Here is an interesing, ongoing political discource I've been a party to on Facebook recently:
Andrew--“Republicans denied adequate health care to the heroes who developed illnesses from rushing into burning buildings on 9/11,” he said. “Yet they will stop at nothing to give tax breaks to millionaires and C.E.O.’s, even though they will explode our deficit and fail to create jobs. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.”-Harry Reid... I concur.
Peter--I make it a point never to agree with Mr. Harry Reid.
Andrew--I really could not care less who said it- they're right.
Rick--Here's something another Harry said:
Lord Voldemort: [to Dumbledore thru Harry] You've lost, old man.
Harry Potter: [to Voldemort] You're the weak one. And you'll never know love,or friendship. And I feel sorry for you.
...I feel sorry for republicans
Peter--Yes because Republicans couldn't possibly be human could they?
Rick--you're right, cheap shot. But still--who but the rich have benefited the most from: government bailouts, the wars to keep oil interests safe, and the deregulation that even Alan Greenspan is now apologizing for. It's not too much to ask that they now pay their fair share. The republican idea that any way you can make money without being thrown in jail is then yours, yours fair and square--this idea will be the death of our nation, children's futures, planet, troops, etcetera...
Peter-- It would seem your beef is with Enron-style capitalism. There are millions of small business owners out there just trying to make a living, (and, by doing so, they provide incomes for millions more in the process) - they're the ones who ho...ld our future - and the government is currently not doing them any favors. I'm all for winnowing out the greedy, and prosecuting the guilty when the law has been broken. Conservatism, contrary to popular liberal belief, does not distill down to a 'screw thy neighbor' ethos.
Regarding government bailouts - it would seem we have all benefited - for we have managed to avert total financial collapse - at least for the moment. Obama recognized this threat, and acted prudently, rationally and correctly - I believe. The state of the US economy would have been incomparably harsher, had banks been allowed to fail and car companies been allowed to fold.
Regarding wars to keep oil interests safe - I assume you are referring to the singular war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan has nothing - quite literally - to do with oil. There are not "wars." Regarding Iraq, opinions vary - I still believe we intervened, not only to protect our own oil interests, but the oil interests of the entire world, which were being held hostage by a mad tyrant, (who was our responsibility) and his sons. I believe that war with Iraq was inevitable - and that it was preferable we decide the timing, rather than he.
Regarding Greenspan - there is no economist in the world, who understands how exactly the free market economy is going to play out. As the saying goes - "Put 10 economists in a room and you'll get 10 different opinions." The people who put their faith in him as fed chief should have known better than to put all their eggs in one basket. Ultimately he did what he though was right, and it turned out he was wrong - not malicious, just wrong. In this regard, he is neither the first, nor the last to have made that mistake.
The ability to make money in this country, does not spell our demise. On the contrary, it is a fundamental component of our success.
We live in a dynamic system - an experiment - and tweaks and modifications are constantly being made... this is our real strength. We have a system that is capable of adapting - and adapt we must - and adapt we shall.
Rick--touché, well put. Still--no new net jobs have been created in this country since 2000, and tax cuts have not seemed to help that figure. I also think that anyone earning 250k+ can no longer be considered to be " just trying to make a living...." That designation should be reserved for the man who picks soybeans for 10 hours a day six days a week. Tell me--What makes it fair that the owner of his soybean company make 400 times as much as he, the picker? (In 1980, the ratio between highest paid and average, -average- compensation in a Fortune 500 company was 42 to one. By 2007, the ratio was 411 to one.) Government is the only way to enforce a truely fairer slicing of the gifts which our planet has to offer us. The government is us--we the people--it is not some bogey man waiting to screw you over (as you fairly pointed out--neither are most capitalist republicans, my apologies.) Stil, Ask not what your country can do for you, and so on and so forth.
The justification for the Iraq war and 100,000 civilian deaths aside--I still think that Bush, if he really believed in the war, should have asked us to pay for it while it was happening. Vietnam was not put on a credit card; and by draft, citizens were asked to serve(thanks dad). WWII was also fought by an America where resources were rationed, everyone knew a soldier who fought, and the rich paid 60 percent more in taxes than they do now...Today we are in Afghanistan, and how do we honor our troops' service? By banning coffins from Network TV.
Once again, sorry---I know the majority of Conservatives are hard working people that just want to live in a free society... I too hope we will adapt, and I hope that every 250+ earner's tax break will trickle down like it has never proven to do before. One thing is certain--No new soybean pickers can be hired when none in the lower classes can afford to buy them...
Peter--We avoided a near total financial meltdown - it was all set to make the Great Depression look like a mild slump. People really do have short memories. It is a source of constant mystery to me that Obama gets almost no credit for stopping ...this. His courage, leadership and common sense prevailed - and yet Republicans, and more disheartening, Liberals just can not give this guy his due.
Unemployment was at historic low points both in 2000 and 2007 - but this is irrelevant, because what you really want to say is that it remains very high today. Yes, this is true. As it happens, in the last decade GDP increased from 10 trillion to 14 trillion - again, who cares - the economy still seems sluggish. The economy is, in fact, growing - though unemployment is still high - and seeing as the government can not actually "create" real, permanent jobs - then we must stimulate economic growth. There's is no getting around the shift to a global economy, however. The world is - as Thomas Friedman says - flat.
Hence tax cuts, which generally have a stimulating effect on economies - and, counter-intuitively, revenues. Even JFK, who you quoted, understood this - and his tax cuts were among the some of the most effective for stimulating growth and increasing revenue. Perhaps you should have quoted him when he said:
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."
By the way, in 1950 $30,000 was roughly equivalent to $250,000 today. $250,000 may sound like a lot to you and me - but it ain't the rich, relatively speaking.
However - Bush's primary mistake was that he did not control spending - but then again, neither did his congress. It is true that tax cuts are not enough... federal spending must also be reduced. Bush's other big flaw was that he, and his administration, were positively abysmal at public relations.
If you'd rather, we can debate the merits and pitfalls of communist-style redistribution of wealth... that would seem to be the direction you're headed. At times you sound like a proper Marxist. Certainly, the soy bean picker and the owner of the soy bean company should not earn the same amount - I would argue.
There were about 50,000,000 civilian deaths, in WWII - but regardless of this horrendously high number, the war needed to be fought. I think it is safe to say that G.W. Bush really did believe that the Iraq war was necessary... as he went into it despite the French and German obloquy. Is it your assertion that soldiers in WWII and Vietnam were not paid, despite being drafted? Not only were they paid - but the money they earned was tax free.
For the sake of this debate - I actually don't consider myself a dyed-in the wool conservative. I am technically a "classical liberal" or at the very least an independent. I have an intense distaste for the current state of affairs on the right side of the isle - as it has become prone to whining, puerility and fear-mongering. Gone are its saner heads... and charismatic leaders. Furthermore, I have no interest in courting the Christian vote. In this respect I am pure Goldwater. Keep an eye on Paul Ryan... he's a good egg.
Rick--Balance my friend. Marx, if you read his works, was capitalist. He believed that societies could progress from feudalism, to capitalism, then socialism, and then, if a society was ready and desired it, could become communist if they so chose. He would have been ashamed to see the perversions of his ideas by Russian and Chinese Regimes. It’s true that Left thinking unchecked will lead to the communism that the Right fears, and everyone should fear. Right thinking run rampant will push us back into slavery (It's the slave owner's plantation after all, the slaves get room and board--they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they don't like it!) Slavery used to be perfectly legal—much of what is unjust in our Capitalist system is currently just as legal.
The guys who are too big to fail and often too big to jail? —I think you might have an issue with them, as you do Enron, if you look at mega business as a perversion of the kind of capitalism you preach. Think about it. The corner capitalism of the small business person is not the same as what happens in big business. Small businesses work within the market. Big businesses manipulate the market. That perversion of markets didn't stop with the 19th century robber barons. It's alive and well on Wall Street. Hedge funds and investment banks even call it "making markets." That sounds like a bad homophone, but they created markets for CDOs (e.g. toxic mortgage securities) and then sold Credit Default Swaps to insure them. This scam was aided by intentional deregulation that said a CDS wasn't insurance and didn't need collateral. You think the Fed creates funny money? What would you call the up to $45 Trillion in CDSs that they sold to your insurance companies, pension funds and 401ks. The reason we had to bail them out was to give the markets time to pay off enough bad mortgages to soften the blow on that bogus "insurance" The mega businesses call themselves capitalists, but they are, in reality, oligarchs; giants stomping around looking for advantage and squelching small time capitalists and their employees in the process. I am, at this point, a Democrat because we at least say we are on the side of the people who really are the street corner, strip mall, family farm capitalists and employees. It's always puzzled me why any small business would support WalMart/Wall Street capitalism. Maybe we've just been blinded by the fact that the rules the big guys make up and live by have nothing in common with the capitalism they preach. It's bait and switch. And when government, Republican or Democrat, sides with them, look out. So up with regulation, transparency, involvement, and wealth management that reduces the gap between the biggest of the big and the rest of us. These guys don't think they're evil. They just think they are doing what's best for the rest of us ... and paying themselves hundreds of times what the rest of us could ever earn under their system. Again I ask you—what makes it fair that someone can make 400 times as much money as anyone else who works in their company? What makes that just? Should that ratio be reduced to 1 to 1? Of course not! That is the communism you fear, and I fear. Again, balance must be achieved; we must open our eyes to the causes of “wealth redistribution” from the poor to the rich, much more so than from the rich to the poor…
Thank you for putting unemployment into perspective; I was perhaps, being a tad unfair there.
On war, I would argue that no war NEED be fought. Every one of theirs we kill breeds hatred that will create two more. Again I report—half of our taxes go to pay for this war and war debt, and every day you and I give money to War Profiteers who have no desire to see Osama bin Laden brought to justice. War is unsustainable; Non-Violence is the only course historically proven to have any deffusionary results, to stop humans fighting. Why are wars fought? Because evil-doers are evil and must be eliminated? No—because someone who lives in poverty, who makes 1/400th the amount as another in their country, or across the sea, can easily be persuaded to join in a “terrorist cause”, or even Nazi or Communist cause, when they are convinced that others are hording the wealth of the world. It is very easy for them to think, when they see our country usurping the resources of the world, hey, that’s not fair! I want to fight that. It is also easy to gain enemies when videos such as these are wikileaked:
http://svtplay.se/v/2264028/wikirebels_the_documentary
I see that you are a filmmaker and a musician. Please watch this. Please do independent research outside of our major, capitalist, News Orginizations...
My opinion is that your values are good. Capitalist values are on the whole, a just, efficient way for people to make a living. But we must be ever vigilant in exposing and swiftly rectifying the injustices that invariably arise from the imperfections in its design…
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
This election day, I post a recent political discourse between a conservative friend of mine and myself. I have numbered their opinions and my rebuttals for ease of response. I hope you will read it, respond, and repost anything you find helpful. Pass on your thoughts, and keep the dialogue going!
---Point 1: “Not all rich people are rich because they oppress the poor.”
---Thoughts: I don’t believe all rich people are rich because they oppress the poor, no more than I believe all poor people are poor because they are lazy. Some are poor because they are lazy and take advantage of government programs, and some people are rich because they cheat the system, take advantage of tax loopholes, and generally screw people. It is unfortunate that both groups are comparatively small, and that they be demonized, and their numbers exaggerated more than they should be, by both sides. Meanwhile the rest of us plug along.
Nor do i believe it's a conscious, malicious breed of oppression. It's more of an out-of-sight/out-of-mind offence. And it has everything to do with wealth/income distribution.
Income distribution can lay on a scale from slavery to communism. The only way to make sure we don’t fall to either extreme is a regulatory/referee government. Trickle-Down economics has not worked, and will never work:
In the time of Eisenhower, the ratio of wealth distribution between Americans was 1 in 40. These days it is more like 1 in 600 and rising, (though I haven't checked that figure in a few years).
Families of the 50s were able to keep one parent home to raise the kids. My mom stayed at home with the kids for about five years before she entered the work force. These days it appears the vast majority of parents in this country must work to make ends meet and have a middle class lifestyle. Over the last ten years, we've even resorted to make-believe money and financial "products" that have blown up in our faces. Where can we go from here?
God (or if you're like an athiest, the planet) gives us only so much in the way of resources: food, air, water, HD T.V. sets etcetera. It's a nice thought that supply side economics can work to distribute it justly, but, well--I dont know--this is where I don’t have many ideas. Here is a comic that sums up my thoughts on this matter:
http://thejustlife.org/home/2008/04/04/supply-side-Jesus/
Please excuse the snarkyness--I'm sure it is being unfair in some ways.
Back to the slavery/communism scale. I think that the job of Republicans is to make sure we don’t all become communists, and the job of Democrats is to make sure we don’t revert to slavery. It's really about balance. Taxes are the best way I can think of to maintain the balance, and right now, I believe we are not taxing enough. There are other good ways to share wealth, such as charity, but I just don’t believe republicans, or democrats for that matter, would make up the difference with the money if they weren't taxed. I wouldn't, I'd probably go buy a new iPod, because it just wouldn’t be on my mind.
Once again, the only reason wealth distribution in the world is so out of whack isn't because people are jerks, it's because the transparency is not there for us to see the implications of our actions. Out of sight, out of mind. The people who decide who makes 1000 dollars an hour for crunching numbers and who makes 7 dollars for growing the number cruncher's food do it because they can, that's all.
No government is perfect, but that is why we have regulation and transparency. The only reason I can see for corporations to want to get rid of these things is, frankly, so they can grab as much of the pie as they can.
Don’t get me wrong, I think a Darwinist economy is, overall, the way to go. But don’t those whose lot is was to fail, to not have the good ideas, to make the mistakes, and even those few who just plain slacked off, don’t these people deserve at least basic human needs of survival?
---Point 2: "Governments are capable of very little good, and are capable of extraordinary evil."
---Thoughts: The parallel is that liberals often have the same thoughts about Corporations! The main thing to keep in focus is that both are organizations of people, and can only do as much good or bad as the people within them are virtuous themselves—back to the importance of accountability, transparency, and policing. I think that as long as the people of organized—um, modes of operation let’s call them—are held accountable for their mistakes and transgressions, they will succeed in helping humanity. So then, the question is: how best to police both the white collars and the big wigs? In government, we at least have elections and impeachment, so there is incentive to act as the electorate wishes you to act. In the free market—if someone ponzi schemes you, or you buy food that’s spoiled, or your oil well explodes, people won’t want to do business with you anymore, which creates incentive to make functional products.
As a liberal, I am disproportionally bombarded with examples of capitalist evils. Consequently, I don’t quite understand these next points:
---Point 3 and 4: “Many of the current financial issues in this country are not the effect of capitalism-run-wild, but actually the opposite, due to government intrusion in markets. We have not experienced true free-market capitalism in our lifetime.”
---Thoughts: What do you mean by intrusion? What is true free-market capitalism?
Personally, I don't agree with bail-outs, unemployment benefits, or economic stimulus as they are applied to citizens and companies that supply the “wants of the people”—cars, stocks, banking, guitar lessons, and so on. However, I do think that government must be the vehicle to supply the “needs of the people”—Law enforcement, Fire fighters, disaster relief (even if the disasters were punishments from God, sorry, cheap shot at Pat Robertson), basic health care, and basic food and shelter via homeless shelters and orphanages. A basic education should also be a human right, but I admit, what a “basic education” constitutes should be heavily debated.
A hundred years ago, the fire department started out as privatized—if you paid your fire department, they’d put out a fire at your home, never mind if your neighbor's house was on fire right next to yours. Also, Police forces of the past have been largely privatized. In our country today, people have figured out something—citizens should not permit other citizens to profit from houses catching fire, and no one should be allowed to profit from the victims of crime.
So here is my question: Why are people allowed to profit from sickness, starvation, and war? It is unconscionable that humans profit from human misery. Yet still, obviously, humans should be paid to combat human misery. Therein lays the great conundrum…
It’s tricky isn’t it? Doctors most definitely should be paid large amounts of money, also Firefighters and Police Officers, even soldiers sent to fight(I’ll rant about war later.)
Perhaps some balance of free market and government regulation can be instituted justly. Perhaps the rookie cops, fire fighters, doctors, and teachers who excel, honing their skills in communities which have access to only the basic government “human-needs” provisions, can increase their salaries by entering into job markets of communities that can afford to pay them more. In an ideal society that provides basic human rights and needs, these communities have made their extra money via a want-based capitalism that should indeed reward their achievements with higher quality of human-needs services. Still, I stand by my conviction that every human in modern civilization deserves soup, shelter, law enforcement, and medical attention, etcetera. That said, I hold to the belief that any unregulated company, which seeks to profit from human needs beyond human rights and survival, will inevitably become an ethical failure.
If basic human-needs companies are to be non-profit, how can a "free market" be the answer? Free market companies are under pressure to make money. So, it is inevitable that they will skimp on things that don't make them money. Failed bridge inspections (35W collapse), escalated war to sell bombs and protect oil, denied health coverage for sick people, and New Orleans citizens dying outside of the Superdome are all symptoms of a failure to instill a humane needs/wants balance in capitalism…
Incidentally, as I’m thinking of capitalism, it’s funny that 95% of my favorite artists/writers/musicians achieved greatness in art because of free market principles. They have been largely rags to riches stories, where little or no fallback plans, or social safety nets were available. Art is a want, not a need or human right, and so should be on the want-based capitalism side of the equation. My apologies to the National Endowment for the Arts—you do not deserve our tax money. :(
---Point 5: “Caring for the "have-nots" must not be handled by "the government" because it doesn't truly care about anybody. Therefore, government ought to be the last resort to solve social ills like poverty. Caring for the poor should be handled by family, by the church, and by the local community.”
---Thoughts: Conservatives think government is uncaring; Liberals think companies (and even churches) are uncaring. The pertinent question is: who can most efficiently care for the poor. The answer is—everybody!
In your blog titled “Financial Freedom Series 5 – Money”, you speak of the timesaving efficiency of money. Money is a government (by the people for the people) creation that affects everyone, and it is the most effective means to transfer goods and services. If some people used one form of money and others used another, with no means for exchange, the transfer of goods and services would be far less efficient and time saving. I believe the problem of whether the poor should be cared for by churches & communities or the government to be of the same nature.
The government should provide basic human needs and rights, while asking and rewarding religious and community organizations that wish to help. It is nothing but pride to think that any institution can do it all themselves.
---Point 6: “While no economic system is perfect, free-market capitalism is the most equitable and the most fair. Fair does not mean "equal".”
---Thoughts: Once again, it is fair that someone who succeeds in capitalism gets an unequal share of the pie—better health care, bigger TV sets. However, it is not fair that those who fail at capitalism starve. Homeless shelters, doctor’s checkups, and soup must be provided by a government run by the people, with help from religious groups, charitable donations, and community organizations. These organizations should receive rewards in tax exemptions, as they are, in practice, part of the people’s government.
On a side note concerning economic systems, the conservative worry that people who are not under the threat of starvation will not be productive, innovative contributors to the economy is, to say the least, overblown.
The majority of humans living in a homeless shelter, eating soup and feeling low, are going to think, “This is not good enough for me, just to survive—I want a home, a family, and an HD TV.”
The story of my Great Grandpa Bergstedt is this: while waiting in a depression era bread line, he thought “This bread isn’t good enough for me.” He scoured Duluth, collecting people’s junk, started a junkyard business, made money, and had thirteen kids, all of which harbored a dislike for people who take advantage of government aid undeservedly.
As Grandpa Zachary’s progeny, I also don't like people abusing unemployment benefits and welfare. I have friends and family, perfectly capable of harvesting crops or working at Bruger’s Bagels, who stay in their homes to blog or play X-box, all while on the government dole. This is why I think a modern, humane, twenty-first century homeless shelter program for individuals and families to be the best and most fair solution—healthy humans at the bottom rung of their societies thinking, “Government/Church/Community provided survival is not enough! I want to go to Disneyland! I’m going to start looking for a job!”
---Point 7 (taken from my good conservative friend's blog): “The war on terror is not a war of vengeance. We have left many, many terrorist attacks unanswered in the past. The attacks of 9/11 were not the reason for the war -- they were the last straw. It was the final event that showed to us, once and for all, that peace not only isn't the answer, it's not even an option. Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda hate us not for what we've done, but for who we are. The war on terror, therefore, is a war to protect our countrymen, both here and abroad from those who mean to do them harm.
---Thoughts: For this next bit, you’ll have to forgive the stronger rhetoric and Christian perspective. I just can’t for the life of me find the words to make it sound postulating, rather than damning—but I mean it in a more postulating way…God is the final judge of these things after all.
I find the “War on Terror” to be an abject failure of Christian imagination.
I repeat, in earnest.
The “War on Terror” is an abject failure of Christian imagination—or, if one prefers, a failure of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, or Humanist imagination, etcetera. I will continue from the Christian perspective as that is what I hope to be.
Our country spends half of our federal tax revenue on the war on terror (the interest caused by war expenses factored in.)
What if—just what if—we spent all the resources we devote to war on charity for our enemies? Instead, we pilot drone planes that drop smart bombs on terrorists and civilians alike, calling it collateral damage. When did we stop believing in the power of turning the other cheek? Have we ever believed? When did we give up on the humanity of our enemies?
Most of the people of this country have given up on the, to use a Christian concept, "salvation" of the terrorists; in so doing, they forfeit hope for their own. I see scores of Christians whom I fear will not “enter the kingdom of heaven” as it were, because of this failure. I hope this is just a fear…
Whoa! Heavy! Chill out Rick!
I dunno—I remember reading the four gospels in third grade and being like—OK, well that makes sense, I could do that. Growing up has meant having to listen to so many Christians tell me “Jesus was just kidding about most of that stuff.” It just really bugs me man, sometimes to the point of self-righteous anger, to which I channel through politics a large bit more than I should!
What else gets my goat to no end is that companies profit from sending kids to die and to put their souls on the line. I understand that if we do not fight these “evil-doers” who hate America, they may be the death of us all. Still, I believe that if we cease our aggression and hold true to principles of charity and non-violence, our enemies will have no choice but to cease their own “Jihad.” If we fail to trust this, to trust in their humanity, we are no better than they, and we deserve no more countenance in the eyes of God or civil society than they do.
Kierkegaard called this thinking the "strength of the absurd."
May we all find the wisdom in absurdity; I fear that if we do not, our hatred and vengeance will mean the destruction of every last tower, no matter its size, standing in this troubled world.
---Point 1: “Not all rich people are rich because they oppress the poor.”
---Thoughts: I don’t believe all rich people are rich because they oppress the poor, no more than I believe all poor people are poor because they are lazy. Some are poor because they are lazy and take advantage of government programs, and some people are rich because they cheat the system, take advantage of tax loopholes, and generally screw people. It is unfortunate that both groups are comparatively small, and that they be demonized, and their numbers exaggerated more than they should be, by both sides. Meanwhile the rest of us plug along.
Nor do i believe it's a conscious, malicious breed of oppression. It's more of an out-of-sight/out-of-mind offence. And it has everything to do with wealth/income distribution.
Income distribution can lay on a scale from slavery to communism. The only way to make sure we don’t fall to either extreme is a regulatory/referee government. Trickle-Down economics has not worked, and will never work:
In the time of Eisenhower, the ratio of wealth distribution between Americans was 1 in 40. These days it is more like 1 in 600 and rising, (though I haven't checked that figure in a few years).
Families of the 50s were able to keep one parent home to raise the kids. My mom stayed at home with the kids for about five years before she entered the work force. These days it appears the vast majority of parents in this country must work to make ends meet and have a middle class lifestyle. Over the last ten years, we've even resorted to make-believe money and financial "products" that have blown up in our faces. Where can we go from here?
God (or if you're like an athiest, the planet) gives us only so much in the way of resources: food, air, water, HD T.V. sets etcetera. It's a nice thought that supply side economics can work to distribute it justly, but, well--I dont know--this is where I don’t have many ideas. Here is a comic that sums up my thoughts on this matter:
http://thejustlife.org/home/2008/04/04/supply-side-Jesus/
Please excuse the snarkyness--I'm sure it is being unfair in some ways.
Back to the slavery/communism scale. I think that the job of Republicans is to make sure we don’t all become communists, and the job of Democrats is to make sure we don’t revert to slavery. It's really about balance. Taxes are the best way I can think of to maintain the balance, and right now, I believe we are not taxing enough. There are other good ways to share wealth, such as charity, but I just don’t believe republicans, or democrats for that matter, would make up the difference with the money if they weren't taxed. I wouldn't, I'd probably go buy a new iPod, because it just wouldn’t be on my mind.
Once again, the only reason wealth distribution in the world is so out of whack isn't because people are jerks, it's because the transparency is not there for us to see the implications of our actions. Out of sight, out of mind. The people who decide who makes 1000 dollars an hour for crunching numbers and who makes 7 dollars for growing the number cruncher's food do it because they can, that's all.
No government is perfect, but that is why we have regulation and transparency. The only reason I can see for corporations to want to get rid of these things is, frankly, so they can grab as much of the pie as they can.
Don’t get me wrong, I think a Darwinist economy is, overall, the way to go. But don’t those whose lot is was to fail, to not have the good ideas, to make the mistakes, and even those few who just plain slacked off, don’t these people deserve at least basic human needs of survival?
---Point 2: "Governments are capable of very little good, and are capable of extraordinary evil."
---Thoughts: The parallel is that liberals often have the same thoughts about Corporations! The main thing to keep in focus is that both are organizations of people, and can only do as much good or bad as the people within them are virtuous themselves—back to the importance of accountability, transparency, and policing. I think that as long as the people of organized—um, modes of operation let’s call them—are held accountable for their mistakes and transgressions, they will succeed in helping humanity. So then, the question is: how best to police both the white collars and the big wigs? In government, we at least have elections and impeachment, so there is incentive to act as the electorate wishes you to act. In the free market—if someone ponzi schemes you, or you buy food that’s spoiled, or your oil well explodes, people won’t want to do business with you anymore, which creates incentive to make functional products.
As a liberal, I am disproportionally bombarded with examples of capitalist evils. Consequently, I don’t quite understand these next points:
---Point 3 and 4: “Many of the current financial issues in this country are not the effect of capitalism-run-wild, but actually the opposite, due to government intrusion in markets. We have not experienced true free-market capitalism in our lifetime.”
---Thoughts: What do you mean by intrusion? What is true free-market capitalism?
Personally, I don't agree with bail-outs, unemployment benefits, or economic stimulus as they are applied to citizens and companies that supply the “wants of the people”—cars, stocks, banking, guitar lessons, and so on. However, I do think that government must be the vehicle to supply the “needs of the people”—Law enforcement, Fire fighters, disaster relief (even if the disasters were punishments from God, sorry, cheap shot at Pat Robertson), basic health care, and basic food and shelter via homeless shelters and orphanages. A basic education should also be a human right, but I admit, what a “basic education” constitutes should be heavily debated.
A hundred years ago, the fire department started out as privatized—if you paid your fire department, they’d put out a fire at your home, never mind if your neighbor's house was on fire right next to yours. Also, Police forces of the past have been largely privatized. In our country today, people have figured out something—citizens should not permit other citizens to profit from houses catching fire, and no one should be allowed to profit from the victims of crime.
So here is my question: Why are people allowed to profit from sickness, starvation, and war? It is unconscionable that humans profit from human misery. Yet still, obviously, humans should be paid to combat human misery. Therein lays the great conundrum…
It’s tricky isn’t it? Doctors most definitely should be paid large amounts of money, also Firefighters and Police Officers, even soldiers sent to fight(I’ll rant about war later.)
Perhaps some balance of free market and government regulation can be instituted justly. Perhaps the rookie cops, fire fighters, doctors, and teachers who excel, honing their skills in communities which have access to only the basic government “human-needs” provisions, can increase their salaries by entering into job markets of communities that can afford to pay them more. In an ideal society that provides basic human rights and needs, these communities have made their extra money via a want-based capitalism that should indeed reward their achievements with higher quality of human-needs services. Still, I stand by my conviction that every human in modern civilization deserves soup, shelter, law enforcement, and medical attention, etcetera. That said, I hold to the belief that any unregulated company, which seeks to profit from human needs beyond human rights and survival, will inevitably become an ethical failure.
If basic human-needs companies are to be non-profit, how can a "free market" be the answer? Free market companies are under pressure to make money. So, it is inevitable that they will skimp on things that don't make them money. Failed bridge inspections (35W collapse), escalated war to sell bombs and protect oil, denied health coverage for sick people, and New Orleans citizens dying outside of the Superdome are all symptoms of a failure to instill a humane needs/wants balance in capitalism…
Incidentally, as I’m thinking of capitalism, it’s funny that 95% of my favorite artists/writers/musicians achieved greatness in art because of free market principles. They have been largely rags to riches stories, where little or no fallback plans, or social safety nets were available. Art is a want, not a need or human right, and so should be on the want-based capitalism side of the equation. My apologies to the National Endowment for the Arts—you do not deserve our tax money. :(
---Point 5: “Caring for the "have-nots" must not be handled by "the government" because it doesn't truly care about anybody. Therefore, government ought to be the last resort to solve social ills like poverty. Caring for the poor should be handled by family, by the church, and by the local community.”
---Thoughts: Conservatives think government is uncaring; Liberals think companies (and even churches) are uncaring. The pertinent question is: who can most efficiently care for the poor. The answer is—everybody!
In your blog titled “Financial Freedom Series 5 – Money”, you speak of the timesaving efficiency of money. Money is a government (by the people for the people) creation that affects everyone, and it is the most effective means to transfer goods and services. If some people used one form of money and others used another, with no means for exchange, the transfer of goods and services would be far less efficient and time saving. I believe the problem of whether the poor should be cared for by churches & communities or the government to be of the same nature.
The government should provide basic human needs and rights, while asking and rewarding religious and community organizations that wish to help. It is nothing but pride to think that any institution can do it all themselves.
---Point 6: “While no economic system is perfect, free-market capitalism is the most equitable and the most fair. Fair does not mean "equal".”
---Thoughts: Once again, it is fair that someone who succeeds in capitalism gets an unequal share of the pie—better health care, bigger TV sets. However, it is not fair that those who fail at capitalism starve. Homeless shelters, doctor’s checkups, and soup must be provided by a government run by the people, with help from religious groups, charitable donations, and community organizations. These organizations should receive rewards in tax exemptions, as they are, in practice, part of the people’s government.
On a side note concerning economic systems, the conservative worry that people who are not under the threat of starvation will not be productive, innovative contributors to the economy is, to say the least, overblown.
The majority of humans living in a homeless shelter, eating soup and feeling low, are going to think, “This is not good enough for me, just to survive—I want a home, a family, and an HD TV.”
The story of my Great Grandpa Bergstedt is this: while waiting in a depression era bread line, he thought “This bread isn’t good enough for me.” He scoured Duluth, collecting people’s junk, started a junkyard business, made money, and had thirteen kids, all of which harbored a dislike for people who take advantage of government aid undeservedly.
As Grandpa Zachary’s progeny, I also don't like people abusing unemployment benefits and welfare. I have friends and family, perfectly capable of harvesting crops or working at Bruger’s Bagels, who stay in their homes to blog or play X-box, all while on the government dole. This is why I think a modern, humane, twenty-first century homeless shelter program for individuals and families to be the best and most fair solution—healthy humans at the bottom rung of their societies thinking, “Government/Church/Community provided survival is not enough! I want to go to Disneyland! I’m going to start looking for a job!”
---Point 7 (taken from my good conservative friend's blog): “The war on terror is not a war of vengeance. We have left many, many terrorist attacks unanswered in the past. The attacks of 9/11 were not the reason for the war -- they were the last straw. It was the final event that showed to us, once and for all, that peace not only isn't the answer, it's not even an option. Terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda hate us not for what we've done, but for who we are. The war on terror, therefore, is a war to protect our countrymen, both here and abroad from those who mean to do them harm.
---Thoughts: For this next bit, you’ll have to forgive the stronger rhetoric and Christian perspective. I just can’t for the life of me find the words to make it sound postulating, rather than damning—but I mean it in a more postulating way…God is the final judge of these things after all.
I find the “War on Terror” to be an abject failure of Christian imagination.
I repeat, in earnest.
The “War on Terror” is an abject failure of Christian imagination—or, if one prefers, a failure of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, or Humanist imagination, etcetera. I will continue from the Christian perspective as that is what I hope to be.
Our country spends half of our federal tax revenue on the war on terror (the interest caused by war expenses factored in.)
What if—just what if—we spent all the resources we devote to war on charity for our enemies? Instead, we pilot drone planes that drop smart bombs on terrorists and civilians alike, calling it collateral damage. When did we stop believing in the power of turning the other cheek? Have we ever believed? When did we give up on the humanity of our enemies?
Most of the people of this country have given up on the, to use a Christian concept, "salvation" of the terrorists; in so doing, they forfeit hope for their own. I see scores of Christians whom I fear will not “enter the kingdom of heaven” as it were, because of this failure. I hope this is just a fear…
Whoa! Heavy! Chill out Rick!
I dunno—I remember reading the four gospels in third grade and being like—OK, well that makes sense, I could do that. Growing up has meant having to listen to so many Christians tell me “Jesus was just kidding about most of that stuff.” It just really bugs me man, sometimes to the point of self-righteous anger, to which I channel through politics a large bit more than I should!
What else gets my goat to no end is that companies profit from sending kids to die and to put their souls on the line. I understand that if we do not fight these “evil-doers” who hate America, they may be the death of us all. Still, I believe that if we cease our aggression and hold true to principles of charity and non-violence, our enemies will have no choice but to cease their own “Jihad.” If we fail to trust this, to trust in their humanity, we are no better than they, and we deserve no more countenance in the eyes of God or civil society than they do.
Kierkegaard called this thinking the "strength of the absurd."
May we all find the wisdom in absurdity; I fear that if we do not, our hatred and vengeance will mean the destruction of every last tower, no matter its size, standing in this troubled world.
Friday, October 1, 2010
here's some lyrics I wrote a while ago. Havent finished put'n'm to song just yet, but i'm thinkin like something The Coasters would sing. Like with that medium tempo, swung, Do-doobedoo-doobedoo-doobedoo rhythm...
"Stupid in Love"
Lets build a house together, you get the mortar, I'll get the bricks
Then lets watch a movie in the living room, on your net-flicks
I promise not to try anything too funny
Even though I feel like a springtime bunny
Cause you and me we could get stupid in love,
steal a rainbow from the sky above,
'seems like everybody else is doing it now that I'm 17
And since I'm 17, we could do a line-dance on the balance beam
I know its kinda stupid, but things aren't always what they seem.
No one could stop me loving you Babe, cause I'll rope-a-dope
I'm a Gemini and you're a Libra, and that's a good horoscope
I like it when you're playing hard to git
You got something going on, and I wanna be part-of-it
Cause you and me we could get stupid in love,
steal a rainbow from the sky above,
'seems like everybody else is doing it now that I'm 22
And since I'm 22, we should Dance in the middle of the avenue
I know its kinda stupid, but babe it's what i wanna do
If you gave me the wrong holy grail, honey baby I'd sip the cup
You charge up all my giddies hun, I cant give it up!
I really wanna hear you play the violin
If I don't they're gonna throw me in the loony bin!
Cause you and me we could get stupid in love,
steal a rainbow from the sky above,
'seems like everybody else is doing it now that I'm 24
And since I'm 24, we shouldn't think about smart things anymore
I know its kinda stupid, but let’s leave the door, wide open
I'll take you to Sweden where we could start fencing with icicles
Then we could coast out onto a frozen lake, riding bicycles!
I'll take you all the way to Jupiter
while our love keeps getting stupider
"Stupid in Love" is what i want to be, with you
Cause you and me we could get stupid in love,
steal a rainbow from the sky above,
'seems like everybody else is doing it now that we're gonna be 30 someday,
Since we're gonna be 30 someday,
we might as well take a few rolls in the hay
I know its kinda stupid, but we should do it anyway
If you think some day that I might leave you hanging, baby no I wont
If you're worried that I'll find out that you're not who I think you are, don't.
Don't worry!
Cause we might not know everything about each other
But that don't matter while I'm singing you another
Singing, another silly song, just for you
"Stupid in Love"
Lets build a house together, you get the mortar, I'll get the bricks
Then lets watch a movie in the living room, on your net-flicks
I promise not to try anything too funny
Even though I feel like a springtime bunny
Cause you and me we could get stupid in love,
steal a rainbow from the sky above,
'seems like everybody else is doing it now that I'm 17
And since I'm 17, we could do a line-dance on the balance beam
I know its kinda stupid, but things aren't always what they seem.
No one could stop me loving you Babe, cause I'll rope-a-dope
I'm a Gemini and you're a Libra, and that's a good horoscope
I like it when you're playing hard to git
You got something going on, and I wanna be part-of-it
Cause you and me we could get stupid in love,
steal a rainbow from the sky above,
'seems like everybody else is doing it now that I'm 22
And since I'm 22, we should Dance in the middle of the avenue
I know its kinda stupid, but babe it's what i wanna do
If you gave me the wrong holy grail, honey baby I'd sip the cup
You charge up all my giddies hun, I cant give it up!
I really wanna hear you play the violin
If I don't they're gonna throw me in the loony bin!
Cause you and me we could get stupid in love,
steal a rainbow from the sky above,
'seems like everybody else is doing it now that I'm 24
And since I'm 24, we shouldn't think about smart things anymore
I know its kinda stupid, but let’s leave the door, wide open
I'll take you to Sweden where we could start fencing with icicles
Then we could coast out onto a frozen lake, riding bicycles!
I'll take you all the way to Jupiter
while our love keeps getting stupider
"Stupid in Love" is what i want to be, with you
Cause you and me we could get stupid in love,
steal a rainbow from the sky above,
'seems like everybody else is doing it now that we're gonna be 30 someday,
Since we're gonna be 30 someday,
we might as well take a few rolls in the hay
I know its kinda stupid, but we should do it anyway
If you think some day that I might leave you hanging, baby no I wont
If you're worried that I'll find out that you're not who I think you are, don't.
Don't worry!
Cause we might not know everything about each other
But that don't matter while I'm singing you another
Singing, another silly song, just for you
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Here's a set of mnemonics i made after hearing my friend Sean's idea of a mnemonic to remember the major scale whole-step/half-step sequence, his original went thusly:
Why Would Harry Wear White Woolen Hats
Of course then I had to keep it going because of my love for Harry Potter as well as nerds wordy things. Here's some more major mnemonics:
When Would Harry Wave Wands? While at Hogwarts.
or
Why Would Harry Wave Wands While Hammered?
(for the college students)
Minor(Aeolian) scale--WHWWHWW
When Harry Waves Wands His Wrist Whirls
Here are some for the rest of the modal scales...
Locrian--HWWHWWW
Hagrid Will Wash Hippogriffs With Wet Washcloths
Dorian--WHWWWHW
Wormtail Hides While We Watch Horcruxes Whither
Phrygian--HWWWHWW
Hedwig Will Wait While Harry Writes Well
Lydian--WWWHWWH
Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes(the shop) Hawks Witchcraft and Wizardry Humor
Mixolydian--WWHWWHW
the Whomping Willow Hurts! it Wants to Whack Harry and Weasley
Here's even more scales!
Mixo-flat sixth(Hindu Scale)-WWHWHWW
Wince When Howlers Wildly Harangue Worthless Wizards
Melodic Minor Ascending- WHWWWWH
Whimsical Hogsmeade Weekends Will Windup Waning at Honeydukes
Chromatic Scale-HHHHHHHHHHHH
Helga Hufflepuff's Heir Hepzibah Hides Her Heirloom; Hermoine Harms it Heavily inthe "Hallows" Hardcover (with a basilisk fang)
Take that Voldemort!!!
Why Would Harry Wear White Woolen Hats
Of course then I had to keep it going because of my love for Harry Potter as well as nerds wordy things. Here's some more major mnemonics:
When Would Harry Wave Wands? While at Hogwarts.
or
Why Would Harry Wave Wands While Hammered?
(for the college students)
Minor(Aeolian) scale--WHWWHWW
When Harry Waves Wands His Wrist Whirls
Here are some for the rest of the modal scales...
Locrian--HWWHWWW
Hagrid Will Wash Hippogriffs With Wet Washcloths
Dorian--WHWWWHW
Wormtail Hides While We Watch Horcruxes Whither
Phrygian--HWWWHWW
Hedwig Will Wait While Harry Writes Well
Lydian--WWWHWWH
Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes(the shop) Hawks Witchcraft and Wizardry Humor
Mixolydian--WWHWWHW
the Whomping Willow Hurts! it Wants to Whack Harry and Weasley
Here's even more scales!
Mixo-flat sixth(Hindu Scale)-WWHWHWW
Wince When Howlers Wildly Harangue Worthless Wizards
Melodic Minor Ascending- WHWWWWH
Whimsical Hogsmeade Weekends Will Windup Waning at Honeydukes
Chromatic Scale-HHHHHHHHHHHH
Helga Hufflepuff's Heir Hepzibah Hides Her Heirloom; Hermoine Harms it Heavily inthe "Hallows" Hardcover (with a basilisk fang)
Take that Voldemort!!!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Gun Painting
NAILED!
Got shot in the neck yesterday by one of my truest mates Gabe Barnett, whose forthcoming nuptials we were celebrating. I was trying to take out his brother, who was peppering my position from behind one of those big old wooden spools. Suddenly, in my periphery Gabe frames the entryway to my bunker--GATGATGAT--two to the torso, and one to the adam's apple--down i went. You're supposed to yell "I'm Hit" when you're out, but all i could do was flop a couple times. I held up my gun, rose slowly, hobbled out arms raised, and squeaked out a raspy "Nice shot dude."
Gabe Barnett! We met six years ago at an open mic and bonded cause we both played anti-war songs, how ironic is that! He's the only dude I know who has more pacifist songs than me, that he still sings anyway--lately i've just been singing songs about sunshine and love.
I got in a coupla pretty slick kills myself over the seven hours we were there. The eight of us had the whole place to ourselves all day, most likely due to the absence of any shade and the 97 degree heat index. It sounds miserable, but I don't think I've had that much fun ever, or at least not that kind of fun. My neck welt's starting to subside and I'm kinda sad cause it's fun to tell people the story about it. Sadism? Yikes, maybe. I suppose it's only natural to want people to think you're tuff stuff. Hmm... natural...
Gabe's brother Alex, who set up the outing, is an Iraq vet. You'd think the two would be polar opposites and constantly arguing, but after a full day and afterparty of hanging out with them i never once saw any friction, even when Iraq and Afghanistan entered the conversation. One of the other dudes who was there is in the army; he's shipping out to Afghanistan in March. What makes it possible for hippies and soldiers to have such a fun time together? Must be the joy of our mutal friend finding himself a solid woman.
From a very young age I've always felt war and killing to be an absolute wrong. Yet after hanging out with dudes who've seen it or are gonna see it for real, you just feel like--what do I know? I mean, my dad's a Vietnam vet; grandpa, WWII Navy; uncle, career Navy; cousin, Army Ranger, and the thing I've realized is that I've never talked to any of them about war--I mean, what do say? -"Um, hey you wanna talk about war?" --It just don't come up. I've written several blatantly anti-war songs, and twice as many "pro-peace" songs--why is it so easy to sing about it, and not talk about it?
In the end i think what makes it easiest for many troops to tolerate us hippies is the fact that they understand we're raging against war itself--it's existence at the expense of more practical tactics like being nice to people who hate you, perhaps even giving to them the resources in bread and shelter what we instead spend killing them.
Yet the troops don't control those resources. We do, the people of this country, and so they fight on.
Is it pretentious to think this way, when pretend war feels so...natural? Will war always be a part of the human experience? Should we even pretend that it can be stamped out of human history? Should we all just live our lives with the knowledge that when war comes into our lives we should fight in honest valor, prayers prayed to our gods...
Nah, I'm sticking to my guns about non-violence and all the never killing absolutes i can be such a prig about, if only because it's a truth i feel in my heart and soul. But feeling the rush and excitement of battle... it puts it into a clearer perspective of why some choose to sign up...
Someday I know we will realize the ten-fold power of charity and compassion over bombs and bullets. Hey, if the human race ends up missing war that much, we can always play paintball. I think that would satisfy Nature, and our own natures just fine.
Got shot in the neck yesterday by one of my truest mates Gabe Barnett, whose forthcoming nuptials we were celebrating. I was trying to take out his brother, who was peppering my position from behind one of those big old wooden spools. Suddenly, in my periphery Gabe frames the entryway to my bunker--GATGATGAT--two to the torso, and one to the adam's apple--down i went. You're supposed to yell "I'm Hit" when you're out, but all i could do was flop a couple times. I held up my gun, rose slowly, hobbled out arms raised, and squeaked out a raspy "Nice shot dude."
Gabe Barnett! We met six years ago at an open mic and bonded cause we both played anti-war songs, how ironic is that! He's the only dude I know who has more pacifist songs than me, that he still sings anyway--lately i've just been singing songs about sunshine and love.
I got in a coupla pretty slick kills myself over the seven hours we were there. The eight of us had the whole place to ourselves all day, most likely due to the absence of any shade and the 97 degree heat index. It sounds miserable, but I don't think I've had that much fun ever, or at least not that kind of fun. My neck welt's starting to subside and I'm kinda sad cause it's fun to tell people the story about it. Sadism? Yikes, maybe. I suppose it's only natural to want people to think you're tuff stuff. Hmm... natural...
Gabe's brother Alex, who set up the outing, is an Iraq vet. You'd think the two would be polar opposites and constantly arguing, but after a full day and afterparty of hanging out with them i never once saw any friction, even when Iraq and Afghanistan entered the conversation. One of the other dudes who was there is in the army; he's shipping out to Afghanistan in March. What makes it possible for hippies and soldiers to have such a fun time together? Must be the joy of our mutal friend finding himself a solid woman.
From a very young age I've always felt war and killing to be an absolute wrong. Yet after hanging out with dudes who've seen it or are gonna see it for real, you just feel like--what do I know? I mean, my dad's a Vietnam vet; grandpa, WWII Navy; uncle, career Navy; cousin, Army Ranger, and the thing I've realized is that I've never talked to any of them about war--I mean, what do say? -"Um, hey you wanna talk about war?" --It just don't come up. I've written several blatantly anti-war songs, and twice as many "pro-peace" songs--why is it so easy to sing about it, and not talk about it?
In the end i think what makes it easiest for many troops to tolerate us hippies is the fact that they understand we're raging against war itself--it's existence at the expense of more practical tactics like being nice to people who hate you, perhaps even giving to them the resources in bread and shelter what we instead spend killing them.
Yet the troops don't control those resources. We do, the people of this country, and so they fight on.
Is it pretentious to think this way, when pretend war feels so...natural? Will war always be a part of the human experience? Should we even pretend that it can be stamped out of human history? Should we all just live our lives with the knowledge that when war comes into our lives we should fight in honest valor, prayers prayed to our gods...
Nah, I'm sticking to my guns about non-violence and all the never killing absolutes i can be such a prig about, if only because it's a truth i feel in my heart and soul. But feeling the rush and excitement of battle... it puts it into a clearer perspective of why some choose to sign up...
Someday I know we will realize the ten-fold power of charity and compassion over bombs and bullets. Hey, if the human race ends up missing war that much, we can always play paintball. I think that would satisfy Nature, and our own natures just fine.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Raining Rachels
Well, I’m back to blogging, mostly cause of my sister Rachel’s blog she just instituted to kick off her two-year adventure in India(I might not see her for two years! SADNESS!), and also cause of this girl Rachel’s art blog which is kinda cool. Incidentally, a girl named Rachel, who is also an artist, is moving into our house next Tuesday—Party! And if that don’t beat all, my sister Rachel’s sister-in-law also named Rachel is renting her house(some blocks from ours) while she is in India. It’s raining Rachels around here(that’s the name of my next band—Raining Rachels)
It’s weird being back here—it’s more private. Facebook shows you everyone’s posts whether you want to see them or not. Here, you know that if someone’s reading what you wrote it’s because they want to, more or less… Also, there’s no letter limit, I have missed that… here’s some stuff I haven’t posted--but would have, had my sister moved to India sooner.
!!!First of all you should go to my facebook where I spent the summer writing Haikus for almost 300 photos I took in europe in 2010 and 2008--if you don't have a facebook--I respect that like a million times, but you should get one, if only to experience my haiku prowess!
--here's a poem I wrote this month when I read that most of the troops were coming home from Iraq—it’s in tetrameter, but just turns into a rant at the end…
The troops are coming home to rest
our terrors fought by terrors felt
Safe, home, --I wonder how to best
pay honor to their service dealt
how best to make a lasting place
for these young coffin bearers
--fight now we must in love and grace
the hates that breed the terrors
in distant lands these terrors dwell
as in our homes they fester too
remember now for whom the bell
rang out to hold our fears askew
to justly set this war behind us
we now must proove staunch peace preparers
We'll fight with bread and kill with kindness
the hates and fears that breed the terrors
yet still Afghanistan remains
and other wars horizons' hide
we'll breath no end to these campaigns
while trapped still tarred in terror's tide
retaliation's careless grope
may prove to be our final error
unless we fight in love and hope
the hates and fears that sanction terror
the troops are coming home to rest
how long before we send them back?
have we the courage now to test
faith's torching light in terror's black
come do as few have done before!
come prove our country fairer
our foes will war with us no more
when trust surpasses terror
when hope discharges terror
when giving conquors terror
when grace expunges terror
when love effaces terror
When we, as a people, as a country--tell terror to take a hike baby! YES!
down with fears and up with ears--up with hearing--lets listen to the other side
lets stop fighting that which cannot be killed with precision bombs and planes piloted by remote controls from north dakota--lets remove the planks from our eyes, lets turn our cheeks and show our enemies what it means to say we forgive you and we're sorry too and wont you... whoa that poem busted loose quick---i better spend some days revising and editing...
---Here’s another rant I went on after the Ground Zero Mosque debate kicked up…
Hey Politicians! Stop using Religion to distract from the real issues facing this country. Actually, when's the last time you even read the effing bible? You know what? I’m gonna read the bible right now! It’s been a while, I need the brush-up too…
OK—here ya go: You say: "Ground Zero shouldn't have Muslim Neighbors," um...read Matthew 22:39;
'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
you say "these evildoers wanna do evil to us!" try Matt 5:39;
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
you say "Liberals criticize Xtians but not Muslims"—Matt 7:3;
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
you say "Taxes Bad; Wealth Good"—Matt 19:24, 21:31, 22:21;
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." / Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. / Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's
you say "Pre-emptive Strikes! Bomb their Caves." –Matt 26:52
Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
And that's from just a quick flip through of FIFTEEN PAGES--took me like half an hour! Lastly these oughta scare the crap out of ya —Matthew 7:22-23 or 21:43.
On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness. / Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Ugh. This is why I'm only a half-assed about religion...These poor soulless corrupted jerks really hurt my feelings sometimes, know what I mean?
It’s weird being back here—it’s more private. Facebook shows you everyone’s posts whether you want to see them or not. Here, you know that if someone’s reading what you wrote it’s because they want to, more or less… Also, there’s no letter limit, I have missed that… here’s some stuff I haven’t posted--but would have, had my sister moved to India sooner.
!!!First of all you should go to my facebook where I spent the summer writing Haikus for almost 300 photos I took in europe in 2010 and 2008--if you don't have a facebook--I respect that like a million times, but you should get one, if only to experience my haiku prowess!
--here's a poem I wrote this month when I read that most of the troops were coming home from Iraq—it’s in tetrameter, but just turns into a rant at the end…
The troops are coming home to rest
our terrors fought by terrors felt
Safe, home, --I wonder how to best
pay honor to their service dealt
how best to make a lasting place
for these young coffin bearers
--fight now we must in love and grace
the hates that breed the terrors
in distant lands these terrors dwell
as in our homes they fester too
remember now for whom the bell
rang out to hold our fears askew
to justly set this war behind us
we now must proove staunch peace preparers
We'll fight with bread and kill with kindness
the hates and fears that breed the terrors
yet still Afghanistan remains
and other wars horizons' hide
we'll breath no end to these campaigns
while trapped still tarred in terror's tide
retaliation's careless grope
may prove to be our final error
unless we fight in love and hope
the hates and fears that sanction terror
the troops are coming home to rest
how long before we send them back?
have we the courage now to test
faith's torching light in terror's black
come do as few have done before!
come prove our country fairer
our foes will war with us no more
when trust surpasses terror
when hope discharges terror
when giving conquors terror
when grace expunges terror
when love effaces terror
When we, as a people, as a country--tell terror to take a hike baby! YES!
down with fears and up with ears--up with hearing--lets listen to the other side
lets stop fighting that which cannot be killed with precision bombs and planes piloted by remote controls from north dakota--lets remove the planks from our eyes, lets turn our cheeks and show our enemies what it means to say we forgive you and we're sorry too and wont you... whoa that poem busted loose quick---i better spend some days revising and editing...
---Here’s another rant I went on after the Ground Zero Mosque debate kicked up…
Hey Politicians! Stop using Religion to distract from the real issues facing this country. Actually, when's the last time you even read the effing bible? You know what? I’m gonna read the bible right now! It’s been a while, I need the brush-up too…
OK—here ya go: You say: "Ground Zero shouldn't have Muslim Neighbors," um...read Matthew 22:39;
'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
you say "these evildoers wanna do evil to us!" try Matt 5:39;
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
you say "Liberals criticize Xtians but not Muslims"—Matt 7:3;
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
you say "Taxes Bad; Wealth Good"—Matt 19:24, 21:31, 22:21;
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." / Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. / Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's
you say "Pre-emptive Strikes! Bomb their Caves." –Matt 26:52
Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
And that's from just a quick flip through of FIFTEEN PAGES--took me like half an hour! Lastly these oughta scare the crap out of ya —Matthew 7:22-23 or 21:43.
On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness. / Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Ugh. This is why I'm only a half-assed about religion...These poor soulless corrupted jerks really hurt my feelings sometimes, know what I mean?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
