So yesterday, President Obama gave a nice uplifting speech, which the media followed with a so-called "Republican response". Of course it was given by the new Republican sweetheart Bobby J. The conservatives answer to solving their old man image for 2012.
But anyway, as much as Bobby's little speech was charming at first, I heard at least two "talking points" that smelled funny to me.
First of all--calling volcano monitoring frivolous pork spending. Ha! Volcano's might sound outlandish in Louisiana, but here in Alaska that's important stuff. I'm sure Mr. Bobby has no idea that volcano ash clouds could crash international jet liners. Just like "levy building" might seem wasteful in Kentucky, doesn't mean it's wrong for the bayou. Therefore how can you judge spending just because it doesn't affect your little corner of the world??
Then there is the beat-the-dead-horse line about Government smart cars. Now what is the problem with replacing the Government's fleet of cars with new super hybrids?? I mean do the Republicans enjoy paying high gasoline prices for Government SUV's or F-150's?? I just don't get it. Any expense that could save much more money 5 years from now is mocked, mocked, mocked. Everything is about short-term gains in the Republican party. I assume this is why their politics mesh with the religious right--since dooms day is coming and the world will end soon anyway, there's no point in looking at the big picture.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Blah, Blah Free Market
Finally I see more articles in the media about some of the failures of our current free market. Mostly stemming from the anger caused by the banking situation, but more recently a case in Pennsylvania came to light.
Namely, some judges put more kids in private (for profit) juvenile detention centers after receiving financial kick backs to do so. What caused this whole scandal was the change from state-run facilities to private ones in order to save money. The old conservative argument: privatize everything and save money! Yay! Government is wasteful, the private sector is always better! The market always corrects itself, blah, blah.
So I can't figure out if these free market dip shits really believe their own words, or do they just say these things to ensure their own access to wealth driven schemes continues.
Case in point- Through my years I have worked in 3 different social service agencies. Two were for profit, one non-profit. The first (a boarding school for emotionally disturbed children) was a fairly ok place, but it was surprising that kids treatment plans, were directly correlated to their insurance money. If your money ran out--you were "cured", but if you had plenty of insurance, treatment continued, regardless of your progress. But that's not as bad as the therapy center I worked at later. No matter how much I begged and argued with my supervisors to discontinue services to certain clients (because they obviously did not need them anymore), their names continued on our rosters, simply because they had the insurance to cover it. These situations wouldn't even be remotely considered corruption cases, but it helped open my eyes to how people behave when the dollar is at stake.
So I can never really understand how these conservative think tanks pat themselves on the back talking about "the free market will take care of itself". It's like some kind of delusional dream. Do they live in isolation and have never met human beings? Don't they even know that greed trumps all? I mean we are wired that way. My dog will tell you she certainly is. Leave the dog food out without locking it up---and the whole bag will be eaten.
Namely, some judges put more kids in private (for profit) juvenile detention centers after receiving financial kick backs to do so. What caused this whole scandal was the change from state-run facilities to private ones in order to save money. The old conservative argument: privatize everything and save money! Yay! Government is wasteful, the private sector is always better! The market always corrects itself, blah, blah.
So I can't figure out if these free market dip shits really believe their own words, or do they just say these things to ensure their own access to wealth driven schemes continues.
Case in point- Through my years I have worked in 3 different social service agencies. Two were for profit, one non-profit. The first (a boarding school for emotionally disturbed children) was a fairly ok place, but it was surprising that kids treatment plans, were directly correlated to their insurance money. If your money ran out--you were "cured", but if you had plenty of insurance, treatment continued, regardless of your progress. But that's not as bad as the therapy center I worked at later. No matter how much I begged and argued with my supervisors to discontinue services to certain clients (because they obviously did not need them anymore), their names continued on our rosters, simply because they had the insurance to cover it. These situations wouldn't even be remotely considered corruption cases, but it helped open my eyes to how people behave when the dollar is at stake.
So I can never really understand how these conservative think tanks pat themselves on the back talking about "the free market will take care of itself". It's like some kind of delusional dream. Do they live in isolation and have never met human beings? Don't they even know that greed trumps all? I mean we are wired that way. My dog will tell you she certainly is. Leave the dog food out without locking it up---and the whole bag will be eaten.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Economy Wants Us Soft
So here we are, living in this great country with an economic system based on the simple principle that if we just buy stuff- everyone will have good jobs and live happily ever after.
There is a fundamental logic to this, as on a small scale you can see--buying some sugar from Sam's General Store helps Sam and Sam in turn will buy my wheat...or something like that.
But then the town's population increases & increases again, thus you keep needing to grow this tyre of system indefinitely. And nobody is happy with slow growth--they want it fast --so some can be wealthy.
What's the result??? Well advertising, pressure to buy and keeping up with the Joneses--and worse-- the conviction that you need so much just to exist.
That's how I define "soft"--the inability to fend for yourself. A night without TV, ipods, cell phones, microwaves, and climate control has now become an impossibility for many Americans.
Just recently the Anchorage news was reporting on a family of African immigrants arriving in Alaska. The kind social service agency assisting them gave them boxes of "necessities"--shaving cream, shampoo, furniture, toys.. What's interesting to note--is that the man interviewed simply called these items--"luxuries". He was almost surprised that he needed all these items to survive, especially after coming from an African refugee camp.
Not that I feel this family shouldn't get the gifts, of course they needed them in order to fit in, go to school and get jobs. It's just amazing to see that it is all a matter of perception. How much we have become dependent on material goods or what could be considered luxuries. And most of us are not immune, I myself am no fan of camping and always lug wet wipes into the wilderness. And even then, I feel itchy without having a hot shower for 1 or 2 nights.
We so easily get hooked on instant messages, cell phones and 24 hour climate control all in the name of keeping the economy chugging along. Folks complain about the high cost of raising children without a hint of irony that these kid costs are mostly made up of buying fancy strollers, brand new gym shoes and keeping up with video game systems. Otherwise our kiddies will be mocked--that's the system we live in.
There is a fundamental logic to this, as on a small scale you can see--buying some sugar from Sam's General Store helps Sam and Sam in turn will buy my wheat...or something like that.
But then the town's population increases & increases again, thus you keep needing to grow this tyre of system indefinitely. And nobody is happy with slow growth--they want it fast --so some can be wealthy.
What's the result??? Well advertising, pressure to buy and keeping up with the Joneses--and worse-- the conviction that you need so much just to exist.
That's how I define "soft"--the inability to fend for yourself. A night without TV, ipods, cell phones, microwaves, and climate control has now become an impossibility for many Americans.
Just recently the Anchorage news was reporting on a family of African immigrants arriving in Alaska. The kind social service agency assisting them gave them boxes of "necessities"--shaving cream, shampoo, furniture, toys.. What's interesting to note--is that the man interviewed simply called these items--"luxuries". He was almost surprised that he needed all these items to survive, especially after coming from an African refugee camp.
Not that I feel this family shouldn't get the gifts, of course they needed them in order to fit in, go to school and get jobs. It's just amazing to see that it is all a matter of perception. How much we have become dependent on material goods or what could be considered luxuries. And most of us are not immune, I myself am no fan of camping and always lug wet wipes into the wilderness. And even then, I feel itchy without having a hot shower for 1 or 2 nights.
We so easily get hooked on instant messages, cell phones and 24 hour climate control all in the name of keeping the economy chugging along. Folks complain about the high cost of raising children without a hint of irony that these kid costs are mostly made up of buying fancy strollers, brand new gym shoes and keeping up with video game systems. Otherwise our kiddies will be mocked--that's the system we live in.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Your Right to Own a Chimp
The compelling news story of the week is the tragic and violent chimp attack upon a family friend.
Not even waiting for the fur to settle, news headlines are already calling to ban chimp ownership and report those that do so illegally. What a crazy over-reaction in my opinion!!!
Honestly, I'm not really pro pet chimps, mostly because it fuels the exotic pet trade--and these animals could be pulled from the wild. But if you happen upon a wild animal in some other, more ethical, manner--why is everyone so up in arms about your right to keep it? Especially by using the "safety" argument? Certainly, it appears the chimp could have attacked a neighborhood child or unsuspecting jogger--and this is a good point. But what about all the other things that you may have at home that could harm the neighbors??
This is the slippery slope. So many folks own guns, and it's no secret that kids (and drunken adults) find guns and commit accidental shootings. I just read too, that a home swimming pool is actually more risky than some may think. And what about the family dog, or say you own a scorpion???
So that's all I'm saying, that you can't have groups defending your rights to own some dangerous things, but ban the right to own others. It just doesn't make sense.
Not even waiting for the fur to settle, news headlines are already calling to ban chimp ownership and report those that do so illegally. What a crazy over-reaction in my opinion!!!
Honestly, I'm not really pro pet chimps, mostly because it fuels the exotic pet trade--and these animals could be pulled from the wild. But if you happen upon a wild animal in some other, more ethical, manner--why is everyone so up in arms about your right to keep it? Especially by using the "safety" argument? Certainly, it appears the chimp could have attacked a neighborhood child or unsuspecting jogger--and this is a good point. But what about all the other things that you may have at home that could harm the neighbors??
This is the slippery slope. So many folks own guns, and it's no secret that kids (and drunken adults) find guns and commit accidental shootings. I just read too, that a home swimming pool is actually more risky than some may think. And what about the family dog, or say you own a scorpion???
So that's all I'm saying, that you can't have groups defending your rights to own some dangerous things, but ban the right to own others. It just doesn't make sense.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Small House Phobia
I am on a mission to cure others of small house phobia. And no, it's not just because I myself live in a tiny dwelling in Alaska, but because I feel that subdivision sprawl is a social and environmental ill.
Some of the obvious reasons large houses suck: tremendous amounts of unsustainable building materials, difficult to heat, a pain to fill with furniture and clean. Who even feels warm and cozy in a sprawling McMansion?? And can you even find your own kids? The huge houses of the past were at least built with quality building materials and beauty in mind. But now you throw together 4,000 square feet of particle wood and slap in a granite counter top and call it luxury.
Here's the reason most would cite for needing a large home: "I need more space."
Here's the real reason they buy a large home: "I want to impress people. Everyone will now know that I am a success and a fantastic person as I have a huge home. They will all want to be my friend and admire me."
The reason I believe #2, not #1 is that unless you have like 5 kids, people usually only think they need more space is to fill it with useless junk and clutter. Again, this isn't the 1800's when people would fill a mansion with art collections and libraries. Oh no. Now it's just to stick huge TV's on flat surfaces, particle board end tables cluttered with DVD collections, and plastic playhouses in the back yard. Some can't even afford to furnish their Mc Mansion with anything at all, so all you see are giant rooms filled with one couch and an echo.
My own tiny house reminds me that I need to constantly bring our unused stuff to the salvation army or other thrift stores. And this is a true blessing. We just can't saddle ourselves with unused clutter because there is no place to put it.
Of course the economy benefits when people pay others to bulldoze trees and build them giant hamburger houses. But wouldn't the amount of $$ going back to the people be the same if we just scaled down the homes and built them with fantastic and natural materials instead? Stone, brick, adobe. Local wood. And built them well so they would stand for generations? Spend more and put in solar, grey water and other eco-friendly systems??? Then furnish them with fine Amish furniture or other local artisan fares?
So let the addiction go--embrace small instead!
Some of the obvious reasons large houses suck: tremendous amounts of unsustainable building materials, difficult to heat, a pain to fill with furniture and clean. Who even feels warm and cozy in a sprawling McMansion?? And can you even find your own kids? The huge houses of the past were at least built with quality building materials and beauty in mind. But now you throw together 4,000 square feet of particle wood and slap in a granite counter top and call it luxury.
Here's the reason most would cite for needing a large home: "I need more space."
Here's the real reason they buy a large home: "I want to impress people. Everyone will now know that I am a success and a fantastic person as I have a huge home. They will all want to be my friend and admire me."
The reason I believe #2, not #1 is that unless you have like 5 kids, people usually only think they need more space is to fill it with useless junk and clutter. Again, this isn't the 1800's when people would fill a mansion with art collections and libraries. Oh no. Now it's just to stick huge TV's on flat surfaces, particle board end tables cluttered with DVD collections, and plastic playhouses in the back yard. Some can't even afford to furnish their Mc Mansion with anything at all, so all you see are giant rooms filled with one couch and an echo.
My own tiny house reminds me that I need to constantly bring our unused stuff to the salvation army or other thrift stores. And this is a true blessing. We just can't saddle ourselves with unused clutter because there is no place to put it.
Of course the economy benefits when people pay others to bulldoze trees and build them giant hamburger houses. But wouldn't the amount of $$ going back to the people be the same if we just scaled down the homes and built them with fantastic and natural materials instead? Stone, brick, adobe. Local wood. And built them well so they would stand for generations? Spend more and put in solar, grey water and other eco-friendly systems??? Then furnish them with fine Amish furniture or other local artisan fares?
So let the addiction go--embrace small instead!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
