Current State of Affairs

There is so much reeling around in my head, I have to get it out.  So, this will be a picture-less stream of consciousness rant about our Current State of Affairs.

A welcome reprieve to the financial news was the intro-skit for SNL, Saturday Night, no less.  Poehler and Fey do such a wonderful job with their impersonations, I was practically rolling on the floor laughing hysterically at their impersonations of Couric & Palin, without having seen the actual interview.  I paused, as Poehler/Couric asked Fey/Palin how she deemed herself worthy of participating in foreign policy and her answer was that Russia was a neighbor by water.  My breath is still stuck and I am still shaking my head after having seen the REAL interview.

Ms. Palin, let me respond to your principles of being able to participate in foreign policy by having foreign countries as your neighbor.  I may be a neighbor by simple virtue of having people live next door, but that doesn’t make me neighborly.  To be neighborly, I must engage with my neighbors.  I should help keep an eye on their property, as a courtesy, listen to their stories, and occasionally ask them for favors, like a cup of sugar when I run low.  As Ms. Couric attempted to point out in the interview, Ms. Palin has not clearly negotiated anything with her foreign neighbors.  McCain/Palin then pointed to the inexperience of Reagan and Clinton before they took office.  I suppose we should hearken back to the 1988 V.P. debate between Quayle and Bentsen.

QUAYLE: … I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur.

WOODRUFF: Senator Bentsen.

BENTSEN: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy…

I wonder, because it seems so ridiculous to me that McCain would ask Palin to be his running mate, even under the supposed Maverick title.  I wonder, is it all a ploy?  Do we live under one giant conspiracy?

A friend of a friend had a prediction in 2001 after 9/11 that right before the 2008 election something disastrous would happen and the Bush Administration would declare Marshall Law and suspend the elections.  How does this financial crisis relate to that prediction?  Does it at all?  How does Marshall Law compare to $700 billion dollars?

Many people, it seems, are angered that our representatives would consider such a plan.  Why bail out Wall Street when the money should be directed to Main Street, read many headlines.  Numbers have been thrown around that that amount means $2 mil per person in the U.S.  I hear a figure for the Iraq War, and this amount is close to the amount spent on the war.  Why is liquidity important?  Why are we a WORLD run on credit instead of what we own since we value property so much?

I can’t answer some of these questions because I don’t understand economics.  But, I had Excel do some math for me.  According to the Census, we have over 305 million people in the U.S. (I thought it was closer to 250 mil).  So, I created a table to compare some values, and the values I got were no where close to the values thrown around.

• U.S. at 305,295,855 divide into the bailout amount $700,000,000,000.00 equals $2,292.86 per person.
• The percent that Own their own Home is 68% of 305,295,855 divide into $700,000,000,000.00 equals $3,366.90 per person.
• The number of Occupied Homes is 111,228,000 divide into $700,000,000,000.00 equals $6,293.38 per home.
• The percent over 18+ is 75% of 305,295,855 divide into $700,000,000,000.00 equals $3,040.93 per person over 18.

Any thoughts?

The whole mess seems really confusing, and I still want to know why it’s so important for government to bail out a system that as it’s failing could be a sign that it’s not working and maybe we need to find a different way about doing things.

I found some old writings recently, and it reminded me of the importance achieving self-actualization.  But, in order to do that, our needs must be met.  Maybe this financial crisis will wake everyone up that we need to take care of our needs, reevaluate those needs, and forge ahead together to meet those needs.

From the Voters Guide: Accountability

If as individuals we recognize the importance of closing the loop of waste, then corporations should certainly be held accountable for closing the loop. If we realize that it is best to use what we have before we take more, because honest accounting tells that really is the best way to budget, then we should also do this together.

If you make a mess as a child, chances are your mother instructed you to clean up after yourself. Together, we need to clean up our mess and we need to be accountable for that mess we made.

From the Voters Guide: Liberty

“Liberty of any kind is never lost all at once.” David Hume

What does it mean when we sacrifice a lot of liberty for the sake of a little security, pondered Franklin and Jefferson. What does a society look like when we agree to limit our choices? What choices do we have on this planet, in this country, in our states and neighborhoods? We are all blessed with freedom of choice, the ability to choose to make our own decisions and forge our own path. So, what does it mean when we let others make those choices for us and what does it look like?

If we value the choices we have, like going to whatever grocery store we choose to purchase our weekly goods, then our votes should reflect that. We should be electing candidates into office who also value the importance of choice. Individuals should be able to choose for themselves as long as their choices don’t hinge upon the rights of others.

“There can be no assumption that today’s majority is ‘right’ and the Amish and others like them are ‘wrong’. A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different.” Warren E. Burger

A picture to ponder

In conclusion…

A Look Back in Time Part 3

Two 6 year old posts.

Sunday, February 24, 2002

One day before my birthday. [A friend] finally [leant] me his copy of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America by Barbara Ehrenreich. This book is about entry-level, low wage jobs, and being able to support yourself while working at them in America. The conclusion is a hopeless one, which is frustrating because this book is exactly about my life and many of those that I care about.

My mind has been reeling with different thoughts on how terribly wrong this all is, etc. The most recent and conclusive thought I have developed is that it is one thing entirely if a society does not have the means to support its members. However, if a society has the means to support those that belong to it, and it doesn’t, this just seems incredibly immoral to me. Why wouldn’t someone take care of their neighbor if our Christian values tell us to love your neighbor as yourself? Wouldn’t you want to take care of yourself? Then why do we condemn charity saying that one must work their way up from their bootstraps, and if they’re homeless, then it’s their own damn fault? It doesn’t make any sense. And again, it seems incredibly immoral to me.

So, then I realize that it IS a society’s responsibility to take care of its members. It is society’s responsibility to provide decent housing and a means of feeding oneself, decent of course being defined as NO roach motels, and the like. Then that makes me think of 1984 and A Brave New World. There are plus and minuses to both, so why can’t our society take the good and not the bad. It seems to me that right now we are just focusing on the bad, or rather rising to it.

Monday, February 25, 2002

I just finished Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America by Barbara Ehrenreich. All of the thoughts that were whirring in my head have now stopped and I am no longer thinking. Wonderful.

It’s interesting to think that even America the Beautiful becomes a joke when you think of who has what. If the low-waged poor represent the average American, then they certainly don’t have this land, and this land certainly is not theirs in equality to those of the upper 20%.

Barbara Ehrenreich is right when she states that shame and guilt don’t even begin to acknowledge how one should feel about this class inequality. In the land of the free, how many are truly free? I would venture a guess that only the upper 20%, the others are fooled into thinking that there are better chances out there for them, but it glows faintly in the distance clouded by rent and other obtrusive bills that need to be paid and settled for mere survival. Which in turn makes these hopes of a better life ever more scarce, and eventually they just fade away.

A Look Back in Time Part 2

I wrote this 4 years ago.

July 2, 2004

[Our] government is of the people, for the people, and by the people. Is this what we have? Do our politicians, those representing us, represent our ideas and qualities? What ideas do our mothers and fathers instill into us, children, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles? Do we instill lying or honesty? Do we instill morality or immorality? Do we instill caring and compassion or do we instill tactics of turning the other cheek? Do we instill understanding or a lack thereof? What do we want our children to become? What type of adults do we want them to be? Do we want them to be honorable? What is honor? How do we go about instilling these values into our children?

If how we raise our children can be an example of traits we want people to exhibit, and if government is supposed to represent people, then what do we do when it is evident our representatives do not inhibit the traits we deem best? Do half of us not vote, or actively participate in this representation? Do we become frustrated by a lack of clear choices when it comes to deciding who shall represent us? Do we grudgingly choose the lesser of two evils, because this way at least we are participating? What is worse: failing to participate or participating in a half-assed manner?

A Look Back in Time

I wrote this 6 years ago. My question today is, “What’s changed?”

February 4, 2002

Comment on the State of the Union

Overall, the speech itself is written very well. It has an incredibly flow and coherence that I can only dream of when I write papers or anything for that matter. The speechwriters involved in the State of the Union are truly talented individuals.

The idealism portrayed in the last half of the address is wonderful. Asking Americans to volunteer 4,000 hours of their time over two years is amazing. More people should do that. For several reasons: to become more familiar with their community, doing something for someone other than yourself promotes awareness and compassion. He suggests doing something about healthcare for the public at large is another wonderful ideal. Cracking down on Corporate America, again unprecedented. Keeping the tax rate low to encourage saving. Telling Congress that he will be working together with them to get a cleaner environment. Almost all of the ideals listed in the last half of the address are absolutely fantastic. Encouraging community, awareness, and general respect is something I and you have been saying needs to be done.

My concerns about the address are more associated with the first half, where he says terror, terrorist, or terrorism 30 times. Where he labels Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as “ax[es] of evil”. Where he continues to call it a “war on terrorism”. To me it sounds like two wrongs trying to make a right, and this is something my mother always told me wouldn’t work.

[A friend] was very adamant about the use of syntax. How important words are. A few weeks ago I heard some analyst mention how over the years costumers have become consumers. This small word change turns customers into greedy pigs fighting for a turn at the trough. GW’s use of the words terror and war are the same thing. It turns September 11th into a black and white issue. By calling Iran, Iraq, and North Korea “ax[es] of evil” he makes them the automatic bad guys and America the good guys. This goes back to his comment on September 20th, “You’re either with us or you’re against us.”

But this train of thought forgets one very important thing: life is full of gray areas not black and white. By forgetting that America can be wrong, has done wrong, and will never be perfect, we continue to ostracize nations that don’t believe how we believe. This only propels the cycle of hate that has been created long ago. If we really want to respect one another, we need to realize that we are not always right and by labeling other nations as evil… Well, to me, this just seems to take several giant steps backwards instead of forward.

From the Voters Guide: Responsibility

What types of responsibilities do we or should we have to the environment?

In order to respect all peoples and their right to live upon this earth, we should recognize that to pursue health and happiness we all need some basics: clean air, clean water, and clean soil. It may sound elementary, but how current politics swing it is worth repeating. We all need clean air to breath lest we are burdened with disease like asthma. We all need clean water to drink lest we are made sick with E. coli or other ferocious bacteria. We all need clean soil to utilize for building, living, and eating.

Franklin D. Roosevelt desired a new bill of rights in the wake of the Great Depression that would spell out clearly the right to healthcare, education, and a securer future. In order to claim our rights, though, we must admit our responsibility. We have a responsibility to ourselves and future generations to secure these things for us and them. We have a right to make sure our water is clean so that others may have clean water. We have a right to make sure that our practices keep the air clean so all can live and breath easier. And, we have a right to ensure that we don’t contaminate our soils. If our soils are contaminated, where will our food come from?

It is our responsibility, together, to make sure we are accountable for our bad deeds in order that all may live in a clean world.

The Urban Homestead

A lot dealing with sustainability answers the question, “How can I do for myself?” A major component of sustainability is keeping things local, and what’s more local than supplying for yourself from your place on this earth? Whether it be an apartment, a small house with a small yard, or a farmhouse, a new book breaks it down in simple ideas for the Average American.

The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-Sufficiency (review and blog) examines this question in a simple, easy-to-read format. It’s what we did with the Tolman Guide, it but makes the techy stuff easier to swallow. In The Urban Homestead you will find easy to understand tips for making your own cleaning products, how-to-compost and what to look for, and even a lengthy section on fermentation and storing food.

I will admit, I was a bit envious when I read it. The thought, “We did this first!” kept screaming through my head. But, they did it in a manner that’s easier to understand, and they hit many highlights of living in the city.

A must-read for any person who wants to live closer to the land in the city.