Running a country is hard.
Every day I am increasingly convinced that the Republican Party views the bottom 50% of earners in the US as "the problem" rather than as Americans with dreams, stories, and challenges.
The GOP probably feels that the US would be a much nicer place if that 50% simply went away. And they seem to be turning the US economy into a "hunger game", a sieve that dispatches the losers (many, many losers) into a trash heap of invisibility.
But the problem of economic inequality is not an easy one to solve. I wish it was as easy as the Democrats propose. End the Bush tax cuts, get that revenue, reignite essential government services, put more money into the hands of the middle class, and get the country back on track.
And that scenario might work, somewhat, for a little bit. But its benefits would be neither as long-lived nor as powerful as hoped.
There are two main reasons for this. The first is globalization. The second is government pillaging. Each of these represents the excesses of self-seeking both on the right and the left, which have crippled the sustainability of the state.
Money abhors a vacuum, and so a populace as fiscally top-heavy as the United States will never be able to keep its money here. The rationales for big money-makers to make their money in the US and keep it here (or transfer it here) is dwindling, while their opportunities and ease of access to foreign money is only increasing.
See, here's the basic economic/political dilemma of the age: when government is more powerful (the Democrat ideal), corporate abuse can be fought, human rights defended, and the middle and lower classes better served. But as a corollary, businesses flee and take their jobs and tax revenue with them, resulting in increased public debt and unemployment.
When the government is less powerful (the Republican ideal), businesses come back and there may well be more jobs. But they will be lower-paying jobs, with fewer if any benefits, and private debt will soar as people become indentured servants, making never-ending payments on medical and student loans.
So, I am not exactly describing a balanced picture here. But why should I? The Republicans are wrong, even if the Democrats need to work on a more global understanding of the problem.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
A terrific video, and the questions it doesn't ask.
There's plenty in this video I can get behind. The super-rich need less influence on the government and higher taxes, so that government services can be restored.
But he doesn't ask the question, here, of how the gap-growth between the rich and poor got started in the first place. Incidentally, I can't think of any reason why the incomes of the middle class should be proportionate to the growth of the economy at all.
If that were the case; i.e., if "a rising tide lifts all boats" (which it doesn't), average working Americans would be making much more money than they currently do--and notably, terrifically more money than average working-class people around the world.
That's the rub. The economy growth of a single country has no relationship at all to the world labor market. In fact, the more power that globalization wields against wages (which will only increase), the less will the middle class have any means, or even justification, for seeing any benefit from economic growth. As long as incomes keep pace with inflation (it's in corporations' interest to keep their prices within the purchasing means of most people), the market will never share the country's wealth with the middle class.
Oh Newt Gingrich
How dare you advocate being "humane in the enforcement" of immigration law.
Haven't you learned that the Republican party platform is against being humane?
If you want to rise to the top of that party, be hateful, vindictive, provincial, misanthropic and harsh.
Goodbye, Gingrich. Kind words will win you no friends here.
Haven't you learned that the Republican party platform is against being humane?
If you want to rise to the top of that party, be hateful, vindictive, provincial, misanthropic and harsh.
Goodbye, Gingrich. Kind words will win you no friends here.
Friday, November 18, 2011
The grades of my gradeschool
Grade 1: Video games.
Grade 2: Science fiction novels and video games.
Grade 3: Writing about science fiction novels and video games.
Grade 4: Reading non-fiction philosophy books (and writing in the margins about science fiction and video games).
Grade 5: Reading philosophy (and writing in the margins about philosophy).
Grade 6: Reading anything I need to read, no matter how boring, and enjoying it.
Grade 2: Science fiction novels and video games.
Grade 3: Writing about science fiction novels and video games.
Grade 4: Reading non-fiction philosophy books (and writing in the margins about science fiction and video games).
Grade 5: Reading philosophy (and writing in the margins about philosophy).
Grade 6: Reading anything I need to read, no matter how boring, and enjoying it.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Delivery guide
Don't mind this post, it's just a means to get some documents to guys at work.
Zoning map
Zip codes by zone
Zip codes by code
Zoning map
Zip codes by zone
Zip codes by code
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Actually, they're NOTHING alike.
Laura and I had a fun conversation last night. We were on the subject of counseling and therapy. I was remarking that I've always enjoyed seeing a therapist/counselor/spiritual director, since I was a kid. What better experience for a self-doubting guy than to have the attention of another human being for a solid hour, whose entire purpose is to be understanding?
Laura asked, well, isn't that one of the perks of having a relationship or a marriage? Aren't we like one-another's counselor?
And for some reason, that I couldn't put my finger on at the time, I had to reject that comparison. "No. NO. Those two relationships are nothing alike."
That statement was impulsive, but the conviction with which I said it was real. I'm taking this chance to examine why I not only said it but stressed it. Something about the comparison between a counselor-client relationship, and a marriage, was repugnant to me. Why was that?
A clue actually came to me on the drive home, while I was listening to an interview on public radio with a psychiatrist. He gave up a comfortable practice in Manchester to serve the devastated victims of mental illness in Libya.
One of the things that he mentioned is that a powerful obstacle to practicing in Libya was maintaining emotional distance while listening to people's heartwrenching stories--the women whose shrapnel-wrecked husband died in her arms, the woman who, together with children, was used as a human shield by the Gaddafi forces.
I believe that a good counselor walks a thin line between, one the one hand, empathy and advocacy, and on the other, losing perspective. Counselors are mediators between a client's intimate experience and unveiling the blind-spots (whether that take the form of advice, treatment, consolation, etc). When a counselor loses perspective, he loses the capacity to be a mediator.
Professional distance is not only for the protection of the counselor but for securing the his ability to perform and succeed in enabling the client to reach psychological/emotional/mental/spiritual/social checkpoints. In fact, it is not so much a "distance" in the sense of being "far away," as much as a "vista"--an elevated view, that serves in the same capacity as a lighthouse in a storm.
That same professional or emotional distance, while not completely absent from a romance or a marriage, takes a radically different shape. In any case there is no expectation for lovers to maintain what anyone would call professional or emotional "distance".
Where the comparison is spot-on is that both a lover and a counselor provide an oasis of intimate understanding in a desert of empathy.
But where a romance is so much more profound is exactly where it is less useful.
When a couple become lovers, they enter the room of intimate mutual understanding; and when they become husband and wife, they close and lock the door behind them, and throw away the key.
They enter the labyrinth without string.
They walk one-another's forest without anything so much as breadcrumbs.
They dream each other's dreams, sans totems or kicks.
No ruby slippers.
The mutual self-gift of married lovers is total. That does not mean that said lovers lose their individuality--I've written on this point before. But they freely relinquish an eject button. They prioritize love over perspective--love, through faith, becomes the only perspective.
From this we might infer that married lovers do indeed serve one-another's need to be understood, but yet they do not substitute one-another's need for that mediator, that lighthouse, that is the occasional visit to a counselor.
Laura asked, well, isn't that one of the perks of having a relationship or a marriage? Aren't we like one-another's counselor?
And for some reason, that I couldn't put my finger on at the time, I had to reject that comparison. "No. NO. Those two relationships are nothing alike."
That statement was impulsive, but the conviction with which I said it was real. I'm taking this chance to examine why I not only said it but stressed it. Something about the comparison between a counselor-client relationship, and a marriage, was repugnant to me. Why was that?
A clue actually came to me on the drive home, while I was listening to an interview on public radio with a psychiatrist. He gave up a comfortable practice in Manchester to serve the devastated victims of mental illness in Libya.
One of the things that he mentioned is that a powerful obstacle to practicing in Libya was maintaining emotional distance while listening to people's heartwrenching stories--the women whose shrapnel-wrecked husband died in her arms, the woman who, together with children, was used as a human shield by the Gaddafi forces.
I believe that a good counselor walks a thin line between, one the one hand, empathy and advocacy, and on the other, losing perspective. Counselors are mediators between a client's intimate experience and unveiling the blind-spots (whether that take the form of advice, treatment, consolation, etc). When a counselor loses perspective, he loses the capacity to be a mediator.
Professional distance is not only for the protection of the counselor but for securing the his ability to perform and succeed in enabling the client to reach psychological/emotional/mental/spiritual/social checkpoints. In fact, it is not so much a "distance" in the sense of being "far away," as much as a "vista"--an elevated view, that serves in the same capacity as a lighthouse in a storm.
That same professional or emotional distance, while not completely absent from a romance or a marriage, takes a radically different shape. In any case there is no expectation for lovers to maintain what anyone would call professional or emotional "distance".
Where the comparison is spot-on is that both a lover and a counselor provide an oasis of intimate understanding in a desert of empathy.
But where a romance is so much more profound is exactly where it is less useful.
When a couple become lovers, they enter the room of intimate mutual understanding; and when they become husband and wife, they close and lock the door behind them, and throw away the key.
They enter the labyrinth without string.
They walk one-another's forest without anything so much as breadcrumbs.
They dream each other's dreams, sans totems or kicks.
No ruby slippers.
The mutual self-gift of married lovers is total. That does not mean that said lovers lose their individuality--I've written on this point before. But they freely relinquish an eject button. They prioritize love over perspective--love, through faith, becomes the only perspective.
From this we might infer that married lovers do indeed serve one-another's need to be understood, but yet they do not substitute one-another's need for that mediator, that lighthouse, that is the occasional visit to a counselor.
Monday, August 01, 2011
I've written a lot.
I have no idea how I am going to collect and organize all of this.
Disclaimer: The above links are absolutely indiscriminate in their content and subject matter. They span ten years of writing and maturing.
Disclaimer: The above links are absolutely indiscriminate in their content and subject matter. They span ten years of writing and maturing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)