In his defense, it was a pretty good book.
14 hours ago
Monday, November 7, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
Wow, These Protestors....
Mais Non!!!! Anything but that! Now they're not even just talking about corporations... political accountability? No!
As for corporate greed knowing no bounds, hey, they aren't fooling people. At least not in my family.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
One of those days....
It's been one of those days. Actually, one of those weeks (so far). Today alone I canceled my nephrology appointment to take my child to his doctor (leaving in 10 minutes), screwed up plans with eldest son (depressed, stressed, I have not seen him in three weeks) by accident and felt like a jerk, then one of my GAL kids was Baker Acted at school while I was talking to teacher and counselor and listening to screaming, sobbing, smashing child in background, and then I took Snow White some money and a bracelet for her birthday only to find her the most depressed I've ever seen her. EVER. Like postpartum was warm and fuzzies! Now I'm plotting how to get my son's psychiatrist, who used to be her psychiatrist long ago when she was in a group home, to see her private pay (my dime) for antidepressant treatment, but I have no idea where she's gonna get that cognitive therapy component on Medicaid. My youngest is going to tutor her in Algebra 2 (yay!) but will she be able to get to Planned Parenthood on public transportation in Homestead (boo! I better take her, right? Don't know about you but when I've been seriously depressed, it is exhausting even thinking about doing things...) All these many things filled my head as I drove home, or should I say as my student driver drove me home (thrills, chills!) from his school.
But then I got home and this is what a colleague had sent me (no, no, don't feel bad you did, okay?):
“In my mind I have not done anything wrong other than discipline my child when she was caught stealing. I did lose my temper, I’ve apologized… it looks worse than it is.”
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Natural Born Idiocy
President Barack Obama and US Senator (FL) Marco Rubio
(Photo credit: Associate Press)
I live in a municipality in a Miami area for which Marco Rubio used to be my district Representative to the Florida House. He once spoke about his 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future (few of which have come to pass, that's for sure) at one of our Miami Child Advocacy Network meetings, back in the day. I wrote to him on several occasions and before he was Speaker of the House, he sometimes wrote back either handwritten notes or clearly self-written e-mails. In person, he's a really pleasant guy, although clearly pretty conservative. Yeah, I have to say that in recent times, he's not exactly been my cup of tea. *coughgagomqfmarziethatwasbad* Yet, this morning I awoke to such a wad of crap in my Miami Herald that I was shaking my head. Poor Marco. He is just as unnatural as my ineffectual friend Barack is!
It turns out that Marco Rubio, hailed as the poster boy/wunderkind/future presidential candidate of the GOP, is not a natural born American Citizen. Now I know, since he was born in Miami in 1971, that this will shock many of my readers, even the Republican ones, who think the Tea Party is the party of the righteous. But just like Barack, Marco's US birth certificate has grave, grave defects. You see Marco's parents didn't become US Citizens until 1975. They actually came to the US from Cuba in the 1950's but tried and tried to deal with Fidel's Cuba and gave up, moving here permanently in 1961. They applied for and were finally granted US Citizenship in 1975. Four years too late!!!! (Why Marco's situation at birth is even worse than Barack's whose mother was at least a US citizen [praisethequantumfield], but whose father [darklooksabound] was Kenyan.)
Nope, Marco's out of the running say the Birthers. That's because Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America and therefore, under Article 2 of the United States Constitution, Marco is not eligible to run for president, anymore than Barack Obama was.
The basis for this determination? In part a phrase from The Law of Nations by the Swiss diplomat and philosopher Emmerich de Vattel (yep, he's a haole, a gaijin, a ferengi... what are they thinking letting him determine US policy about such an important thing, I wonder?) which reads: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens." And hey, there is a load of historical cred for this view, since de Vattel lived from 1714 to 1767 (in Neuchatel, Switzerland) and so the Founding Fathers clearly had factored in his assessment when they wrote that whole Article 2 thingy back in 1787. Clause 5, the part that is in question, reads:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
First off, I think we need to look at what we should do if someone was adopted by natural born US citizen parents. This could be tricky, especially if the person was adopted as an infant, you know like from Russia or China or something. They might look like they are American when they're really not, you know? And now they have a birth certificate that says the person is American, but we all really know that geography is thicker than upbringing, culture and documents from the US State Department or any circuit court. Definitely, you're out if you're a foreigner who is adopted. And because of this deep dark concern, I advocate for unsealing all records of any adopted candidates, just to be, you know, on the safe side.
But secondly, I've been giving this whole natural thing a lot of thought. Frankly, I think we should go a few steps further. Now, since I'm a woman and since, you know, women are always obsessed with home and family and children and babies and such, when I think natural, I think natural childbirth. So just to be sure, really sure, that we are dealing with natural born citizens, I propose that a person can only be elected President of the United States of American if they were born by natural childbirth. No caesarian sections, no in vitro fertilizations, no artificial inseminations, no inductions of labor, no pain meds. All of those are un-natural. I am sure that the Founding Fathers would disapprove of their unnatural birth. Gosh knows all that stuff wasn't even really available in 1787 when they came up with the whole Article 2 business. I'm sure they would be appalled to find out that it was possible to be an un-naturally natural born citizen. Yep, taking the strict constructionist view, I think we can say that we had better start perusing those hospital birth records of our candidates. There are going to be a lot of very disappointed people. Sigh. But you know, this stuff is really important. We need to avoid, at all costs, what Alan Keyes describes as: “Now you’ve got Republicans talking about Marco Rubio for president when it’s obviously clear that he does not qualify. Regardless of party label, they don’t care about Constitution. It’s all just empty, lying lip service.”
Step right up... get your share of natural born idiocy...
99% Palate Cleanser
Les Comtesses Marzie, GlamKitty and Cynical Nymph were in Bryant Park during the early part of the OWS march to Times Square late in the afternoon on Saturday, October 15. Police, with their ample supply of plastic handcuffs, were everywhere. The theater district was eerily devoid of vehicles that evening. The protestors, at least when we saw them, were a well mannered bunch, not obstructing traffic and moving smoothly toward Times Square. They seemed mostly, *gasp*, to want to exercise their First Amendment rights. There's been so much talk about how everyone has a different reason to be marching, protesting, and that there is no unified message with "these people". Funny thing, it really looked and sounded like they were on point, chanting and bearing signs talking about social injustice, corruption and economic struggles. But I dunno... just my 2₵.
Some of what was seen and heard...
"Banks Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out!"
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Let Them Eat Cake? Mais Non.
Well, back to my point:
Those 99%ers are a pack of whining babies. Just stay focused on that. Here, look at some pictures that you don't really grasp from the first viewing. Let me set you straight:
This guy is a mess. What is his fucking problem? Why does he think he is punished? He just isn't as deserving as others. He needs to suck it up and work harder and maybe take out more loans and get a PhD or something. Moar debt! Just borrow more money! The interest he'll owe helps our country stay afloat!!!
Get this guy out of here! He is so messed up. Dude, you're a success story! Stop the altruistic crap already!
Without Fear of Violence? WTF? Here's another one of those bloody liberals that thinks they understood the right to dissent and that stoopid freedom of speech thingy in the Bill of Rights. A better life for all? LOSER!!!!!
So Grandma thought they were working for something? Like the American Dream? That's for special people, hon. Not you! Gosh! Get with it already! And I hope you are paying your taxes, including the property tax on that house you shouldn't have thought you could buy.
Cry me a river... What, you wanted to live in Scandinavia or something? You should get married and stop trying to make it on your own, sweetheart! Geeezus! Find a man with a good job and use his insurance!!!! You wanted to be an unhealthy, independent and educated woman in America? Really? How dare you! And WTF? Listen, without the 99%, the 1% wouldn't be so dragged down! There would be no one standing in the way of their massive corporate prowess! They would sell their goods and services to the Third World and dominate the entire frakking Milky Way galaxy!
OMG! What is WRONG with you people? Safety net schmafety net!!!!
Viewpoint 2: De Facto 47%ers, or maybe 99%ers with identity crises.
In all honesty, I am really puzzled by some of the 53%ers tumblr pages. (They have 10 pages, versus the 84 pages of the 99%ers, btw) But I am sure they are the majority of Americans (53%, after all), and especially they are Americans who pay taxes and are living perfectly wonderful lives. They are treated justly, and they instinctively realize the social equity of their situation.
This young lady is a poster girl for the American Dream. Her father moved here from Croatia. He is a thyroid cancer patient, and is working 72 hours a week in a manual labor job. She's not complaining. Croatia and the war in the former Yugoslavia clearly taught that worse could be had and what to be grateful for here, in her cushy American life provided for her by her cancer-ridden, hard-working father. (She's not being shot at, raped, mutilated or killed, or having to watch that happen to anyone she knows or cares about.) Life is good! To quote her: "That is the American Dream", circa 2011. (That liberal use of WE on her part is so irksome I don't know how to deal with it.... How many hours have you been working to help your dad?)
This gentleman is awesome. He is evidently in the 1%! (But also the 53%?) He is happy continuing to pay (NOT LESS THAN) 50% of his income to taxes while corporations like Exxon pay NO taxes and people like Warren Buffet, who would pay more taxes if asked, pay less or what this gentleman pays. Yep. Makes sense to me. Glad it does to him. What a trooper!!! :)
The firm opinion of one not yet in the job market is truly wonderful! While no one owes her anything, her government loaned her money. What if the value of her degree turns out to be more than her worth (salary) on a only bachelor's degree? Not that there's much of that going around...
Wake up people. Wake up.
Palate Cleanser #159: Dizzy Edition
OCTOBER 10, 2011
Ferris Wheel, Kansas
Photograph by Joel Sartore, National Geographic
This Month in Photo of the Day: Photos From New National Geographic Books
The Ferris wheel at the Kansas State Fair in Hutchinson mimics a giant Lite-Brite toy. Long lines can form at popular midway rides, but in this long exposure all the stress melts away.
(From the upcoming National Geographic book Visions of Earth)
Friday, September 30, 2011
Multiculturalism is Expensive
Flesh Crayons by Nathan Gibbs
"The Flesh Crayola crayon became Peach in 1962. I bought these on ebay. The life of this crayon inspired the video Crayola Monologues."
Edited to clarify, since one person has already complained about lack of clarity. This is the Crayola regular color set of which I am speaking:
© Bright Nepenthe, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Thinking About Poverty, Part 3
This is Part 3 in a two part series on Poverty. You can read Part 1 here, and Part 2 there. This part? It's the Outrage Part.
Cannot bear very much reality.
A response salvo was fired off to the National Review on September 21st by that hail fellow, well met Senator from Kentucky, (I can feel Comtesse Glam cringing...) Rand Paul. It took a full week to reply to Senator Sanders because Senator Paul was pouring over facts and statistics trying to controvert Senator Sanders's statements. In contrast to Senator Sanders quoting those boring old statistics and facts and saying where he got them from, Senator Paul has given us broad statements of what I like to call, in Colbertian fashion, "truthy facts". Poverty, Mr. Paul assures us, is not a death sentence, and isn't really all that bad even! :)
"While we all hope to lessen the sting of poverty, we need to put poverty in America into context... Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has profiled the typical poor household in America. The average poor household has a car, air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and an Xbox. Its home is in good repair and bigger than the average (non-poor) European home. They report that in the past year they were not hungry, were able to obtain medical care as necessary, and could afford all essential needs."
I find it very strange that the US Senator from Kentucky is relying on the Heritage Foundation for specifics rather than sourcing his own facts and statistics from his facts and statistics obsessed government, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I went to Heritage Foundation's Poverty and Inequality page and looked for information about where they got their figures. Emblazoned on the page is:
"Poor persons in theUnited States have far higher living standards than the public imagines. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
The major causes of child poverty in theUnited States in any year will be the absence of married fathers in the home and low levels of parental work."
Okay, I'm not even going to touch the fact that the low levels of parental work are responsible for poverty (did they just say these kids' parents are lazy?) But you know, I could not find a source for this information. But I did find an article by Rector, claiming his stats are from a government survey (implying they were from the Census) in 2005, which was NOT a US Census year and which, oh, let me remember, was yes, before the economy really began to tank. There was no further information about where to get these facts and verify the information on their statistical accuracy. Hmmmm.
Well, Senator Paul and Mr. Rector, luckily for you I am the very soul of data on the issue of poverty at present. Especially child poverty, but in the course of looking for data on poverty faced by children, I have come across more than a few sources of information on the population as a whole. I'm sorry to say that unfortunately, some of them are promoted, funded or tallied by our US Government. I know that source may not be good enough for you.
But first let's start with some child statistics culled from that highly suspect organization the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Here are some screen captures from their site, Kids Count, which used data from the 2010 United States Census and various other clearly named sources:
Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (March supplement).
Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (March supplement).
Mortgage Bankers Association, National Delinquency Survey, 2007 to 2009; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007 to 2009
Population Reference Bureau analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) Basic Monthly data 2007 - 2010
Population Reference Bureau analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) Basic Monthly data 2007 - 2010
Why, all those kids aren't really under duress! Oh, no! And they have excellent healthcare, happy families and X-Boxes. Well, maybe they have no place to plug the X-Box in, if Mommy and Daddy's house was foreclosed on. But other than that, they are all fine! (Isn't it ironic that that children without healthcare stat is in part thanks to an Urban Studies Institute at the University of Louisville study? No, really?!)
I'm sure you remember the food insecurity issue for children from Parts 1 & 2 of my blog article on poverty but just in case you didn't, let's recap. 22% of all children in the US live in poverty, 42% live in low income households, the USDA provides 31 million free school lunches to children who qualify and there's the sliver that falls through the gap- children whose households make between 185% and 199% of the Federal Poverty Level Income but are still considered low income. And the total number of children in food insecure homes in the most recent year tracked (2009) was 23.2 according to the US Government's Child Stats site.
Hmmmm. I wonder who else might be food insecure, besides all those chickadees? Well, SAMHSA.gov provides some broad information on their homelessness portal, that applies not just to the homeless. For instance, there is the Food Hardship in America report for 2010, prepared by the Food Research Action Center. This report, listed by a US government agency blatantly states:
"The national data show that the struggle of tens of millions of American households to afford adequate food did not, by and large, get easier in 2010. While the nation’s Great Recession technically ended in mid-2009 (measured by growth in the Gross Domestic Product), it has not yet ended for most of the nation’s households. For them, 2010 was the third year of a recession that continues to have severe adverse impact on their well-being."
Or how about this SAMHSA.gov featured report, Food Insecurity Among Older Adults, prepared by the AARP. (Those damn lazy elderly/retirees! They are just dragging us down!) Some of their findings, and by the way, AARP offers up plenty of information about how their methods, how data was collected and what statistics were used to calculate their findings:
Our key findings on the trends and distribution of food insecurity are:
- Across all categories and older adult age groups, food insecurity increased substantially after 2007. The increases were most pronounced among 40-49 year olds, followed by 50-59 year olds, and then those 60 and older. Food insecurity for 40-49 year olds increased to an astounding 68 percent between 2007-2009 compared to 38 percent for 50-59 year olds, and 25 percent among those over 60. Rates of very low food security rates among adults in their 50s had comparable increases to those in their 40s (69 percent versus 71 percent).
- The increasing trend in food insecurity implies that by 2009, among adults age 50 and older, 15.6 million persons faced the threat of hunger (i.e. were marginally food insecure), 8.8 million faced the risk of hunger (i.e. were food insecure), and 3.5 million faced hunger (i.e. were low food secure). This is an increase of 66%, 79%, and 132%, respectively, from the levels of food insecurity in 2001 among this population.
- The levels of food insecurity among the poor and near poor are two to three times higher in any given year than for the general population of those over age 50. However, there is not nearly as dramatic an increase in food insecurity after 2007 among the poor and near poor in comparison to those higher in the income distribution. Thus, the recessionary increase in adult food insecurity was most pronounced among those with higher incomes.
Yes, indeed, I just do not know where Senator Sanders got this idea that things were bad in this country. Things are just fine here, Senator Paul. Everyone is just fine.
Oh, and Senator Paul also makes the claim:
"Over 30 percent of those living below the poverty smoke, compared with 19 percent of the rest of the population. Obesity rates are significantly higher among the poor than the general population..."
It seems as if the Senator has never reflected on the fact that the nicotine in cigarette smoke is well known for its appetite suppressant effects and that obesity rates are higher among the American poor because their diet is skewed toward cheap, high fat and high sugar foods that they can afford to eat, when they can eat. Food insecurity is directly tied to obesity (btw, that latter link was to the most current article I found on the topic on that cheesy and unreliable National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine PubMed search engine) and it is also clearly tied to diabetes, as detailed in a recent report title "The Inextricable Connection Between Food Insecurity and Diabetes" by the California Pan-Ethic Health Network, which receives the bulk of its funding from the highly questionable California Department of Public Health.
Oh, and one final comment, about the Poverty and Inequity page over at Heritage Foundation. They have a couple of links there that are interesting, namely:
Maybe it's just me but the idea that the number of Americans who pay taxes continues to shrink might possibly have something to do with the fact that so many Americans are living in frigging poverty! It seems to me some of those poor people might need to depend on government assistance. But shucks, that's just my take.
Anyway, I'm done here. For now.
Zahra's Paradise
Zahra's Paradise by Amir and Khalil
While I might mention books I'm reading, it's not often you'll see me saying "Hey, buy this book!". But Zahra's Paradise, both in story and purpose, are different. Set against the backdrop of the stolen 2009 Iranian elections, Zahra's Paradise, tells the very human story of a mother looking for her 'lost' son, Mehdi, who has been swept up in the reprisals and arrests. The title is a bitterly ironic allusion to Behesht-e Zahra, one of the largest cemeteries in Tehran.* Translated from the Farsi as Zahra's Paradise, Behesht-e Zahra represents the all too often fate of dissenters to the false reelection of Mahmoud Amadinejad in 2009. Those elections saw massive uprisings and terrible reprisals. From the cover of the book we see the remembrance of the Green Revolution and what made for a turning point in Amadinejad's miserable theft of the election: the cell phone cameras that documented what was really going on in Iran. Cell phones which documented Neda's murder and the atrocities against peaceful demonstrators, who were largely students.
Zahra's Paradise is the book version of the long running webcomic Zahra's Paradise, which began in early 2010 and has now been translated into thirteen languages. The webcomic is now in Aftermath entries. I'm not sure if you're still able to access the story itself online, but I encourage my readers to check out Amir and Khalil's links.
Likened to Marjane Satrapi's epic Persepolis series, Zahra's Paradise is an important and accessible work that documents what happened in Iran in 2009 and what it was like for families there. It is a battle cry in the fight for human rights in Iran, which has not, in spite of the regime's best attempts, been extinguished. It is a loud and clear voice against Amadinejad, Khamenei and their repressive regime. It is a moving and often frightening story that took courage to tell, week after week, for two men who still had families in Iran.
You can read an interview with author Amir at United4Iran's website, here.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Thinking About Poverty, Part 2
Old Woman at a Soup Kitchen from WikiHistoria (photographer attribution unknown)
I won't tell you what I spend in a week at my local Whole Foods on my organic fruits and veggies, grass-fed beef and gluten-free and dairy-free alternative breads, milks and such. It would be too embarrassing at this point. But I'm not going to even try to pretend that someone can eat, let alone eat well, on $4.45 a day. You want to know what's that cheap? High fat, high sugar, highly unhealthy things that don't give you real nutrition but sort of fill you for the short term. And not fill you all that much, either. But those same foods are what can lead to obesity, metabolic syndrome and problems with diabetes. When you're poor, you have to eat something and if what's cheap is unhealthy, well, it's better than going to bed hungry at night is likely the way many adults look at it, for themselves and for their children.
But I know what you must be saying at this point- Marzie, Marzie, Marzie, those food stamps are supposed to *supplement* your income, not pay for all your food, silly! Well, the problem is, quite a few people don't have leftover income. My older son, a chef who makes just shy of $1800/month at a swanky hotel restaurant, which offers pretty decent benefits, typically eats at work for at least one meal a day because he eats for free there. He makes well above poverty level income. Nevertheless, after he was sinking into debt, we helped him make a better budget just the other day. He has very little left over for food after rent, utilities, car payment, car insurance, laundry costs, gasoline costs, medication costs, and of course, he doesn't even qualify for food stamps. Since striking out on his own with his shiny culinary degree he has lamented the cost of everything from bath mats to toilet paper to a simple bag of potato chips, let alone work needs like uniforms and his knives. Currently, he has no money for going out, for doing anything other than watching the occasional On Demand movie, although now he and his girlfriend are thinking even that's an extravagance they can't afford. That's right, he's learning the hard way, you can say. But see, he had us a rescue net- something that many, many people don't have, even if they have loving families that would want to help, if they could, but they simply can't help because they, too, are strapped. So our son is not pulling himself up, out of the not-a-speck of poverty of his upbringing, with his fancy-dancy Culinary Institute of America degree. Not at all. He's a low income "family" with his girlfriend and is working the maximum number of hours he can. Only, somehow, the thought that he will soon, as he will be aging out of parental healthcare coverage, be deciding whether to buy his mood stabilizer medication versus a week and a half of groceries is not very comforting to me. Only wait a minute, if he wants to eat at home but can't function, he won't have a job, now will he? But unless a miracle raise is on the horizon somewhere, make no mistake, that is exactly the choice he may be forced to make. You think it's an exaggeration, because after all, he'll have health insurance from his job. But he's taking a new-fangled medication, just like our youngest son is. Our co-pay, with top-notch insurance through my husband's work, for our youngest's single monthly medication is about $125/month. Yes, you read that right. That's our co-pay. The uninsured cost of the medication is somewhere around $800/month here in South Florida. And the medication for my older son is about the same. How would he be able to afford it, we wonder, if his health insurance isn't as good as his present insurance is? Take a different medication you say? Really? Of course, both psychiatrists have been totally arbitrary in their determination of our sons' needed medications, which in both cases have fewer side effects than previous generations of these medications. Taking a drug that pushes our older son closer to metabolic syndrome and diabetes just doesn't seem to be a good plan, somehow.
I'm sure many of us are aware of how hard it is to consistently get and/or stay on medication if you're homeless or poor. Those are difficult circumstances, even if you have federal health care like Medicaid or Medicare. (For more on this issue, check out Personal Failure's newest post over at Forever in Hell) But what about food? Surely there are many options if you're homeless or poor and hungry? Think again.
A Food Not Bombs graphic
But I digress with the whole census business and counting how many people are really living at or below the poverty level in this country. I was talking about food and poverty right? There are a lot of people, if we just look at the level of poverty and the number of food stamps recipients, who struggle with food. How are we helping people eat? What is this about communities not wanting to feed the homeless or placing limits on the number of homeless that can be fed? What are these people guilty of? (Either the ones who are hungry or the ones who feed?) They appear to be guilty of being there. I keep turning McHenry's banner over in my mind. Are we essentially criminalizing the impoverished? While I'm not exactly sure that we're calling them criminals, I am sure that there is more rhetoric these days that makes it seem as if people who are poor are somehow poor by choice, or by laziness or somehow as if they are at fault for their situation. This not-so-subtle undercurrent seems to suggest that if people would just pick themselves up and work harder they wouldn't be poor anymore. Kind of like that argument that if people worked better jobs, they'd have (better or any) healthcare, right?
Looking at the increase in food insecurity since 1995, even for those who have attained a bachelor's degree or higher (which has almost doubled!), drives home the point that even education is not enough to shield families entirely from poverty. And that's what more people need to think about. I actually know quite a few people who are literate, quite well-educated and who struggle mightily with caring for their families, teetering on the brink of a financial abyss. Quite. a. few.
So what is it then, about poverty? What is it that we are blaming homeless or poor people for?
Yesterday I saw this article on ABC's news website that blazoned the title: Tax the Rich, Obama Says; Class Warfare, GOP Says. Well, it's no secret that I tend to be on the liberal social democrat side of things but I seriously wonder how the GOP thinks things have gone down, historically speaking, with a very large, increasingly impoverished, overtaxed class of citizens and a small, elite, undertaxed class of citizens, who considered themselves the "job-providers". Hmmm. Seems to me there were some revolutions a while back in similar circumstances. Of course, there are still plenty of semi-successful oligarchies around the world. (I'm trying to think of one not on an Amnesty International blacklist for something but am currently drawing a blank.) I look at brief articles like the one posted the other day on CNN about Rick Perry's own state's poverty debacle- one in five Texans live in poverty, their poverty level is growing faster than other states, they collect fewer food stamps and have less healthcare and Texas has one of the lowest per capita spending rates on its citizens. Perry's claims of job creation all deal with low paying jobs, which doubtless mean jobs with few, if any, benefits. Texas ties Mississippi for the highest percentage of minimum wage workers in the country. And all that just makes me look at the current unemployment figures of only 9.1 % and shake my head as I think about the people that gave up making claims or the people who are currently under-employed, in jobs that are just under full time or jobs that are at or below minimum wage and which will do nothing to help pull them out of poverty. Where are we going in this country? Class warfare? Isn't that where we already are?
Maybe a better dialog in this country would be served by talking about the amorality of poverty and what we're going to do about making sure that it doesn't worsen.
Stop blaming the poor for being poor. They aren't the problem here.
Against the Wall, 1934 by Dorothea Lange
Mr. Paul, please see my gauntlet below. Have you been to any of your government's statistics websites lately? Well sir, I have...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
