just a couple of those here so you get some idea of how polarized people are on the issue and how stupid they can get when the subject comes to Charedim. I know that may of you might assume that I, being the vocal apikores, agree with such harsh critiques of the Chasidishe Veldt, but that is not so at all. I do not agree entirely with the Gerrer Rebbe’s initiative, but I see a great deal of wisdom in it.

The title of the article is no doubt misleading and provocative. Most of the redundant controversy and rhetoric stems from readers getting caught up in the sensationalism rather than the content of the article, which in no way suggests the Gerrer Rebbe intends to wage a ‘war’, but rather an outreach program.

A woman from Rechovot writes (I tidied up her spelling and grammar):

They are violating human rights by shutting their children and wives away from the world. It`s imprisonment against one`s will. Say what you want, but if you`re questioning that, then you must be thinking that also the 12 year old girl kidnapped and made into n-the wife of a Mormon somewhere in the U.S. was so-to-say acting out of her "free will"! Do these rabbis think they`re G-d to order people around like that?! I`d say it`s time for them to review their own behavior!

I don’t know how you read this comment, but frankly, I think she has some serious issues unrelated to computer abuse in the Charedi community. To go from banning the internet to Mormons is quite a leap. I agree that there are some controlling aspects to Charedi lifestyle and that parents and community leaders exercise an inordinate amount of control, in the eyes of many, over their followers. But guess what? There are some communities, especially in urban America, where people are crying out for such active and effective leadership! I grew up in that world and I call it “being responsible for your family and community.” We may argue as to what extent that control should or should not apply, but for a community to police its own is not a bad thing. I do not believe the Gerrer Rebbe is over-reacting.

Shmuel, also from Rechovot, speaks wise words when saying:

The responses are sadder than the article. Everyone is so upset that the Gerrer Chasidim shut off their children from the internet, as though they are now abandoned to the Middle Ages. I (although not Charedi), choose to have no internet connection in my house, and I live a rather modern life without it. To me, it is more sad to see how the general secular public ignores the risks and and danger that the internet poses to our children, and rather just blames the Charedim for their response to the danger (even if you don`t agree with it). Filth and the destruction of the education of our children does not equal modernity!

I have to agree with much of what Shmuel is saying. You don’t need the internet to become smarter, worldly, or educated. Arguably, past generations that created the technology we have today did so without the aid of computers or the internet. The internet is simply a venue for communication, but certainly not the only or even the most effective means to do so in terms of educational value. We utilize the computers in schools, not as matter of necessity, but for convenience. Nothing replaces the face to face interaction of a real teacher in a classroom or real people in a real, three-dimensional social setting. When the virtual world becomes ‘real’, we find many social and individual problems growing from the associated behaviors. I would venture to guess that internet junkies and ‘gamers’ are far more likely to become shut off from the real world than are the children of those Gerrer Chasidim who have chosen to unplug their PCs from the World Wide Web.

Kol Tuv

Energy Crisis?

I had my first energy drink a couple of months ago. I’d been fighting an illness related fatigue and, in order to keep working at an acceptable level without arousing suspicion, I turned to Red Bull to give me a little boost. That was a huge mistake. Not that it had any adverse physical side-effects. Quite the opposite occurred, in fact. It gave me exactly what I needed to get through the day and be quite productive. The problem was that it made me too energetic, so much so that I turned into a complete, raging asshole, something which normally only happens when I’m in the midst of depression or drinking Wild Turkey with Republicans.

I already knew from my co-workers that energy drinks can be very addicting and frequent drinkers become physiologically and psychologically dependent upon them. They possess an ultra-high dose of vitamins, sugar, caffeine, and minerals that quickly boost energy levels and alertness. Something that works that hard and that fast cannot be good for you if overused. So now, when I feel the need for a little pick-me-up, I drink one of the lesser powerful, ‘natural’ energy drinks that don’t send my id into total nuclear meltdown. I only will drink a shot or two at a time, and usually at the end of my work day right before I begin my workout. I know to be careful.

I see people much younger than I, even children, buying the strongest of energy drinks in the middle of the day. If these kids don’t have enough energy, what the hell can I expect at my age? What exactly are they doing, or not doing, that requires them to take high doses of stimulants? Is playing video games that important? I almost don’t even want to know at this point. What the hell does the 15 year old have to be tired about? (If you tell me he or she is having lots of sex, I’ll be very jealous, so please, if that’s the case, let me savor my ignorant bliss for a little while longer.)

I think we are going to see some serious physical and emotional damage in both kids and adults from abusing these drinks. I see value in their ability to help someone fatigued, on an occasional basis, get through the day, but otherwise, they seem redundant, over-powerful, and untested. Not that I’m a psychic doctor, but I see kidney failure and thyroid problems in their future.

For now, I’ll just try to stick with a good night’s rest and deep breathing exercises when needed.

Kol Tuv

Children See

This short video says it all. Please watch.

Home Schooling

As a former public school teacher I have, as you might readily surmise, an opinion about the home-schooling movement. Surprisingly, I am, at least in theory, very much in favor of it, though home schooling isn’t well-suited for every student. It also has to be determined whether the parental decision to home-school is based on realities of the child’s educational needs or merely upon a religiously-based schizophrenia or racism turned anti-government paranoia. There is home-schooling that is borne out of concern for the child and his or her specific needs and another that is the product of isolationism and separatism.

I believe there are legitimate and important reasons to home-school and, overall, home-schooling done by competent parents and tutors can create amazing results. Were one to make a general study of past luminaries in science and literature, for example, many of those men and women were home-schooled, though not exclusively by parents. Granted, it was an age when public school systems were weak or non-existent, but nonetheless, the results were quite remarkable. It is possible to mold a genius from within the confines of your own hearth and home.

It is ironic that a society which demands that the parents, on one hand, take full responsibility for their child’s welfare, education, and behavior and then, conversely, continue to harshly criticize those home-schooling parents that actually accept that weighty task willingly! I cannot tell you how many times I heard people say “Education is the parent’s responsibility.” A parent that home-schools takes on a huge responsibility and a great risk that their efforts might fall short. However, would the home-schooled kid be at any less peril than a child left vulnerable to the free-for-all of public and parochial systems? There are some children who will thrive in home education setting and encounter greater risks by the public setting. I believe that option should be available with, of course, strict guidelines that conform to accepted academic standards.

The most common critique of home schooling centers around the socialization of the home-schooled child, wrongly assuming that being stuffed into a classroom with 30-40 other children, subjected to endless and various peer pressures, cliques or perpetual teasing, or forced into a collective schedule is somehow a healthy start to life and preparation for the future. Sure, many of us developed a thicker skin and learned to ‘roll with the punches’, but not all kids are that resilient. Some, whom you may know personally, retain those deep, silent scars of childhood taunts borne in an anarchic social atmosphere with no escape or adequate release. Such emotional scars adversely affect learning and later socialization much more profoundly than would being coached in iambic pentameter by your own mother.

These same critics are under the false impression that home-schooled children social captives confined to their rooms and seldom, if ever, venture out for extra-familial contact. It is likely there are, in fact, some very over-protective parents who, with perhaps the best of intentions, hide their children from the world, but most home-schoolers are not of that variety. Home-schooling families take part in group functions that include other home schooled children in addition, to the normal family functions and parties that we all must endure from time to time. To assume that a home-schooled kid will inevitably become a maladjusted social illiterate is just plain wrong. One would make an equally grave error in asserting that a publicly schooled child, by virtue of his education being ‘public’ must, therefore, be socially well-adjusted. Lest we forget, the ‘Columbine killers’ were products of our public schools.

I may be a little biased toward home-schooling because I was, at least in part, home-schooled or strongly assisted in many subjects. I am a product of the religious Jewish parochial system. As Chasidic Jews, we have very strict behavioral and social norms that preclude us, in general, from mixing within a public school setting. There are dietary concerns, dress codes, and time constraints that do not exist in the secular world. Fortunately, we have our own private schools and incorporate a basic secular curriculum alongside the religious training. Within the system, the secular subjects were downplayed as necessary evils and held to be unimportant. Had it not been for the loving guidance of specific family members, I would likely not be here today conveying any meaningful information in a sensible and organized manner.

I don’t know if home schooling is overall better or worse than the parochial or public alternatives. Some kids do better, and some do worse. Einstein, for example, did not thrive in the German public schools of his day and did not achieve his own greatness and potential until he was free of its rigid, institutional restraints. I feel the various systems can overlap and enhance each other when needed. In order to make some useful order out of it, we have to begin with a discussion free from hyperbole and misunderstanding. There is a way to provide options that work for everyone.

Michigan HB 4564 : Fair Parenting Act 2007

In many states around the country, bills have been introduced in legislatures that ask for family courts to order joint custody of children in divorce as a default, or assumed, position, rather than granting full custody and visitation to one parent or the other. It is generally referred to as the “Fair Parenting Act”, and it is much like the Uniform Parenting Act, which also seeks to reduce controversy and acrimony in divorce and custody cases. Essentially, both proposed acts, if passed, would offer fathers a benefit of the doubt in such cases where none currently exists.

Below you will find a portion of the HB 4564 and then the comments of its most vocal opponents. I will rebut this opposition at the end to show just how vacuous their ‘reasoning’ has become.

HB 4564 (Proposed)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 6a. (1) In a custody dispute between parents, the court shall order joint custody unless either of the following applies:

(a) The court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child.

(b) A parent moves his or her residence outside the school district that the child attended during the 1-year period preceding the initiation of the action and is unable to maintain the child's school schedule without interruption. If a parent is unable to maintain the child's school schedule, the court shall order that the parents submit the dispute to mediation to determine a custody agreement that maximizes both parents' ability to participate equally in a relationship with the child while accommodating the child's school schedule. A parent may restore joint custody by demonstrating the ability to maintain the child's school schedule.

(2) (1) In If subsection (1) does not apply in a custody disputes dispute between parents, the parents shall be advised of joint custody. At the request of either parent, the court shall consider an award of joint custody, and shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying a request.

This next part comes from the National Organization of Women (Now) who, not surprisingly, opposes any measure that would grant fathers a greater share of parenting time with the children. I honestly thought they could have done better, but who am I to tell them what to do? Here it is:

HB 4564 has serious consequences women and their children as well as victims of domestic violence. Action is needed NOW! We need you to contact your legislator by letter, email or phone and urge them to OPPOSE HB 4564.

If you go to their national (or state) website, NOW does not explain how giving joint custody or HB 4564 in general would effect the existing domestic violence statutes. If you read the bill, and can comprehend even just a fraction of it, there is no preclusion from asking the court to review the individual case and set custody or visitation accordingly. There is no explicit or implied clause in HB 4564 that prevents a mother (or father for that matter) from seeking the court’s permission to restrict access or visitation based upon extenuating circumstances that may arise. HB 4564 simply allows a father, as a parent, to have the presumption of equal footing in the deciding of custodial and visitation issues.

They continue:

Joint custody is based on several assumptions, which are:

* That both parents were active co-parents before the divorce or separation;

Active co-parents? I don’t know what that means exactly. Is ‘active’ determined by time, by money, or by effort? If a parent is away at work, earning the money that pays the household bills and provides the means by which the child thrives, wouldn’t that also count as ‘active’ parenting? And, why does NOW assume that one parent is ‘non-active’ and not both? If you don’t know for sure, without a hearing, then how can you assume that either parent isn’t ‘active’? It makes no sense.

* That both parents are skilled negotiators who can put their feelings aside and put the needs of their children before their own;

Once again, how do they know that the mother can put aside her feelings any more or less than would the child’s father? By their logic, neither parent should be assumed capable of such stoic fortitude. Besides, the parents aren’t negotiating anything. It will be the family court ordering joint custody based upon relative and fair assumptions unless, or course, evidence exists to preclude such an order.

*That the best and only way for both parents to be active in a child’s life is through joint custody;

Do they think that the best way for divorced parents to raise their child is for one parent to see his or her child two weekends a month? If ‘active’ is their criteria for custody, as it shows a healthy and strong parental bond, then why do they insist on one parent, usually the father, becoming ‘inactive’ by court order? Joint custody is the best way; equal time, equal exposure, and equal responsibility. Best for everyone involved. I cannot understand how separating a child from a competent loved one does any good for anyone.

* That the need for a child to have both parents in their life supersedes the child’s need for safety and stability.

Where do they think safety and stability come from? Could it be from parents? Do they really think that separating a decent parent from his or her child or limiting access without good reason is somehow creating a ‘stable’ environment? I don’t think it can get crazier than this. Children don’t look to courts, to the police, to the lawyers, or to NOW for safety and stability. They look to their parents who, under the unfortunate circumstances of divorce, must continue best they can to provide that emotional and physical security. Once again, HB 4564 does not prevent one parent from suing for sole custody or questioning the court’s decision.

I think that HB 4564 and similar bills are going to change family law for the better. Too often, a parent goes into court and is accused of something inappropriate or even criminal as a means to extract concessions or deny visitation. In English law, divorce fell under what was known then as ‘Fairness Laws’ where the decisions were made by judges, not based upon evidence, but by what was considered fair or, as we put it today, in the best interest of the child. They did this to streamline their overloaded court dockets. There were no evidentiary hearings or trials, just the administrative posturing.

HB 45664 doesn’t do away with fairness or the best interest of the child. It does however, demand that a father or mother, receive equal consideration in the interests of that child unless evidence suggests that one, or both, are unfit or unable to fulfill the requisite requirements to maintain joint custodial input.

Sexuality & Obsession

Everyone has their opinion concerning extra-curricular sexual activities outside of the relationship they currently share. Each couple makes their own rules and each relationship has its own particular and often very confusing dynamic. Whether it appears good, bad, or ugly, I have learned not to pass judgments on other couples. It does not matter whether they are sexually ‘liberal’ or horribly abusive and controlling, from my vantage point, those relationships and what those persons choose for themselves is none of my fucking business. I have enough to worry about in my own relationship.

Couples make agreements, some of them explicit and others develop with time and circumstance, remaining unspoken yet very clearly drawn lines of conduct and demeanor covering a wide range of things. In my own relationships, I simply ask for honesty and teamwork. Keep to what you agree to, and don’t make shit up as you go along or change the rules in the middle of the game without good reason. One of the things I do not demand from a woman is sexual fidelity. She will be faithful or she will not. I would only ask that she use better judgment when playing around.

I learned long ago that to force people into monogamy does not always work out well in the long run. Some people are sexually expressive and curious beyond what is normally acceptable in our Puritanical-American view of sexuality. Many years ago, I loved a woman who, to put it bluntly, ‘couldn’t control her pussy’. She was open about her sexuality and on again off again lesbianism. I didn’t love her any less, but in my exuberant youthful male desire to maintain control, I drove myself from someone who I loved very much. Looking back from the vantage point of hindsight, I could have taken a much more enlightened approach to her sexuality and my own. People can share their bodies without giving away their hearts, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s a strictly personal matter.

Marlene Dietrich once said, “In America, sex is an obsession. In Europe, it’s a fact.” Only in America, does the nation go completely berserk when a sitting President gets a blow job. The effects of that prosecution wasted more than just time or money. It shifted our attention from truly important issues. Sex is just sex, and Marlene had it right. To turn sex into an obsession is to make it a religion unto itself, where we worship the attainment as some sort of epiphany while regulating it to the point of destroying the ease and pleasure with which sex is to be enjoyed.

It isn’t really about the sex, rather the attitude that punishes decent people for merely expressing their physical desires. No, I don’t advocate sexual anarchy at all. There are, of course, health and family issues to consider. For some, sexuality becomes a means of acting out on deeper psychological issues and those people should seek professional help. In my quest for social enlightenment, I recognized within myself the severe emotional frustrations caused by artificial and superstitious social stigmas surrounding sexual taboos. I chose to exclude those quasi-religious propositions from my personal relationships and I am happier for it.

It is all about the agreement.

Kol Tuv

Gas prices: How to Bitch About It

I have been contemplating how to proceed, most effectively, in voicing my discontent over high and ever-increasing gas prices. It is pretty clear, at this juncture, that the CEOs of the major oil companies and associated refineries have no intention of forgoing on massive and unequalled profits just to appease a malcontented consumer base. That Americans should have ever expected the 21^st century Robber Barons to hear our cries for economic mercy, shows to our overall naiveté and collective inability to understand a common lesson from our own history. We certainly cannot turn to the political sphere for assistance as they, too, have fallen under the wily enchantments of oil money. There seems to be no one to turn to anymore.

Or, is there? Is there someone to whom we can address our dismay? Someone, who perhaps, does have the ear and attentions of the Oil Barons? We know that CEOs talk to other CEOs. They are an aristocracy unto themselves and behave as royalty. Their friendships, associations, and even recreations remain shared only amongst their own kind. They even sit on the executive boards of each other’s companies sometimes. They do talk to one another.

Now when I have to pay twice as much for my transportation as I did a year ago, it affects my bottom line, and I cannot spend as much money on recreational activities such as dining out, going to the cinema, or taking a vacation at some fancy resort. These very pleasurable and once commonplace experiences are no longer affordable due the rising costs gasoline. Sure, I can cut corners by driving less or buying a car that gets better gas mileage, but at some point I still will be paying more for my basic needs than before and that hurts my pocketbook.

This realization gave me an idea. Rather than pleading endlessly, and futilely, unto the deafened ears of criminals in Big Oil, why not write a polite letter to one of the CEOs of those other corporations whose products and services you can no longer afford or enjoy because of high gas prices?

Here is an example: (I am using Disney, but you could stick any company in there i.e. McDonalds, Star Theatres, etc.)

Dear Mr. Eisner,

Let me first congratulate you on offering a wonderful and stimulating vacation experience for millions of people worldwide. It is a truly remarkable happening. My family and I are very eager to visit your park and enjoy the myriad of rides and attractions to the absolute fullest.

However, due to the recent surge in gas prices, my family and I have had to cut back on discretionary expenditures of all kinds and, I am very sad to say, so too, must we put off visiting Disney for another time. My kids are really disappointed, but the rising cost of transportation makes such a trip impossible at this time. I hate breaking their hearts this way, but the financial realities must be considered.

I wonder how many other middle class families have to forego their vacations, some of them at your establishments, because of financial constraints due to rising energy and gas prices. It is a shame, because, for the children at least, a visit to Disney is an experience that lasts a lifetime.

Maybe we can get there next year.

Yours truly,

Mr. or Mrs. Potential Consumer

Or, should you prefer something less verbose:

Dear CEO of McDonald’s Corp.,

The convenience of having a hot cup of coffee and a tasty breakfast ready for me on my way into work each day cannot be understated. Your breakfast sandwiches are addictive! Unfortunately, due to much higher gas prices than normal, I have to choose between the tasty convenience of your delicious product and having enough money to fill my gas tank.

I don’t know how many other people are having to consider such an option, but I imagine there must be some others also financially hard-pressed due to the rising gas prices.

Sincerely,

Mr. Consumer

If other corporations realize the impact that higher gas prices have on their bottom line then perhaps the CEO of Brand X will have a conversation with CEO of Gas Co. A, and, if all goes well, the consumer night see some relief at the pump. It does us no good, at this point, to rant and rail against the whole machine when certain parts of the machine can be utilized to dampen the effects of the other. I suspect the CEOs of Disney already imagine that higher basic living costs mean that fewer people will visit their parks or purchase their products. However, we do need to tell them so they know for certain.

An Honest Waitress?

I have to agree with the person who expressed a heretofore unspoken reality concerning friendly waitresses or female bartenders. After having worked a few night shifts in a local club, I began to notice the starkly contrasting personality shifts that wait staff would undergo in between times spent in front of customers and the few moments they spent out of sight and earshot of patrons. That eye-opening experience caused me to pretty much stop eating out altogether. I began to wonder if every time I ate in a restaurant that the server was employing some uber-phony friendliness and really couldn’t give a damn if I was happy or not with my meal. If I wished to dine in the company of an actress, one well-trained in faking most everything, I would hook up with my ex wife.

So, dear waitress, if you see me sitting at your table please don’t patronize me with tossing a hip my direction or batting your eyes. Don’t twist your hair or try any coquettish nonsense. Don’t call me “Honey” or “Sugar”. Don’t ask me how I am doing or how my day is. You don’t give a shit and please don’t ruin my day any further by trying to convince me that you do. Be polite and be prompt. That’s all you need to do. There isn’t any chance in hell that you would interact with me were I not seated in your section. Don’t try to persuade me otherwise. You’ll get a better tip not treating me as if I’m some gullible, love-struck dupe.

Yet, why single out wait staff or servers for being disingenuous? Hell. We all smile for our bosses, our customers, and even our families when we don’t want to. We all lie to ourselves and to them in order to achieve some financial or social end. I think this is what disgusts me about myself sometimes, in that I have to play the game just to pay the bills and have a few dollars for fun left over. I can imagine the frustration of having to fake everything, perhaps not all the time, but enough of the time that one ends up carrying a huge Santa-size sack of unspoken resentments and hatreds. I should know.

We are all whores, doing shit we don’t always want to do for someone we sometimes hate. So, dear waitress, go ahead. Tell me you how much you don’t want to be serving these scrambled eggs and how my physical appearance makes you either sick to your stomach or brings on a painful indifference. Tell me that you don’t give a damn about the eggs or me. Be honest. I am so tired of being patronized, and I am sure that someone is secretly wishing that I, too, would cease being disingenuous with them.

People demand candid honesty, but turn hateful when it when it arrives. Go figure. Oh, dear waitress, here is yours. Where is mine?

'Fixing' the Fight Game

The only sport I follow closely is boxing. I do watch the UFC and, on occasion, I will also check out some of the international martial arts competitions when available. Even though the skill level and pain tolerance of some of the fighters in other martial arts venues is nothing short of amazing, classic boxing still has my heart and soul. I truly enjoy watching the sport, analyzing the game and the fighters, and I train, when possible, as would a middleweight boxer. I had a few amateurish fights and have sparred many rounds, but that was long ago before getting older made recovery time a much longer process. Being hit hard by another fighter teaches you to respect the effort and skill of the game.

This is my short list things professional boxing can do to improve itself and widen its quickly eroding fan base. (No, it doesn’t include naked women.)

** Do away with the alphabet soup of belts and titles. A boxer’s ranking can be more easily determined by a universal numbering system that places them a single hierarchy based upon fight experience, opponent experience, and fight record. As it stands now, a promoter decides to create a fictitious boxing league and then anoints a ‘champion’ from among his own fighters. It’s just nonsense.

** Boxing should have set standards for glove and ring size that varies only with the size of the fighter. Heavyweights would all fight in the same size ring and wear gloves of the same weight, for example. The legal and managerial wrangling over such matters takes away from the sport. As it is now, many fights are won or lost for a fighter even before he steps into the ring. The fighter with the bigger ‘money draw’ basically decides what will happen.

** Make champions face better challengers and not fight a slew of lesser fighters in between just so they can cruise around taking easy paydays. In a numbered ranking system, a level one fighter must face at least a level two, a two at least the three, the three the four, and so on. This way the best will be fighting the best all the time and those at a slightly lower level will get the chance to move up. Allowing managers to pick and choose who their fighter will face makes for very boring boxing. It means that good fighters won’t be tested by better fighters and better fighters, although fearing the potential loss at the hands of a really good one, would have to take the challenges.

** Boxing is a business, but it is often a very crooked one. Fighters who have earned millions of dollars for their promoters and managers are often left with nothing but a tax bill at the end of the day. There is no regulatory commission or union looking out for the fighter’s best interests. Boxing needs a union to protect the fighters from those who claim to be their best friends. Boxers as a rule are not financially savvy characters.

** The payout for fights should be determined by the numerical ranking and not the backroom games of lawyers and casino owners. It would be easy enough to work out a system where we can do this. Say a level ten boxer fights a level twelve. Since he is higher in ranking, we automatically give him a certain percentage of the overall purse, as he is taking the bigger risk by possibly losing his ranking to the lesser fighter.

Implementing these few suggestions will not be easy, but they would, I believe, go a long way to improving the sport. That is, if we can ever get them past the promoters. Chances of that happening, however, are slim to none. The greedy don’t let go easily.

Look Alikes

Peter the Great of Russia (1672-1725) King, Reformer, Military Genius, Engineer, Westernized the Russian Empire.

Ron Jeremy (1953- ) Big Penis, Cheesy Porn Actor.

Drug Testing & Welfare

There remains a great deal of controversy over whether or not potential Welfare recipients should face mandatory drug testing before becoming eligible to receive benefits such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, or any other taxpayer subsidized social program. I happen to think such a policy makes good sense. It is not unreasonable to demand that a beneficiary of any social program be at least, from the start, in a state of mind that allows him or her to use the assistance responsibly. No one wants to see the system overburdened by bad decision making or have public funds end up going for things not intended by the good will of the people. Drug testing is therefore a good policy.

On the other hand, I also feel that mandatory drug testing is intrusive and it doesn't really tell you much about the person or the quality of their person or work. Different drugs have different effects on different metabolisms and, to lump all drug users, be they recreational marijuana smokers or hardcore meth-heads, together, is just plain stupid. I don't see why a guy who smoked a joint last weekend on his brother-in-law's houseboat should be denied employment or social benefits while the alcoholic who closed down the bar the night before, drunk off his ass, gets all he needs with no questions asked. Plenty of people use drugs occasionally and are quite responsible in all other ways. To single out drug use a prohibitive factor to collecting benefits or employment is misguided.

Now, in the private sector, if I know that company is drug screening employees, then I have two choices. I must either quit using drugs, or apply for a job elsewhere. At this point, and until drug testing becomes universally mandatory, I voluntarily make that choice. There may be an economic consequence, but it remains a trade-off that I would be willing to accept in most cases. The company that I work for does not drug test, and some of our long term employees remain for just that reason.

For Welfare, we still want to ensure that the money we give is used properly, but we also don't want to be too intrusive into their privacy. As an option, we set up a two or three-tiered system of benefits. The first level includes a voluntary drug test and, should the applicant pass this test, they receive the maximum allowable benefit. If they choose to test and then come up positive for drug use, they then would have the choice of rehabilitation, in which they could still collect a reduced benefit, and subsequently, should they demonstrate clean living at a later time, they then become eligible to receive the maximum. Should the recipient refuse to be drug tested altogether, he or she would still receive benefits, but they would be greatly reduced. Most importantly, we give the applicant the choice. At any time along the way, the applicant or beneficiary can improve or harm their status.

This system would allow the recipient to voluntarily take the drug test and also provide the welcome opportunity and financial incentives to kick drugs altogether. Of course, no system is perfect and each program has its obvious flaws, many of which do not surface until it is too late to change direction. Yet, in terms of how we administer social programs, we have enough experience now to make the right changes to ensure fiscal stability for both program and recipient. Let's start out facing reality and be able to adjust, from the onset, to the inevitable.

On Corporate Welfare

Re: do any of you rubes have any idea how so called corporate welfare works?

Yes. We do.

Corporate welfare is offered in various forms. Mostly it takes the form of subsidies, reduced fees, tax deferments, tax rebates, and tax amnesty. In some cases, it shows up as legislation designed to protect companies from liability due to financial malfeasance or injurious products. Corporate welfare also shows up in tariff and import laws, where certain products from favored nations or manufacturers receive a wider range of available international markets. Any and all government intervention that assists a private corporation to increase its profits is, de facto, corporate welfare.

For example, the current lobbying efforts of Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton to enact retroactive legislation which would allow them to evade criminal and civil liability, are excellent examples of corporate welfare, should they succeed in getting it passed. It would save them each billions of dollars in payout to victims and in legal fees. There are also fees that private companies, particularly those who deal in natural resources pay to the federal government for access to federal lands. These fees are often waved. Why?

Re: in your simple mind it's just a big check handed to a CEO.

Any tax that is not paid by the corporation increases it profit by decreasing its overhead. Now that increase in profit may not go to the CEO directly, rather to the corporation and thus to the shareholders who, by contract with the CEO, usually pay him a bonus according to his performance. So yes, some of it usually does wind up in the pockets of a CEO. I honestly don’t care where it goes. It is from where it is being taken that is the issue.

Re: money is used for research, development and implementation of ideas. without government funding many of today’s technological breakthroughs would not be possible.

Bullshit. If a private company wishes to do research to develop newer and better products, why should the taxpayer have to contribute to a private venture? If the corporation can’t profit from what it does without taxpayer help, then perhaps it should, following the laws of the free market, go the fuck out of business. Corporations can hire the best and brightest with all their money and, with all those MBAs and PhDs running around, one would expect them to have enough brain-power to succeed. If they need MY help to develop a new product, they don’t need to stay in business.

Edison, Bell, Fulton, Whitney, Ehrlich, Salk, Marconi, Ford, Wright Brothers, Winchester, Browning, Cooper, and thousands of other inventors and scientists were able to develop new, useful, lifesaving innovations WITHOUT any taxpayer help. Why can’t Verizon? Besides, many large corporations do not produce anything at all, i.e. Citicorp and WalMart, but are either just financial institutions or retailers of shitty Chinese products. Even if they did develop new products, I am still wondering why, in light of free market ethics, they should be taxpayer subsidized.

Re: funding provides jobs which in turn create tax paying employees

WRONG AGAIN. Name one corporation in the USA that hasn’t cut jobs, downsized, or outsourced to cheaper labor markets. Corporate welfare merely creates a means by which a corporation can increase its bottom line without having to do anything tangible in relation to sales, marketing, product development, or consumer protections. Citicorp just received a HUGE tax break from NYC and then promptly announced they were laying off 17,000 workers so they could show the same profit percentage as their competitors.

In fact, the corporations the receive the LARGEST benefits from ‘welfare for the rich’ have already moved their manufacturing bases overseas, where they rape the local labor force and taxpayers as they did when they were here. If what you were suggesting was even remotely truthful, I would readily admit to the upside. When it has happened, as in the bailout of Chrysler in the 1980s, it did enable 1000s of regular guys to keep their $20/hr jobs for a short time but, more importantly, it allowed the upper management of Chrysler to keep their $20 million a year salaries and bonus packages. Do you really think that the CEOs were worried about the guys and gals working on the line?

Your assertion is also, even if true, fundamentally unfair in principle. Why should the guy who does the actual work that enriches the corporation, pay a larger percentage of his income to shoulder the tax burden that the corporation has wriggled itself out of? So not only does Joe Worker pay income and sales taxes for himself, but he has to pay a higher tax to make up for what is either being directly given to or forgiven of the company he works for! In addition, since most workers do not work for these companies to begin with, what advantage does corporate welfare offer them? I, who do not work for a Fortune 500 company, will have to make up the difference they didn’t pay. Absurd!

Re: yes, there is corruption

I have to wonder what you define as ‘corruption’. Embezzlement, fraud, and insider trading are corrupt, no doubt, but they are criminal acts that still fall under established criminal and civil codes. So is shoplifting for that matter. We are not speaking here of individual or even institutional criminality, although they are part of the issue. The corruption is of the system that permits any corporation to be legally subsidized by taxpayer’s dollars or legislation.

The entire system of corporate welfare is from its core, a corrupt, albeit still legal, game of extortion and bribery. It is interesting that the many champions of the free market are so willing to advance the cause of taxpayer assisted corporate expansion, and thus ignore the basic rules of free market economics. If the government is helping one company over another, it is just plain unfair to all the others. If the government is helping anyone, then why should they be in business?

Corporations, WalMart in particular, know exactly how to approach a municipality and what line of bullshit to lay on them in order to gain a most-favored tax exempt status for a determined period of time. Let’s be real, the Walton family is one of the wealthiest in the world. I don’t wish them any evil, but c’mon already. Do you really think, at this point, being the largest retailer in the USA, that they should be receiving property tax rebates and deferments? Corporations that have their hands out for welfare is like Bill Gates sitting along the highway asking for spare change from passersby or asking the federal government to let him not pay his water bill. If WalMart needs taxpayer help, they should not be in business. Someone else was there before WalMart, operating without those enormous tax breaks, and someone new would easily fill in the gap when WalMart is no longer.

Corporate welfare also allows companies that should no longer be in business, either because of lousy products, strong competition, bad business planning, or criminal behavior to continue operating beyond what normal market forces would permit. Corporate welfare also means that they get to play with YOUR money and protect their own from risk. Corporations also have investment portfolios. I would love to have someone else’s cash to play the market risk-free. Corporate welfare SUBVERTS the normal business atmosphere.

Re: do a little research before you start yammering your jaws about a subject in which you obviously have no knowledge of.

Take your own advice, please.

Don Imus: Bye-Bye Asshole

I’ll be honest here. I never really listened to Don Imus on the radio or watched his show. I tried once or twice (ok…three times) while under the influence of nothing better to do, but even at its best, getting a root canal without anesthetic by comparison seemed more pleasurable. His humor is the sort of cruel, degrading type that makes one wonder as to what dark and foreboding character traits lie at the depths of this man’s psyche. When Dom Imus tells a joke that berates someone else, it comes across as if he really means it. Anyone who can claim Dick Cheney as an ardent fan of his show must be one truly and profoundly impaired human being.

There has a lot of tumult and controversy over his latest comments regarding a female college basketball team and something about them being “nappy-headed hoes”. (I have no idea if I spelled any of that correctly.) My response? So what? We all know this guy is an asshole in the first degree and that his show is only popular among old conservative fuckers and tolerated by others who are addicted to any available noise the media provides to break the monotony of the work day. His fan base, I am told, is the provincial and pedestrian corporate or corporate friendly middle-aged to senior white guy who has nothing good to say about anything that he perceives will hurt his bottom line.

I don’t care any more that Don Imus is gone as I did when he was there. I could care less. His listeners were inconsequential and his groupies even less so. The important event here is the quick and decisive response on the part of corporate sponsors and the networks who, already under fire for their propagandist reporting style of the Bush regime, took no time in distancing themselves from Don Imus and his racist remarks. This means that the corporate media is listening to the people. It’s also possible that his ratings were so bad that the executives were just waiting for an excuse to fire him.

Either way, Imus is history, and I won’t miss him at all. Good riddance!

The Big Three (Idiots)

I was up late last night flipping channels and trying to either fall asleep or find something, anything, from among the 200 channels available that would pique my interest enough to make the awake time somewhat worthwhile. I don’t want to feel as if I wasted the entire night in just readjusting my derriere to the futon mattress or merely staring off toward the digital abyss into the haze of static noise and infomercials.

So, I come across a CNN business interview with one of those slick-talking, smarmy VPs from General Motors marketing division. Normally, I could care less what big business hirelings have to say about anything, as they are usually lying out their asses, but this time I was actually bored enough to take note, and I set down the remote to await the inevitable. Sure enough, it took only thirty seconds for this corporate douchebag to tell a giant fib. These assholes never disappoint.

The topic du jour was hybrid vehicles and compliance with federal mileage standards in comparison with European automobiles. I shit you not, this suit-and-tie son-of-a-bitch said, “General Motors has been at the cutting edge of hybrid technology, and our cars get as good if not better gas mileage than do cars in Europe.”

Anyone who knows anyone in Europe, or anything about Europe, knows that statement is about as patently false as any statement could possibly be. Ford, Opal, Volvo, etc., have been producing cars in Europe for the European market that gets 45 to 77 miles per gallon, and have been for decades. Some of these cars still have carburetors! I regularly chat with Europeans and have been to Europe myself a few times and it is painfully obvious that Europe is, much like in many ways, years ahead of America in terms of their engineering and ecological thinking.

These cars have never been made available here. I keep hearing the usual mantra of “There’s no market for them here.” What? The myth that Americans won’t drive smaller cars was dispelled in the 1970s when German and Japanese imports struck the America market in a huge way. There will always be those with large families, commercial needs, and small penises who require uber-large vehicles. They are NOT the entire auto market and, as we see by the success of Toyota and Nissan, by example, these buyers of large gas-guzzlers are not even in the majority. America has been clamoring for better choices and the Big Three have ignored us. They continue to roll out the same tired models with the same meaningless cosmetic adjustments. Blah.

One has to wonder what exactly this VP was thinking when he uttered those words. Now, you can pay a whore to say, “I love you”, but you know damned well that she doesn’t. This corporate whore just spews what he’s paid to say and hopes that enough people are stupid enough to buy it and the crappy product his job is dependant upon. Fact is that the smallest model sold by GM, the Aveo, only gets 26 miles per gallon in city driving, or at least that’s what the sticker at the dealership says. I was about to buy myself one of those until I read that. Twenty six? That’s it? And someone thinks this is good gas mileage?

It’s no wonder the Big Three will soon disappear. They think we are fucking idiots. It’s been twenty, maybe thirty years running and they still don’t want to get it. They aren’t ignorant of the facts. Everything is about profit margins, and smaller cars just don’t have the same profitability as do the big huge trucks and SUVs. Apparently, they were counting per unit rather than long-term overall sales. There is no profit if no one buys your product. That they have been losing money hand over fist is telling.

Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007)

Photobucket" border="0">

There was a lovely Asian woman in a skin-tight pair of Guess jeans leaning up against a ill-maintained and weather-battered kiosk somewhere in the middle of the NYU campus. She was completely engrossed, mentally and physically it appeared, in Kurt Vonnegut’s Sirens of Titan. She looked up just long enough to notice this Chasidic Jew, the quintessential anomaly on campus, checking out her ‘reading material’. As a knee jerk defense to being caught red-handed (or red-eyed!), I casually inquired as to what exactly it was that captured her unwavering attention, although I had already, in spite of being focused on her physique, caught the title in passing.

I had no moral right to interrogate her on the choice of reading material but, in an effort to deflect attention from my obvious moral misstep, I did so anyhow. She responded politely and expressed, in no few words, her intense appreciation for Vonnegut’s style. The conversation ended with me heading directly for the nearest bookstore and she, a woman whose name I hadn’t even bothered to ask, was left in a bit of shock over her first and probably final close encounter with a Chasidic Jew. There was likely something she wanted to ask me, but didn't. Even though our kind are found swarming all over New York, we aren’t exactly the most sociable or accessible.

This seemingly short and abrupt interaction led to my baptism into the cult of Vonnegut. Modern American literature, most certainly not someone as controversial as Vonnegut, is not a 'staple' of the yeshivishe intellectual diet. The garbage that passes for literature (music and art as well) in the sanctimonious, unimaginative, and victim-guilt ridden religious Jewish world becomes unreadable once a thinking or feeling person is confronted with real art and meaning. To be fair, the Moslems and Christians do no better in this respect. At best, the purveyors of religious literature parody the worst parts of secular art and infuse their plagiarism with morality and historical revisionism.

I was immediately enamored with Vonnegut as I had, albeit clandestinely, with Melville, Hemingway, Steinbeck, and many, many other great literary greats. I don’t have much to say about the man that hasn’t been shared by many others in much more eloquent fashion, so I won’t say more. I suppose I enjoyed Vonnegut for his caustic wit and ability to put things plainly, without hyperbole or exaggeration. He was clearly a beloved leftist and perhaps somewhat of a Budhist as well. I can very much associate with his sentiments and his not-so-subtle critique of the over-romanticism that most apply to life or seek to wring from it. Vonnegut saw the best parts of life as simply ‘nice’ moments. I saw the reflection of Spinoza in Vonnegut’s straightforward and plain outlook on his own experience. Vonnegut saw the good in people, in spite of his sometimes darkened attitude. Some might say this association is misplaced. They could be right.

I will miss you Kurt. Be at Peace.

Here we are, trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why.