So, what are you? How do you describe yourself? How do others describe you? What label do you wear?
In so many ways we are defined by what label is applied to us, either by us or by others. Rarely are we described as being ‘just us’ instead of being a ***
It may have something to do with the human need to categorize or keep in some sense of order. Maybe it has to do with our propensity to differentiate between ‘ours’ and ‘others’. Or our capacity for defining us from our rivals. It could be anything from countries to video games to political affiliations to baseball teams. We separate, and we label. It’s a real life version of ‘The Sneetches’ or ‘The Zax’.
One of the problems with labels is that it does a disservice to the one labeled. Rather than describe, it tends to limit. As a result, generalizations are formed, presenting an incomplete if not erroneous portrait.
So let’s talk about labels for a bit. Specifically, let’s look at politics, especially in light of the Occupy movement. As was mentioned in the last blog, there is a wide variety of people attending these rallies, from all walks of life and affiliations. It would be a mistake to categorize all attending as radicals, rabble-rousers, unemployed or whatever. Quite simply, the generalizations are generally wrong.
But in this country over the last many years we’ve seen a technology shift that has allowed a quicker way to paint someone as a (name your poison). Primarily due to talk radio and various hosts, we’ve shouted epithets about our perceived enemies on the other side of the issue at hand. This is not a new phenomenon, but technology has made it quicker, more strident.
So how to you categorize yourself? Liberal? Conservative? Anarchist? Libertarian? Democrat? Republican? Independent? No matter how you slice it, you’re probably known as one or another. But in all likelihood, one label does not really define you or your beliefs.
After all, if you’re liberal, your beliefs might encompass strong Government intervention, abortion rights, strong social services, gun control, pacifism, loose immigration policies and an abundance of services available for illegal immigrants.
If conservative, you possibly view all the above with distaste. You might be for weak Government, especially at the Federal level, abortion (if legal at all) under strict circumstances only and only if it’s not paid for by public money, reform or abolishment of the welfare system, 2nd Amendment rights and tighter fences.
Other labels have their own variations on the topics mentioned and more.
The problem, as I see it, is that we’ve been Balkanized to the point where few people admit to having a variety of views from different camps. The loudspeakers on talk radio would have you believe that if you’re not all their way, if you haven’t drunk the Koolaid, then you’re some sort of an evil fool. You can’t possibly be a Rush fan if you are for women’s rights to an abortion. You can’t like Keith Olbermann if you own guns.
But how many of us are really like that, straight down the line?
This thought started to crystallize when my brother Eric mentioned that our parents have trouble differentiating which of us is more conservative. Well, Eric, I cede the mantle to you. It’s time I came out of the closet, so to speak. I’ve been living a lie and it’s time to clear my conscience.
You see, I’m only mostly conservative. Maybe only partially conservative.
I don’t want Government involved in my daily life. Federal government exists only to make war and print money and ensure equal treatment under the law. Oh, there are probably more, but that’s really it. Maybe to make roads to go from one state to another. And the Space program, I like that. But I cannot fully support the opinion that everyone is entitled to own guns. I understand the arguments in support of strong 2nd Amendment rights but that has been co-opted by right-wing zealots and the gun lobby. I mean really, why would anyone interpret the right to keep and bear arms as a free-for-all to own an arsenal of automatic weapons? I support kicking generations of families off the public dole. As it’s been said, it’s supposed to be a helping hand, not a lifestyle. I support legal immigration, and lots of it. The idea of having a country where people want to come to better their lives is appealing. But it has to be done legally. If you’re here illegally, you have no right to public assistance, education or a driver’s license. And you cannot vote. I’m for term limits and removing all funding but public money from the election process. What was the Supreme Court thinking when it granted personhood to corporations?
Abortion I’m still struggling with. Fortunately, I never would be in a position where it would be my decision.
So does this make me a screaming Liberal? Nope. A Libertarian? Possibly. A Tea Partier? It sounded good when I first heard the term, but then the luster has been worn off.
I prefer to think of myself as a non-aligned thinker, but others would categorize me as being a wimpy whatever. Oh, well. You can’t please everyone.
But somewhere there is probably a label with my name on it. At least make it something nice.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
The American Fall?
No, not as in the fall of the Empire, but as in the Arab Spring.
It appears that this might be the Weather Underground meets Dr. Martin Luther King meets flash mobs. It may fizzle, but it could also be a harbinger of great social change. And like it or not, it could be on its way to a city near you.
We’re talkin’ Occupy (insert name here). It started with Occupy Wall Street and has since mushroomed into something that, according to Occupy Wall Street, has grown into protests in 1549 cities worldwide.
I’m not going to get deeply into the causes or minutia of this movement, partly because I don’t pretend to understand it in detail. Nor do I want to characterize the players or their motives in this. That would not be fair to them. Frankly, it’s mostly because these types of events bring together divergent beliefs. To characterize the protesters one way or another inevitably leads to generalizations that are plain wrong. Clearly, there are students, unemployed, underemployed, retired and true believers among them. In fact, it may be a glaring example of ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’ thinking. It’s entirely possible you have people that would not associate outside of this that are today walking arm in arm protesting the wealthy. Or whatever it is they’re protesting.
Occupy Wall Street seems to have grown out of the realization that, duh, some people have more money that others. This is not inherently wrong. But you add into the mix a terrible economy, a frustrated population, corporate welfare and politics as usual and you’re looking at a potentially lethal cocktail. Ever since the bailouts and the ‘too big to fails’, the distrust of corporations and the traders that profit with no outward sign of hard labor has become a target of hatred among many. This is an interesting chapter in our history.
Our system is capitalistic, with a twist. In various times it was more of a laissez-faire capitalism, but the pendulum sometimes swings to more of a controlled chaos of profitability. And this country, regardless of our capitalism, has a love-hate relationship with profits. Witness the history of monopolies, trust busting and day traders. You’ve got an array of practitioners from Steve Jobs to Carl Icahn, from Mom and Pops to Walmart, who got into businesses for similar reasons but with different expectations and tactics.
Some went into business with the hope of putting bread on the table. In most cases they were the true entrepreneurs, who wanted a better life than their parents and wished their children would be better off than they were. Some had great ideas, a magical confluence of a need with the solution to the need. They may have hoped for a big payoff, but were not assured of it. Some knew how to leverage other people so they could profit. And then you have the late 1800s and early 1900s, when monopolies became the boogeyman. Roosevelt (the good one) came along and made the politically expedient decision to bust the trusts. You can argue that nothing really changed as a result, but at least Teddy talked the talk.
Throw in the political system that seems to take the cash generated in one hand while beating the corporations with the other hand, and you’ve got a partial reason why we see what we’re seeing today. It’s a wonder anyone votes any more, when you think about it. The common perception is that we have the best Senate, House of Representatives, Presidency, Governorships and state houses that money can buy. And the perception is hard to argue, except maybe the corporations aren’t getting their moneys worth.
Clearly, the system is broken, and we don’t have the owner’s manual or glue to put it back together. Maybe Timothy Leary was right – maybe we should turn on, tune in and drop out. It’s evident that we do not have the capacity to fix the problems. Maybe the American Fall really is the fall of an Empire.
And here’s something interesting. While the majority of the protesters seem to be more Jane Addams and less Ebenezer Scrooge (before the dream sequence), it’s not cut and dried. There are plenty of conservatives who can agree with protesting overt greed. There can be plenty of liberals that embody the greedy wealthy.
But wait. Can it be? Could the protests of the sixties meld with the technology of the 21st century and achieve the impossible? Could the idealism espoused by those forgotten kids of yesterday (who may be, for all we know, the predators today) be harnessed to bring about real change? Can corporate structures be reimagined so that profit may be realized but not seem to be the justification for all wrongs?
Probably not. Sorry to rain on your parade, but as long as humans are involved you won’t ever have the Utopian ideals. What appears to be greed to you may be something entirely different to someone else. You know, he who has the gold makes the rules. The problem is as old as time.
But here’s the crux of the problem as I see it. In this corner, you have those who feel oppressed or entitled or maltreated. In the other corner, you have those who are oppressing or have the money to be entitled. Or who are not so much maltreating others as not caring how their actions affect others. The irresistible force meets the unmovable object.
Currently, the ‘movement’ seems to be largely peaceful. Police seem to largely be keeping an eye on the proceedings but not taking actions that might lead to violence. In some cases, they’ve been able to get around civic leader’s directions to arrest protesters so as to not be the flash point.
But at the core, you have people on both sides demanding that others do their bidding. Protests against the wealthy are nothing new. Remember the French Revolution? But now you’ve grown the culture into a far larger Petri dish. We’re Twittering and Facebooking this into a movement that we’ve not seen before. The protests in Islamic counties against absolute dictators has skipped the oceans and evolved into the 99%ers. The common enemy, the thread that connects them all, is that everyday folks are demanding change. Change from a system that keeps the masses either down or disillusioned. Change from the status quo where the minority of people profit by, according to the majority of people, outlandish amounts. It seems to be class warfare in the 21st century.
But as much as I think Thomas Jefferson would be proud, there’s one small question that I cannot get an answer for. As much as I might support the idea of (r)evolution (and I do), there’s one nagging issue.
Who is to say what is fair for everyone? In other words, who decides how much is enough and what is too much?
What would give me the right to say that one person has too much money, and that they are obliged to share it with everyone else? Hasn’t that theory been tried and found incompatible with humans?
Because you may have busted your rear end for years and done well as a result, why do you have to share with those who aren’t as hard-working or resourceful?
Should you share? Sure – but it’s your choice. Should you have a social conscience? Yes, but no one can demand it from you.
For those who protest, I understand the frustration you have. But you are not entitled to anything that you do not earn. If someone gives you a dollar, or a meal, or a car, that’s because they chose to do it. You do not have the right to take it from them without their permission.
Greed may be the root cause of all of this on the part of those that have. They made it (forgetting for the moment how they made it) and they want to keep it and use it to better themselves and their families. Protesters want it, or more of it. It’s not necessarily incumbent upon the wealthy to do what the protesters choose for them to do with their money. Yes, it would be nice to support all the causes – but it’s their money. It would be nice to be more fair – but it’s not a requirement. They probably do have unlimited access to those in political power. They’ve probably bought and paid for the government we have.
You that are protesting will probably never have the resources they do – but you CAN take back the system. Continue the protests. Continue fighting for justice and fairness. Keep being the conscience we need to keep us on track as a nation. Don’t let us forget that there are those less fortunate. But until you have eliminated the human element be prepared to be disappointed.
It appears that this might be the Weather Underground meets Dr. Martin Luther King meets flash mobs. It may fizzle, but it could also be a harbinger of great social change. And like it or not, it could be on its way to a city near you.
We’re talkin’ Occupy (insert name here). It started with Occupy Wall Street and has since mushroomed into something that, according to Occupy Wall Street, has grown into protests in 1549 cities worldwide.
I’m not going to get deeply into the causes or minutia of this movement, partly because I don’t pretend to understand it in detail. Nor do I want to characterize the players or their motives in this. That would not be fair to them. Frankly, it’s mostly because these types of events bring together divergent beliefs. To characterize the protesters one way or another inevitably leads to generalizations that are plain wrong. Clearly, there are students, unemployed, underemployed, retired and true believers among them. In fact, it may be a glaring example of ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’ thinking. It’s entirely possible you have people that would not associate outside of this that are today walking arm in arm protesting the wealthy. Or whatever it is they’re protesting.
Occupy Wall Street seems to have grown out of the realization that, duh, some people have more money that others. This is not inherently wrong. But you add into the mix a terrible economy, a frustrated population, corporate welfare and politics as usual and you’re looking at a potentially lethal cocktail. Ever since the bailouts and the ‘too big to fails’, the distrust of corporations and the traders that profit with no outward sign of hard labor has become a target of hatred among many. This is an interesting chapter in our history.
Our system is capitalistic, with a twist. In various times it was more of a laissez-faire capitalism, but the pendulum sometimes swings to more of a controlled chaos of profitability. And this country, regardless of our capitalism, has a love-hate relationship with profits. Witness the history of monopolies, trust busting and day traders. You’ve got an array of practitioners from Steve Jobs to Carl Icahn, from Mom and Pops to Walmart, who got into businesses for similar reasons but with different expectations and tactics.
Some went into business with the hope of putting bread on the table. In most cases they were the true entrepreneurs, who wanted a better life than their parents and wished their children would be better off than they were. Some had great ideas, a magical confluence of a need with the solution to the need. They may have hoped for a big payoff, but were not assured of it. Some knew how to leverage other people so they could profit. And then you have the late 1800s and early 1900s, when monopolies became the boogeyman. Roosevelt (the good one) came along and made the politically expedient decision to bust the trusts. You can argue that nothing really changed as a result, but at least Teddy talked the talk.
Throw in the political system that seems to take the cash generated in one hand while beating the corporations with the other hand, and you’ve got a partial reason why we see what we’re seeing today. It’s a wonder anyone votes any more, when you think about it. The common perception is that we have the best Senate, House of Representatives, Presidency, Governorships and state houses that money can buy. And the perception is hard to argue, except maybe the corporations aren’t getting their moneys worth.
Clearly, the system is broken, and we don’t have the owner’s manual or glue to put it back together. Maybe Timothy Leary was right – maybe we should turn on, tune in and drop out. It’s evident that we do not have the capacity to fix the problems. Maybe the American Fall really is the fall of an Empire.
And here’s something interesting. While the majority of the protesters seem to be more Jane Addams and less Ebenezer Scrooge (before the dream sequence), it’s not cut and dried. There are plenty of conservatives who can agree with protesting overt greed. There can be plenty of liberals that embody the greedy wealthy.
But wait. Can it be? Could the protests of the sixties meld with the technology of the 21st century and achieve the impossible? Could the idealism espoused by those forgotten kids of yesterday (who may be, for all we know, the predators today) be harnessed to bring about real change? Can corporate structures be reimagined so that profit may be realized but not seem to be the justification for all wrongs?
Probably not. Sorry to rain on your parade, but as long as humans are involved you won’t ever have the Utopian ideals. What appears to be greed to you may be something entirely different to someone else. You know, he who has the gold makes the rules. The problem is as old as time.
But here’s the crux of the problem as I see it. In this corner, you have those who feel oppressed or entitled or maltreated. In the other corner, you have those who are oppressing or have the money to be entitled. Or who are not so much maltreating others as not caring how their actions affect others. The irresistible force meets the unmovable object.
Currently, the ‘movement’ seems to be largely peaceful. Police seem to largely be keeping an eye on the proceedings but not taking actions that might lead to violence. In some cases, they’ve been able to get around civic leader’s directions to arrest protesters so as to not be the flash point.
But at the core, you have people on both sides demanding that others do their bidding. Protests against the wealthy are nothing new. Remember the French Revolution? But now you’ve grown the culture into a far larger Petri dish. We’re Twittering and Facebooking this into a movement that we’ve not seen before. The protests in Islamic counties against absolute dictators has skipped the oceans and evolved into the 99%ers. The common enemy, the thread that connects them all, is that everyday folks are demanding change. Change from a system that keeps the masses either down or disillusioned. Change from the status quo where the minority of people profit by, according to the majority of people, outlandish amounts. It seems to be class warfare in the 21st century.
But as much as I think Thomas Jefferson would be proud, there’s one small question that I cannot get an answer for. As much as I might support the idea of (r)evolution (and I do), there’s one nagging issue.
Who is to say what is fair for everyone? In other words, who decides how much is enough and what is too much?
What would give me the right to say that one person has too much money, and that they are obliged to share it with everyone else? Hasn’t that theory been tried and found incompatible with humans?
Because you may have busted your rear end for years and done well as a result, why do you have to share with those who aren’t as hard-working or resourceful?
Should you share? Sure – but it’s your choice. Should you have a social conscience? Yes, but no one can demand it from you.
For those who protest, I understand the frustration you have. But you are not entitled to anything that you do not earn. If someone gives you a dollar, or a meal, or a car, that’s because they chose to do it. You do not have the right to take it from them without their permission.
Greed may be the root cause of all of this on the part of those that have. They made it (forgetting for the moment how they made it) and they want to keep it and use it to better themselves and their families. Protesters want it, or more of it. It’s not necessarily incumbent upon the wealthy to do what the protesters choose for them to do with their money. Yes, it would be nice to support all the causes – but it’s their money. It would be nice to be more fair – but it’s not a requirement. They probably do have unlimited access to those in political power. They’ve probably bought and paid for the government we have.
You that are protesting will probably never have the resources they do – but you CAN take back the system. Continue the protests. Continue fighting for justice and fairness. Keep being the conscience we need to keep us on track as a nation. Don’t let us forget that there are those less fortunate. But until you have eliminated the human element be prepared to be disappointed.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Your Tax Dollars at Work
This could be the start of a whole new series of blogs: Stupid Government Tricks.
According to today's Albany Times-Union:
"Life won’t be sweet for anyone caught selling counterfeit maple syrup, if New York Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer get their way.
The two New York Democrats announced today they are cosponsoring a bill that would make mislabeling a food product as “maple syrup,” a federal offense."
I'll give you a minute to let that sink in.
Here we are, in reportedly the worst economic malaise since the Great Depression. We're winding down two wars. We've got people occupying Wall St demanding that they know better how to divide up the country's wealth. Terrorists plotting assassinations in our own capital. Red Sox melting down and drinking in the dugout. The Euro crisis. Arab countries demanding social and political change. Dictator's deaths. And a rogue maple syrup seller in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island? Does that even belong to the US?
Yeah, so here's the gist of the story. It seems a Rhode Islander was selling fake maple syrup. Sort of like fake Rolexes or Gucci bags, but on a much smaller scale. It turns out there was no real maple in his juice - it's cane sugar. Maybe he took the jug into the forest and showed it to a grove of maple trees. Anyway, he's being prosecuted under current laws regarding mislabeling by the Food & Drug Administration. It is a misdemeanor.
Schumer and Gillibrand want to make this a Federal felony. Ranking right up there with Madoff, DeLorean, the Five Families and Lee Harvey Oswald. Yessir, they need to save us from crappy syrup. By the way, to prove it's not just New Yorkers who are taking this seriously, it's got the support of Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Susan Collins from Maine.
Here's more from the article: "Maple farmers across New York state produce some of the highest quality syrup in the world,” said Schumer. “We need to crackdown on individuals trying to pass off fake syrup as the real thing, so that our farmers can compete fair and square. The only thing that should be flowing over mom’s pancakes is good, pure, New York maple syrup."
Uh, Senator, New York syrup is delicious. We buy it. Other northeastern states produce equally fine syrup. No one disputes that. But really, can you stop the hyperbole? 'Mom's pancakes' seem to be Kellogg's frozen ones any more - and Aunt Jemima or Hungry Jack is fine on those.
And this final line from the story: "The MAPLE Act would increase the maximum sentences prosecutors could seek against syrup counterfeiters, as well. If the bill becomes law, bottling fake syrup could carry a five-year prison sentence."
Oh, yeah - the fascination to come up with a catchy, easy-to-remember tagline so we know what the law is about. Madison Avenue meets Constitution Avenue. The actual name of the bill is the Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement act.
A five year sentence for fake syrup. Wow. If you attempt murder of a Federal officer, you might get 5 to 8 years. Many states have laws where selling drugs will land you in prison for one to three years for the first offense. So fake syrup's worse than drugs.
Maybe syrup bootlegging is a hate crime.
So while Rome burns, it's good to know you're protected from the serious harm. Take comfort in that.
According to today's Albany Times-Union:
"Life won’t be sweet for anyone caught selling counterfeit maple syrup, if New York Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer get their way.
The two New York Democrats announced today they are cosponsoring a bill that would make mislabeling a food product as “maple syrup,” a federal offense."
I'll give you a minute to let that sink in.
Here we are, in reportedly the worst economic malaise since the Great Depression. We're winding down two wars. We've got people occupying Wall St demanding that they know better how to divide up the country's wealth. Terrorists plotting assassinations in our own capital. Red Sox melting down and drinking in the dugout. The Euro crisis. Arab countries demanding social and political change. Dictator's deaths. And a rogue maple syrup seller in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island? Does that even belong to the US?
Yeah, so here's the gist of the story. It seems a Rhode Islander was selling fake maple syrup. Sort of like fake Rolexes or Gucci bags, but on a much smaller scale. It turns out there was no real maple in his juice - it's cane sugar. Maybe he took the jug into the forest and showed it to a grove of maple trees. Anyway, he's being prosecuted under current laws regarding mislabeling by the Food & Drug Administration. It is a misdemeanor.
Schumer and Gillibrand want to make this a Federal felony. Ranking right up there with Madoff, DeLorean, the Five Families and Lee Harvey Oswald. Yessir, they need to save us from crappy syrup. By the way, to prove it's not just New Yorkers who are taking this seriously, it's got the support of Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Susan Collins from Maine.
Here's more from the article: "Maple farmers across New York state produce some of the highest quality syrup in the world,” said Schumer. “We need to crackdown on individuals trying to pass off fake syrup as the real thing, so that our farmers can compete fair and square. The only thing that should be flowing over mom’s pancakes is good, pure, New York maple syrup."
Uh, Senator, New York syrup is delicious. We buy it. Other northeastern states produce equally fine syrup. No one disputes that. But really, can you stop the hyperbole? 'Mom's pancakes' seem to be Kellogg's frozen ones any more - and Aunt Jemima or Hungry Jack is fine on those.
And this final line from the story: "The MAPLE Act would increase the maximum sentences prosecutors could seek against syrup counterfeiters, as well. If the bill becomes law, bottling fake syrup could carry a five-year prison sentence."
Oh, yeah - the fascination to come up with a catchy, easy-to-remember tagline so we know what the law is about. Madison Avenue meets Constitution Avenue. The actual name of the bill is the Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement act.
A five year sentence for fake syrup. Wow. If you attempt murder of a Federal officer, you might get 5 to 8 years. Many states have laws where selling drugs will land you in prison for one to three years for the first offense. So fake syrup's worse than drugs.
Maybe syrup bootlegging is a hate crime.
So while Rome burns, it's good to know you're protected from the serious harm. Take comfort in that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)