I've been both a Republican and a Democrat, and in that order. I quit the Republican Party back in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for President, haven't voted for one since . . . in any election. To make a long story short, the Republicans pissed me off when they allowed the right wing fundamentalists to take over their party. I swore then to never vote for anyone with the big R behind their name again, and I haven't. But if Chris Christie runs for President in 2016, and the Democrats come up with another candidate like Obama, I will break that vow, bite down hard, take a deep breath, and vote for Christie. The only thing that will change my mind is if Brian Schweitzer wins the Democratic nomination, in which case I'll probably stay with the dumocrats and vote for him. I might have to think hard about it, though, 'cause at the moment I don't see a lot of difference between the two men. Schweitzer looks like a moderate to right leaning Democrat, and Christie looks like a moderate to left leaning Republican. I like both men.
I'll cut Obama some slack when it comes to his mediocre performance as President because he had one helluva mess to clean up when he took office. I'm not sure anybody could've fixed all the problems left by the Bush bunch when they left town. We were left with too many Republicans still in office, plenty enough to keep screwing things up. Put plainly, right wing Republicans could fuck up a one car funeral procession, much less a highly complex government. If I end up voting for Christie, I'll have to overcome some deep-seated resentments toward his party, but I think he's capable of bringing about some change. The same is true of Brian Schweitzer. He's not a mainstream Democrat, and that's what I like about him. He too could bring about change in the country, and in his own party.
You can bet the liberal leaning Democrats will fight Schweitzer's candidacy, as will the right leaning Republicans who'll fight Christie's run for the Presidency. I'm hoping lots of Americans are like me, sick to death of both sides - the extreme left and the extreme right. Liberals tend to be naive, out of touch with what's practical and achievable. Conservatives are limited by narrow mindedness, sort of a brain freeze when it comes to critical thinking. And if you can't think, you can't run anything. It's hard to lead anything when you're systematically limited by an obstructionist stance, and if there's anything Republicans do well, it's obstruct. It's likewise difficult to lead if you work from a stance of considering too many options. That's another brain freeze thing, I think - not being able to decide what to do, which way to go. Liberals tend to struggle with that.
I loved Harry Truman because he was a practical man - perhaps not the brightest President we ever had, but he didn't get bogged down by either restrictions brought about by not being able to see the problem (Republicans) or by seeing too much of it (Democrats). Bill Clinton had that quality about him, some of that Truman practicality. And I'm seeing some of that in both Christie and Schweitzer, and so far, I like what I see. I'm not optimistic at this point that either man can win the nominations of their parties, but I hold out some hope it might happen. For once in my life, I'd like to vote in a Presidential election where either candidate would be acceptable to me. Maybe that's just a dream.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
WHAT YOU SPEND IS CRITICAL TO SURVIVAL IN A HARD ECONOMY
Ok, here's the deal: It's all about spending. Think of it this way, and it will make more sense to you. What got the government into so much trouble with their budget? Simple. They spend far more than they make, and they spend money on a things that almost any nation will call extravagant. What if the government spent half as much money as they now spend? If they cut military spending and social programs in half, they'd be back in the red . . . and they're not about to do that. If they trimmed the size of government, they'd be far better off. We wouldn't, but they would. Cuts in social programs leaves many people hanging by a string, a cuts in military spending leaves us more vulnerable to terrorists and other foreign threats.
Remember Pogo, the comic strip character? He's credited with saying, "I have met the enemy, and he is us." We are our own worst enemies, that's for sure. We do that at the government level, and we do it to ourselves at the private level. Did you ever sit down a figure out what you could do with your family budget if you had to go into a crisis mode? I'm talking simple survival here, just hanging on, should the need arise. Nobody wants to do that, but it can be done. We all have choices to make each week or month with what we spend, and those choices determine how well we live. If you cut out everything except what you need to stay afloat, you'd be surprised at what you come up with.
If it's any help, here's my cut first list:
1) Get rid of car payments altogether
2) Cut back drastically on driving to save gas
3) No new clothes
4) No recreational budget
5) No vacations or travel except what's absolutely necessary
6) Shop carefully for food, get what you need, not what you want
7) Drop all insurances unless required by law or what's absolutely necessary
8) Minimize your utility bills (unplug everything you're not using, etc.)
9) Get medical attention only when it's a must
10) Rid yourself of the parasites (demanding family members included)
Doing that would save me over two thousand dollars a month, cut my budget by a third. Not enough? If I absolutely had to, I could cut the budget in half. Like everyone else, I don't want to . . . but it could be done. Hard times would require doing hard things to survive.
Remember Pogo, the comic strip character? He's credited with saying, "I have met the enemy, and he is us." We are our own worst enemies, that's for sure. We do that at the government level, and we do it to ourselves at the private level. Did you ever sit down a figure out what you could do with your family budget if you had to go into a crisis mode? I'm talking simple survival here, just hanging on, should the need arise. Nobody wants to do that, but it can be done. We all have choices to make each week or month with what we spend, and those choices determine how well we live. If you cut out everything except what you need to stay afloat, you'd be surprised at what you come up with.
If it's any help, here's my cut first list:
1) Get rid of car payments altogether
2) Cut back drastically on driving to save gas
3) No new clothes
4) No recreational budget
5) No vacations or travel except what's absolutely necessary
6) Shop carefully for food, get what you need, not what you want
7) Drop all insurances unless required by law or what's absolutely necessary
8) Minimize your utility bills (unplug everything you're not using, etc.)
9) Get medical attention only when it's a must
10) Rid yourself of the parasites (demanding family members included)
Doing that would save me over two thousand dollars a month, cut my budget by a third. Not enough? If I absolutely had to, I could cut the budget in half. Like everyone else, I don't want to . . . but it could be done. Hard times would require doing hard things to survive.
GLOOM AND DOOM, OR JUST KEEN OBSERVATION?
There's always money to be made as a prophet of gloom and doom, and you have to take that stuff with a grain of salt. Still, few people want to believe the worst can really happen, and that means not many are prepared for it when it comes. Some gloom-and-doomers tried to warn us about the financial collapse of 2007-8, but it happened and pretty much caught us flat-footed. We're still trying to dig out from under that big pile of political poop . . . and that's what it was - a government that badly mismanaged that dismal affair. But all the blame should've fall on them alone because we're all to blame for it. Greed caused it, fed by a lusty public wanting more and more and more. Houses were selling like hotcakes, business was booming, and almost everyone thought it would last forever. The hard times fell on us, took the air out of our sails, left us adrift for a while . . . while government and business leaders tried to figure out ways to get us back up and running again. But did they want to return to a time when some sanity ruled, when things were good but not fantastic? Nope. They wanted it all again, and the measure of success they set for us has been too high and unrealistic.
Well, the gloom-and-doomers are at it again, this time with some really dire warnings about what's to come. Some of these people aren't just hawkers of books of prophecy; they're legitimate specialists who should know the system, and they're pointing to some indicators that show the direction we're headed. I'm not an economic wizard by a long shot, but I do know something about politics and government. At the cost of sounding like just another all hell's fixing to break loose pessimist, I've got to agree with some of what I'm reading about an impending depression, one that might last a while. And in doing so, all I'll be accomplishing is throwing in just one more voice of warning. Damn few people will listen, or care. Too many of us live in a world of the right now, immediate gratification . . . and we're still too greedy, want too much.
With that aside, I'll take aim at the let's-go-with-the-flow folks who just won't listen and will suffer the most when and if there's another serious economic downturn. By that, I mean just your average American who's trying to survive in a world of ups and downs . . . and without much planning for the future. There's a problem with planning for another economic downturn, like . . . just what do I plan for? And even if I believe it's going to happen, what can I do about it? The answers to those two questions are easy, but they're most certainly bitter pills to swallow.
As for what you can plan for, my suggestion is to go down the middle. I'm not at all convinced there'll be a big, long-lasting depression like we saw many years hence in the 1930s. On the other hand, I see some hard times ahead, due mostly to the government's inadequacy to deal with it. Not much is going to change in regard to a sharply divided nation when it comes to liberal vs. conservatives. Elections will be close with winners barely getting public approval and leaving us with lots of dissatisfied losers. Congress will not break out of gridlock, regardless of who wins the elections this fall and in two years. It won't matter much who becomes the President when Obama leaves office, but what little difference it makes could be for the worse. I think Obama's unpopularity will hurt the Democrats some, but few people really love Republicans either. In fact, public approval of Congress is around 15 percent. 15 percent! That means 85 percent of folks, me included, don't think much of how they've handled things. Can that get worse? Not much, but the economic situation we face might . . . if Congress calls the shots. Obama's approval is at least three times higher, if that tells you anything, but he's no financial wizard either.
By going down the middle, I'm suggesting that things will get worse . . . bad enough to cause some difficulties for almost any family, especially middle income folks. Maybe you've noticed this about government, but when things get bad for the basic wage earner, the crowd who really pays most of the taxes in this country, their solution to shortfalls in revenues is to increase taxes. Atta boy, big brother and little bro. Take more from those already suffering, drive us into deeper water and cause more anger and despair. And they won't back off because they are the most greedy of the greedy. Too many people look to government for jobs, and they'll scratch and claw for every dime they can raise through taxation. That means those of us who actually tote the load will have an even bigger load, and that means we cut back on other things.
I don't know where everyone else plans to do, but my plan is to simply spend less money. You won't get any help from government here because they want you to spend, and spend a lot. The more you spend, the more they make off various taxes. I plan to be observant, pay close attention to what's going on, and they try to act accordingly. I've already started the process, just so I'll be used to it when the times comes to hunker down, do the turtle thing and pull back into my shell. Nothing I do can save me from a wholesale meltdown, and it won't save most other people either. But should we go into a moderate depression, I'll survive. I no longer have credit cards, don't owe any bank or lender except my house and car payment . . . and I'm closing in on getting those paid off. By the time Obama leaves office, I won't have a car payment. I don't buy clothes, don't have a recreational budget of any kind, don't take vacations, travel, or even go out much. In short, I'm not buying anything that isn't essential. Will I be ready when and if the hard times come? Not completely, but I'll be in a lot better shape than most people.
I'll write more about living on less later on, just in case anyone is interested. And I've got a queasy feeling that we damn sure need to pay attention.
Well, the gloom-and-doomers are at it again, this time with some really dire warnings about what's to come. Some of these people aren't just hawkers of books of prophecy; they're legitimate specialists who should know the system, and they're pointing to some indicators that show the direction we're headed. I'm not an economic wizard by a long shot, but I do know something about politics and government. At the cost of sounding like just another all hell's fixing to break loose pessimist, I've got to agree with some of what I'm reading about an impending depression, one that might last a while. And in doing so, all I'll be accomplishing is throwing in just one more voice of warning. Damn few people will listen, or care. Too many of us live in a world of the right now, immediate gratification . . . and we're still too greedy, want too much.
With that aside, I'll take aim at the let's-go-with-the-flow folks who just won't listen and will suffer the most when and if there's another serious economic downturn. By that, I mean just your average American who's trying to survive in a world of ups and downs . . . and without much planning for the future. There's a problem with planning for another economic downturn, like . . . just what do I plan for? And even if I believe it's going to happen, what can I do about it? The answers to those two questions are easy, but they're most certainly bitter pills to swallow.
As for what you can plan for, my suggestion is to go down the middle. I'm not at all convinced there'll be a big, long-lasting depression like we saw many years hence in the 1930s. On the other hand, I see some hard times ahead, due mostly to the government's inadequacy to deal with it. Not much is going to change in regard to a sharply divided nation when it comes to liberal vs. conservatives. Elections will be close with winners barely getting public approval and leaving us with lots of dissatisfied losers. Congress will not break out of gridlock, regardless of who wins the elections this fall and in two years. It won't matter much who becomes the President when Obama leaves office, but what little difference it makes could be for the worse. I think Obama's unpopularity will hurt the Democrats some, but few people really love Republicans either. In fact, public approval of Congress is around 15 percent. 15 percent! That means 85 percent of folks, me included, don't think much of how they've handled things. Can that get worse? Not much, but the economic situation we face might . . . if Congress calls the shots. Obama's approval is at least three times higher, if that tells you anything, but he's no financial wizard either.
By going down the middle, I'm suggesting that things will get worse . . . bad enough to cause some difficulties for almost any family, especially middle income folks. Maybe you've noticed this about government, but when things get bad for the basic wage earner, the crowd who really pays most of the taxes in this country, their solution to shortfalls in revenues is to increase taxes. Atta boy, big brother and little bro. Take more from those already suffering, drive us into deeper water and cause more anger and despair. And they won't back off because they are the most greedy of the greedy. Too many people look to government for jobs, and they'll scratch and claw for every dime they can raise through taxation. That means those of us who actually tote the load will have an even bigger load, and that means we cut back on other things.
I don't know where everyone else plans to do, but my plan is to simply spend less money. You won't get any help from government here because they want you to spend, and spend a lot. The more you spend, the more they make off various taxes. I plan to be observant, pay close attention to what's going on, and they try to act accordingly. I've already started the process, just so I'll be used to it when the times comes to hunker down, do the turtle thing and pull back into my shell. Nothing I do can save me from a wholesale meltdown, and it won't save most other people either. But should we go into a moderate depression, I'll survive. I no longer have credit cards, don't owe any bank or lender except my house and car payment . . . and I'm closing in on getting those paid off. By the time Obama leaves office, I won't have a car payment. I don't buy clothes, don't have a recreational budget of any kind, don't take vacations, travel, or even go out much. In short, I'm not buying anything that isn't essential. Will I be ready when and if the hard times come? Not completely, but I'll be in a lot better shape than most people.
I'll write more about living on less later on, just in case anyone is interested. And I've got a queasy feeling that we damn sure need to pay attention.
Monday, October 27, 2014
DO ANIMALS TALK TO US?
Can animals talk? Do they have a language of their own? Oh, you bet they do, and it's mostly all Greek to us. I understand only one language - English. That puts me at a communication handicap at times, but fortunately for me, I live where most people speak the same language. Half the people who live where I do speak Spanish, or a form of it we call Tex-Mex down here in Texas, but they also speak English. I've studied French and Spanish, don't speak them well but can read a little of it. Some folks might argue that I don't even speak English well, but I seem to be able to get my point across when I speak or write it. And I communicate with animals on a regular basis, and that's 'cause I understand dog and cat language. I learned to do that by simply paying attention to their mannerisms, their barks and meows and other sounds. The tell me when they want food, or when they want in or out, or when they want affection. If you observe and listen, you learn their language . . . and animals are a lot smarter than most people give them credit for being.
Most people have an anthropocentric relationships with animals, and that comes from the erroneous assumption that we are superior to them. Have you ever seen a human being as graceful as a cat? Can you jump six feet off the ground, or navigate along the top of a wood fence only a half inch wide? No, and you can't move at an unbelievable speed either, and you can't climb a tree like a squirrel either. Compared to a cat, you are slow and clumsy and plodding . . . and perhaps stupid. We can't take on any of the physical attributes of a cat, but they can sure take on some of ours. Anyone who takes time to work with them knows how much they are capable of learning. I've got an Australian cow dog with a working vocabulary of several hundred words, and that's because she pays attention to what I say. So do my cats, and I talk to them a lot . . . and they talk back.
Animals don't need to wear a wristwatch to know what time it is, and they don't need to watch the weather reports to know what's ahead. My cow dog knows in advance when rain is coming. She hates it because the thunder and lightening scare her, and I can tell from her movements when something is in the air. My cats tend to huddle up when bad weather is coming. They tell me when it's time to eat and sleep, their two favorite things. I've got one cat that sits and stares at me when he comes inside for the night, makes repeated trips to the bedroom, looks up at the bed and then at me, saying, "Hey, I'm sleepy. Let's hit the sack." And he won't go bed without me, likes to sleep curled up behind my knees or around my feet. Another cat crawls up in my lap and gives me a little nip to remind me it's time for his rubs, his attention for the day. They all have a way of telling me what they want, and like children, they act up sometimes. If Gracie, a calico cat, doesn't get what she wants, she pees on something that belongs to me.
Animals can be selfish, moody, angry, sad, disappointed, happy, or playful, just like people can, and they show that through behavior. Animals grieve when one of their own kind dies, or is sick. My little cocker spaniel dogs knows when you feel bad and tries to comfort you. The cats have ways of telling me when something isn't right, when they feel bad . . . and you only know these things when you pay attention, listen or observe their language. And like with people, some dogs and cats have certain personality traits and mannerisms. In fact, each one of them is different from the others in some way, and what works for one of them might not work for the others. You can't treat all of them the same way.
Some of my cats, for instance, are totally dependent, while others are free spirits that want to be allowed a lot of freedom to move about and do things their way. Not all of them are friends, and some conflicts develop between cats that don't like each other. Sometimes that changes when they reach an accommodation. Sometimes they never do that and you have to keep them separated. And sometimes, you'll notice some real love affairs between two animals. Some of our cats are more attached to the dogs than they are to the other cats, want to be around them all the time. Do they share a language of some kind? I think so.
Most people have an anthropocentric relationships with animals, and that comes from the erroneous assumption that we are superior to them. Have you ever seen a human being as graceful as a cat? Can you jump six feet off the ground, or navigate along the top of a wood fence only a half inch wide? No, and you can't move at an unbelievable speed either, and you can't climb a tree like a squirrel either. Compared to a cat, you are slow and clumsy and plodding . . . and perhaps stupid. We can't take on any of the physical attributes of a cat, but they can sure take on some of ours. Anyone who takes time to work with them knows how much they are capable of learning. I've got an Australian cow dog with a working vocabulary of several hundred words, and that's because she pays attention to what I say. So do my cats, and I talk to them a lot . . . and they talk back.
Animals don't need to wear a wristwatch to know what time it is, and they don't need to watch the weather reports to know what's ahead. My cow dog knows in advance when rain is coming. She hates it because the thunder and lightening scare her, and I can tell from her movements when something is in the air. My cats tend to huddle up when bad weather is coming. They tell me when it's time to eat and sleep, their two favorite things. I've got one cat that sits and stares at me when he comes inside for the night, makes repeated trips to the bedroom, looks up at the bed and then at me, saying, "Hey, I'm sleepy. Let's hit the sack." And he won't go bed without me, likes to sleep curled up behind my knees or around my feet. Another cat crawls up in my lap and gives me a little nip to remind me it's time for his rubs, his attention for the day. They all have a way of telling me what they want, and like children, they act up sometimes. If Gracie, a calico cat, doesn't get what she wants, she pees on something that belongs to me.
Animals can be selfish, moody, angry, sad, disappointed, happy, or playful, just like people can, and they show that through behavior. Animals grieve when one of their own kind dies, or is sick. My little cocker spaniel dogs knows when you feel bad and tries to comfort you. The cats have ways of telling me when something isn't right, when they feel bad . . . and you only know these things when you pay attention, listen or observe their language. And like with people, some dogs and cats have certain personality traits and mannerisms. In fact, each one of them is different from the others in some way, and what works for one of them might not work for the others. You can't treat all of them the same way.
Some of my cats, for instance, are totally dependent, while others are free spirits that want to be allowed a lot of freedom to move about and do things their way. Not all of them are friends, and some conflicts develop between cats that don't like each other. Sometimes that changes when they reach an accommodation. Sometimes they never do that and you have to keep them separated. And sometimes, you'll notice some real love affairs between two animals. Some of our cats are more attached to the dogs than they are to the other cats, want to be around them all the time. Do they share a language of some kind? I think so.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
IT'S A SMALL WORLD, AIN'T IT?
I see disturbing news reports of American teenagers trying to leave the country to join up with ISIS. A few if them have apparently been successful . . . and I'm glad. What disturbs me most is that we actually go to lengths to stop them from leaving because a part of me says, or rather shouts, "LET THE LITTLE BASTARDS GO! Another thing that disturbs me is how small the world is getting to be due to all the media devices now at our disposal. As long as we have Facebook, Twitter, global websites, cell phones, and other electronic gizmos, we're shrinking boundaries that have protected us some in the past. Everybody seems to know what everybody else is doing these days, and that's not always good.
The war against terrorism has become one of technology, ours against theirs. Bombs are no longer as important as we would like for them to be . . . not unless we resort to using the really big ones . . . you know, the nuclear bombs. That's a quick and easy solution to the problem in terms of disposing of those who want to tear you down, but it presents an even bigger problem: Who and where would we bomb? We knew exactly who the enemy was and where they were when we nuked the Japanese back in 1945, but we can't do that with terrorists. For one thing, if we did, we'd have to consider bombing ourselves. We could bomb Iraq, or Syria, or Iran, or any number of middle eastern countries, but that would cause problems we might not recover from. That would make us one of the bad guys, and we don't want to wear that tag forever.
Perhaps the solution is really in the very thing we find most threatening right now, and that the technology explosion that makes the world a smaller place. We can no longer protect our borders because they aren't as clearly marked now. And then there's the threat of disease, like the ebola thing. Here we become victims of our own craving for liberty, the freedom to move about at will, go where we want, do what we want, all that. We might also be victims of our inclination to be the good guys who rush to the aid of stricken nations . . . like doctors going to Africa to help fight ebola . . . and then bringing it home with them. We hate any form of government interference with our freedoms, even during times when we're under attack from disease or terrorists. A good, far-reaching propaganda campaign against that might be in order . . . and some good old common sense might work too.
The war against terrorism has become one of technology, ours against theirs. Bombs are no longer as important as we would like for them to be . . . not unless we resort to using the really big ones . . . you know, the nuclear bombs. That's a quick and easy solution to the problem in terms of disposing of those who want to tear you down, but it presents an even bigger problem: Who and where would we bomb? We knew exactly who the enemy was and where they were when we nuked the Japanese back in 1945, but we can't do that with terrorists. For one thing, if we did, we'd have to consider bombing ourselves. We could bomb Iraq, or Syria, or Iran, or any number of middle eastern countries, but that would cause problems we might not recover from. That would make us one of the bad guys, and we don't want to wear that tag forever.
Perhaps the solution is really in the very thing we find most threatening right now, and that the technology explosion that makes the world a smaller place. We can no longer protect our borders because they aren't as clearly marked now. And then there's the threat of disease, like the ebola thing. Here we become victims of our own craving for liberty, the freedom to move about at will, go where we want, do what we want, all that. We might also be victims of our inclination to be the good guys who rush to the aid of stricken nations . . . like doctors going to Africa to help fight ebola . . . and then bringing it home with them. We hate any form of government interference with our freedoms, even during times when we're under attack from disease or terrorists. A good, far-reaching propaganda campaign against that might be in order . . . and some good old common sense might work too.
Friday, October 24, 2014
OLIGARCHY: A WARNING COME TO PASS
One of the first books I was required to read while studying political science was The Iron Law of Oligarchy, written by Michels and Pareto. It pointed out a flaw in democracy, saying oligarchies would arise among them. An oligarchy is rule by a few from behind the scenes, such as a strong military or religions group or a wealthy elite. Sound familiar? It should because that's what you're currently living under in these United States of America. We aren't a full-fledged oligarchy, not in the sense perhaps like you'd find in other countries, but we're definitely no longer a full-fledged democracy either.
We still vote politicians into office, but what's behind all that? Nobody can get elected to Congress these days without the support of big money, and the country is full of monied people looking for influence in government. Most of your representatives in Congress are essentially bought and paid for, and beholding to groups with money who put them there. That, partner, ain't democracy. Want to be President? You'll have to sell yourself to these monied interests, or you won't get there, and the same is true all down the line. I grew up in a small town that was essentially run by a few wealthy and prominent men, and they never held public office. Everyone who lived there knew this, didn't care because they trusted the elite more than they did the politicians. I now live in a small town run the same way. None of the people who really wield power around here hold public office, but they still run the town, and again, nobody cares.
We have a hard time getting people to vote in America, and when the public doesn't vote in big numbers, the changes grow that somebody behind the scenes will end up running things. They have a better chance of getting their folks elected to office with a low voter turnout. If we can get over 60 percent of the registered voters to the polls for a Presidential election, that's good. That percentage goes down some for other public offices, and it seems that the further down the line you go, the lower the percentages go. Here in my home town, which has a population of around 6,000, city council jobs are usually won with some 500 votes. County offices are won with low vote totals. Members of the state legislature are likewise won with low vote totals. That means most people choose not to vote, and if you ask they why, you get a response like, "It doesn't make any difference."
I've studied voting trends for a long time, and I used to tell my college classes that democracy in this country has turned out to be lazy and indifferent. Most people just don't care enough to vote in big numbers, and the people who do care enough want something from government. And when the people who want the most have big money, the outcome is inevitable. They buy government. The grand idea of an independent representative going into public office has not come to pass . . . but the warnings from Pareto and Michels has. It's a basic fact of life that the elite will always look for ways to take over, run things, reap the rewards of those efforts, and that's not part of the democratic principle. I wouldn't dare say that allowing the elite to govern, whether it's out in the open or behind the scenes, is always a bad thing. But it's a bad thing for democracy, for the people who live under it. The only way the masses can stop that is by voting, and you can't do that until you work toward organizing people. That's a near impossible job.
We work through political parties in America, and most people don't like politics much. I suppose one could make the argument that a political party itself is an oligarchy wanting to control government. We choose not to identify them as such, and that's perhaps proper. That's the system we have, so it's the one we must work with. We have choices between candidates from the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, and from a few independent office seekers. The best we can hope for is that our party wins, and that means that for a while we have government by Democrats, or government by Republicans. That way, we know who to give credit to when things go well, and who to blame when they go wrong. My worry is: Who should we blame when things go wrong most of the time?
We still vote politicians into office, but what's behind all that? Nobody can get elected to Congress these days without the support of big money, and the country is full of monied people looking for influence in government. Most of your representatives in Congress are essentially bought and paid for, and beholding to groups with money who put them there. That, partner, ain't democracy. Want to be President? You'll have to sell yourself to these monied interests, or you won't get there, and the same is true all down the line. I grew up in a small town that was essentially run by a few wealthy and prominent men, and they never held public office. Everyone who lived there knew this, didn't care because they trusted the elite more than they did the politicians. I now live in a small town run the same way. None of the people who really wield power around here hold public office, but they still run the town, and again, nobody cares.
We have a hard time getting people to vote in America, and when the public doesn't vote in big numbers, the changes grow that somebody behind the scenes will end up running things. They have a better chance of getting their folks elected to office with a low voter turnout. If we can get over 60 percent of the registered voters to the polls for a Presidential election, that's good. That percentage goes down some for other public offices, and it seems that the further down the line you go, the lower the percentages go. Here in my home town, which has a population of around 6,000, city council jobs are usually won with some 500 votes. County offices are won with low vote totals. Members of the state legislature are likewise won with low vote totals. That means most people choose not to vote, and if you ask they why, you get a response like, "It doesn't make any difference."
I've studied voting trends for a long time, and I used to tell my college classes that democracy in this country has turned out to be lazy and indifferent. Most people just don't care enough to vote in big numbers, and the people who do care enough want something from government. And when the people who want the most have big money, the outcome is inevitable. They buy government. The grand idea of an independent representative going into public office has not come to pass . . . but the warnings from Pareto and Michels has. It's a basic fact of life that the elite will always look for ways to take over, run things, reap the rewards of those efforts, and that's not part of the democratic principle. I wouldn't dare say that allowing the elite to govern, whether it's out in the open or behind the scenes, is always a bad thing. But it's a bad thing for democracy, for the people who live under it. The only way the masses can stop that is by voting, and you can't do that until you work toward organizing people. That's a near impossible job.
We work through political parties in America, and most people don't like politics much. I suppose one could make the argument that a political party itself is an oligarchy wanting to control government. We choose not to identify them as such, and that's perhaps proper. That's the system we have, so it's the one we must work with. We have choices between candidates from the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, and from a few independent office seekers. The best we can hope for is that our party wins, and that means that for a while we have government by Democrats, or government by Republicans. That way, we know who to give credit to when things go well, and who to blame when they go wrong. My worry is: Who should we blame when things go wrong most of the time?
Thursday, October 23, 2014
AGING GRACEFULLY JUST NOT IN THE CARDS
You wake up one morning and something is missing, and it takes you a while to figure out what's gone. You still have demands, obligations, duties to perform, but for some reason they just don't seem all that important anymore. You don't really look forward to anything; you're just passing time. Yeah, time, the thing you're running out of. That alone should put anyone into panic mode - the thought that before long you'll be gone. The big problem isn't that the end is just around the corner; it's a matter of what to do with what time you have left . . . or think you have left . . . and there's no way of knowing when or how it ends for you. It almost seems like a waste of time to do anything at all, and that's what old age is all about - dealing with short time.
But regardless of how short time might be, it's still here, and you've still got things to do, or should do. My closest friend died about 15 years ago, and shortly thereafter his wife said, "I'm so disappointed for him because he had such big plans. He wanted to write more, go places, be involved in things, and all that got cut short." My response to her was a simple question: "Would you have wanted him to die doing nothing, just sitting and waiting on an end to it all?" Those words come back to haunt me now. I was with him just hours before he passed, knew he was in desperate shape, and I let him send me away. I had been pleading with him to return to the hospital, see if they couldn't do something for him . . . but he was resolute about not going back. I know now that he didn't want help, that he'd had all he wanted and was ready for the end.
I'm now a good dozen years older than he was when his life ended, just short of being the same age my father was when he died. Neither of those men waited it out, didn't stop doing things because they're bodies were shutting down. They knew time was short, but they kept going, kept making plans and looking forward to something. I've stopped writing, have book projects going but can't find the inspiration or determination to finish them, and I don't work on much of anything else anymore. I have chores to attend to because I'm a caretaker for quite a few small animals, dogs and cats mostly. I've got those daily chores to run, bills to pay, upkeep of property to see about, and so I'm not idle. But I know what's missing, and I have no idea how to get it back. I'm not excited about anything, don't have any real plans for the future. And I'm not afraid, not really worried either. As of just last week, when I had my normal six months check-up, the doctor said everything was fine, that my tests were the best he'd seen in me since I'd been his patient. I'm in decent physical shape, but somehow that hasn't translated into anything productive. I am not aging gracefully, at least not when it comes to actually doing anything worthwhile.
I went to the refrigerator the other day and looked inside at all the jars and packages of things that were 90 percent used up but still there. Why had I not finished off that jar of mayo? A couple of sandwiches, and it would've been gone, just another jar I could toss into the trash. Then it hit me. Why bother? It's just a few tablespoons of mayo, so why not just throw it away and clear out some
space in the refrigerator? Because it's a bother, that's why. You have to dig deep into the jar to get out what's left . . . and old age is the same. I'm down to having to work harder to get what little is left out of life, and I'm letting that shut me down. You can't save it, that's for sure . . . so why not just go ahead a use it up?
Maybe it's just a gesture, but I'm going to have a sandwich, and it's not even lunch time. I might be wrong, but I figure the last few slices of ham or those few last bites of mayo will taste just fine . . . and then, they will be gone. And that's the way it should be.
But regardless of how short time might be, it's still here, and you've still got things to do, or should do. My closest friend died about 15 years ago, and shortly thereafter his wife said, "I'm so disappointed for him because he had such big plans. He wanted to write more, go places, be involved in things, and all that got cut short." My response to her was a simple question: "Would you have wanted him to die doing nothing, just sitting and waiting on an end to it all?" Those words come back to haunt me now. I was with him just hours before he passed, knew he was in desperate shape, and I let him send me away. I had been pleading with him to return to the hospital, see if they couldn't do something for him . . . but he was resolute about not going back. I know now that he didn't want help, that he'd had all he wanted and was ready for the end.
I'm now a good dozen years older than he was when his life ended, just short of being the same age my father was when he died. Neither of those men waited it out, didn't stop doing things because they're bodies were shutting down. They knew time was short, but they kept going, kept making plans and looking forward to something. I've stopped writing, have book projects going but can't find the inspiration or determination to finish them, and I don't work on much of anything else anymore. I have chores to attend to because I'm a caretaker for quite a few small animals, dogs and cats mostly. I've got those daily chores to run, bills to pay, upkeep of property to see about, and so I'm not idle. But I know what's missing, and I have no idea how to get it back. I'm not excited about anything, don't have any real plans for the future. And I'm not afraid, not really worried either. As of just last week, when I had my normal six months check-up, the doctor said everything was fine, that my tests were the best he'd seen in me since I'd been his patient. I'm in decent physical shape, but somehow that hasn't translated into anything productive. I am not aging gracefully, at least not when it comes to actually doing anything worthwhile.
I went to the refrigerator the other day and looked inside at all the jars and packages of things that were 90 percent used up but still there. Why had I not finished off that jar of mayo? A couple of sandwiches, and it would've been gone, just another jar I could toss into the trash. Then it hit me. Why bother? It's just a few tablespoons of mayo, so why not just throw it away and clear out some
space in the refrigerator? Because it's a bother, that's why. You have to dig deep into the jar to get out what's left . . . and old age is the same. I'm down to having to work harder to get what little is left out of life, and I'm letting that shut me down. You can't save it, that's for sure . . . so why not just go ahead a use it up?
Maybe it's just a gesture, but I'm going to have a sandwich, and it's not even lunch time. I might be wrong, but I figure the last few slices of ham or those few last bites of mayo will taste just fine . . . and then, they will be gone. And that's the way it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)