Thursday, March 22, 2012
AMENDMENT XXVIII
The Constitution of the United States applies exclusively to Citizens of the United States as defined in Amendment XIV and shall not be construed to apply to any other persons, groups of persons, organizations, corporations or other entities, nor shall the rights guaranteed therein be extended to any other persons, groups of persons, organizations, corporations or other entities.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Christian Values
Have you ever given much thought to Christian values and to what extent do those who preach the loudest actually practice the teachings of Christ? To understand true Christian values, you have to go back to what Christ taught his followers. Those teachings can be summarized as
o Love of God
o Love of mankind
o Forgiveness
o Charity
o Fidelity in marriage
o Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
As one observes Christian fundamentalists, one notices that while preaching the love of God, they show far more love of material wealth, power and pleasure than of God. But this is exactly what God forbade in the first commandment and what Jesus taught his followers not to do. So what does that say about modern Christian values?
As one further observes the attitudes of Christian fundamentalists toward others, one notices far more intolerance, hate and vindictiveness toward those who don't adhere to their particular dogma and real love for very few people (and only so long as they walk the straight and narrow). So what does that say about the modern Christian value of love of all mankind?
Proceeding to forgiveness, all we hear from Christian fundamentalists is condemnation and damnation of all who don't adhere to their particular brand of dogma. Where is forgiveness in all this?
Now about charity, where is the charity in those who would deprive 25% of the nation's population of adequate health care. (Remember, Jesus spent a lot of time healing the sick and he healed poor people as well as rich people and didn't ask for money). Where is the charity of those who would deprive the elderly, the sick or disadvantaged of the basic necessities of life? (What about giving alms to the poor - not just to get a tax write-off. What about casting off all thy wealth in order to enter the kingdom of God? What happened to all that?)
About fidelity in marriage, it seems to be ok for some to philander so long as you don't get caught and you preach the correct dogma. It is even ok to reward some philanderers with offers of high office and praise them along the way.
Finally, there is the golden rule: To what extent do Christian fundamentalists actually practice the golden rule. This rule, which is mentioned more than once in the New Testament (Matthew and Luke) is one of the most important rules in all civilization and is not unique to Christianity but is taught in all major religions. Observe how the modern Christian fundamentalist treats others and then ask him if that's the way he would like to be treated. The answer I have received to this question is "Well, that's the way he would have treated me." Whoa! Where the hell did that come from? (Pun intended. It probably came from just that place.)
Now let me summarize what I observe to be the modern Christian fundamentalists' values.
o Love of material wealth and pleasure above all things
o Love only those who conform to your dogma (and only so long as they do)
o Damn and condemn everyone else
o Greed and self enrichment are virtuous and praiseworthy.
o Philandering is acceptable and worthy of high office only if you preach the right dogma.
o New Golden Rule: "do unto others before they do unto you"
Now I'm not a religious person, but I firmly support Christian values as taught in the New Testament. Unfortunately, those values are not consistent with the values I observe expressed by the behavior of Christian fundamentalists, and I have to agree with Mohandas Ghandi who once said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
In conclusion, I find almost nothing that is Christ-like in Christian fundamentalism.
o Love of God
o Love of mankind
o Forgiveness
o Charity
o Fidelity in marriage
o Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
As one observes Christian fundamentalists, one notices that while preaching the love of God, they show far more love of material wealth, power and pleasure than of God. But this is exactly what God forbade in the first commandment and what Jesus taught his followers not to do. So what does that say about modern Christian values?
As one further observes the attitudes of Christian fundamentalists toward others, one notices far more intolerance, hate and vindictiveness toward those who don't adhere to their particular dogma and real love for very few people (and only so long as they walk the straight and narrow). So what does that say about the modern Christian value of love of all mankind?
Proceeding to forgiveness, all we hear from Christian fundamentalists is condemnation and damnation of all who don't adhere to their particular brand of dogma. Where is forgiveness in all this?
Now about charity, where is the charity in those who would deprive 25% of the nation's population of adequate health care. (Remember, Jesus spent a lot of time healing the sick and he healed poor people as well as rich people and didn't ask for money). Where is the charity of those who would deprive the elderly, the sick or disadvantaged of the basic necessities of life? (What about giving alms to the poor - not just to get a tax write-off. What about casting off all thy wealth in order to enter the kingdom of God? What happened to all that?)
About fidelity in marriage, it seems to be ok for some to philander so long as you don't get caught and you preach the correct dogma. It is even ok to reward some philanderers with offers of high office and praise them along the way.
Finally, there is the golden rule: To what extent do Christian fundamentalists actually practice the golden rule. This rule, which is mentioned more than once in the New Testament (Matthew and Luke) is one of the most important rules in all civilization and is not unique to Christianity but is taught in all major religions. Observe how the modern Christian fundamentalist treats others and then ask him if that's the way he would like to be treated. The answer I have received to this question is "Well, that's the way he would have treated me." Whoa! Where the hell did that come from? (Pun intended. It probably came from just that place.)
Now let me summarize what I observe to be the modern Christian fundamentalists' values.
o Love of material wealth and pleasure above all things
o Love only those who conform to your dogma (and only so long as they do)
o Damn and condemn everyone else
o Greed and self enrichment are virtuous and praiseworthy.
o Philandering is acceptable and worthy of high office only if you preach the right dogma.
o New Golden Rule: "do unto others before they do unto you"
Now I'm not a religious person, but I firmly support Christian values as taught in the New Testament. Unfortunately, those values are not consistent with the values I observe expressed by the behavior of Christian fundamentalists, and I have to agree with Mohandas Ghandi who once said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
In conclusion, I find almost nothing that is Christ-like in Christian fundamentalism.
Monday, February 6, 2012
How Tax Rates Have Benefited the Rich
Anyone wanting to know how tax rates have been adjusted to benefit the rich over the years since World War II should visit the Tax Foundation website at http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html. This particular link takes you to a page containing the official IRS tax tables from 1913 to 2011. The tables include what the tax rates would be adjusted for inflation from the year they applied to the present. This enables you to see what the tax rates would be for people today if they were taxed at the same rate they were in any given year. Below is a short table showing the tax rates for married couples filing jointly for 5 separate income levels taxed at 1961 tax rates and 2011 tax rates.
Taxable Income Marginal Marginal Benefit to Taxpayer
Adjusted for Tax Rate Tax Rate
Inflation 1962 2011
$ 10,000 20% 15% 5% of each $1,000 = $50.
$ 50,000 22% 15% 5% of each $1,000 = $50.
$ 100,000 30% 25% 5% of each $1,000 = $50.
$ 500,000 65% 35% 30% of each $1,000 = $300.
$1,000,000 78%+ 35% 43% of each $1,000 = $430.
Bear in mind, these tables do not reflect the changes in long term capital gains taxes which are presently limited to 15% and primarily benefit the wealthy who can afford investments.
Taxable Income Marginal Marginal Benefit to Taxpayer
Adjusted for Tax Rate Tax Rate
Inflation 1962 2011
$ 10,000 20% 15% 5% of each $1,000 = $50.
$ 50,000 22% 15% 5% of each $1,000 = $50.
$ 100,000 30% 25% 5% of each $1,000 = $50.
$ 500,000 65% 35% 30% of each $1,000 = $300.
$1,000,000 78%+ 35% 43% of each $1,000 = $430.
Bear in mind, these tables do not reflect the changes in long term capital gains taxes which are presently limited to 15% and primarily benefit the wealthy who can afford investments.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Modern Slavery
Many years ago, there was a song sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford called "16 Tons". It was the story of a coal miner and the lyrics pretty much told the story --
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
The company was the only major employer in the vicinity so miners couldn't easily find other (or better paying) jobs. The company provided the miners with housing and food, but charged them room and board. And because the mine was in a remote location, it also owned the only stores for all other miners' needs. (And charged exorbitant prices for the merchandise they sold.) As a result, the poorly paid miners ended the pay period earning little (if any) more than what they owed for room, board and the merchandise they purchased at the company store. In essence, the conditions these miners lived in amounted to a form of economic slavery.
"16 Tons" significantly increased American awareness to the economic plight of those who suffered under similar conditions and helped to eliminate similar working conditions in the US.
Consider what is happening in China. On Jan. 25, the New York times published an article "In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad" describing working conditions in a factory owned by Apple. From all other reports of working conditions in Chinese factories, Apple's factory is pretty much typical. If you look closely, you will see that the conditions that Chinese workers live in are terribly similar to those alluded to in "16 Tons". The location, language, environment and technology may be different, but the economic slavery and exploitation are not. And the sad reality is that it is primarily Americans who are financing this.
We purchase Chinese (and other foreign) goods because they are cheaper than American made goods, but in so doing we support exploitation and economic slavery in several of those countries. At the same time, we are depriving many Americans of jobs and a decent standard of living.
Looked at from a larger economic viewpoint, the resulting balance of trade deficit amounts to large amounts of American wealth being sent abroad with the net result that those who receive the bulk of that wealth (who are seldom the workers) can live lavishly and even purchase large slices of the American pie.
For a few Americans, this dependency on cheap foreign goods has become a necessity because their earnings aren't sufficient to enjoy a decent standard of living. But for most Americans, it's not a necessity, it's just convenient because it enables them to buy more toys (most of which will be discarded within a year). We are all guilty and I include myself in that. But in becoming more aware of the impact of my own behavior I am trying change my buying habits to limit my purchases to merchandise that is "Made in USA" or is at least produced under "Fair Trade" agreements.
We can only reduce modern slavery significantly by refusing to patronize those who exploit human labor. But in so doing, it is important for all of us to be much more sensitive to the conditions under which all goods and services we purchase are provided regardless of where they are produced.
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
The company was the only major employer in the vicinity so miners couldn't easily find other (or better paying) jobs. The company provided the miners with housing and food, but charged them room and board. And because the mine was in a remote location, it also owned the only stores for all other miners' needs. (And charged exorbitant prices for the merchandise they sold.) As a result, the poorly paid miners ended the pay period earning little (if any) more than what they owed for room, board and the merchandise they purchased at the company store. In essence, the conditions these miners lived in amounted to a form of economic slavery.
"16 Tons" significantly increased American awareness to the economic plight of those who suffered under similar conditions and helped to eliminate similar working conditions in the US.
Consider what is happening in China. On Jan. 25, the New York times published an article "In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad" describing working conditions in a factory owned by Apple. From all other reports of working conditions in Chinese factories, Apple's factory is pretty much typical. If you look closely, you will see that the conditions that Chinese workers live in are terribly similar to those alluded to in "16 Tons". The location, language, environment and technology may be different, but the economic slavery and exploitation are not. And the sad reality is that it is primarily Americans who are financing this.
We purchase Chinese (and other foreign) goods because they are cheaper than American made goods, but in so doing we support exploitation and economic slavery in several of those countries. At the same time, we are depriving many Americans of jobs and a decent standard of living.
Looked at from a larger economic viewpoint, the resulting balance of trade deficit amounts to large amounts of American wealth being sent abroad with the net result that those who receive the bulk of that wealth (who are seldom the workers) can live lavishly and even purchase large slices of the American pie.
For a few Americans, this dependency on cheap foreign goods has become a necessity because their earnings aren't sufficient to enjoy a decent standard of living. But for most Americans, it's not a necessity, it's just convenient because it enables them to buy more toys (most of which will be discarded within a year). We are all guilty and I include myself in that. But in becoming more aware of the impact of my own behavior I am trying change my buying habits to limit my purchases to merchandise that is "Made in USA" or is at least produced under "Fair Trade" agreements.
We can only reduce modern slavery significantly by refusing to patronize those who exploit human labor. But in so doing, it is important for all of us to be much more sensitive to the conditions under which all goods and services we purchase are provided regardless of where they are produced.
Friday, January 20, 2012
SOPA/PIPA Legislation
SOPA and it's Senate counterpart PIPA are clearly the wrong way to go.
The proposed legislation shifts the burden of copyright enforcement to internet service providers (ISPs) in essence forcing them to don the uniforms of copyright law enforcement policemen. This, they are not equipped, funded or chartered to do and it should not be their job.
Second, it is generally the subscriber who posts content to an ISP host and not the ISP host who has violated any copyright laws. Thus, the proposed legislation makes one person accountable for the behavior of others (and in this case, many others). Except in the case of parents who are accountable for the behavior of their dependent children, it is morally wrong to hold one person accountable for the behavior of another.
Third, the proposed legislation is discriminatory in that focuses only on ISPs and not on radio, television, newspaper, magazine, book publishers, libraries, and retail merchants that, in principle, differ from ISPs only in process, technology and ownership in making copyrighted material available to the public. If ISPs are going to be held accountable for copyright enforcement of all content posted to their sites, then, by the same token, all publishers, broadcasters, merchants and purveyors of all forms of copyright material should be held accountable for copyright enforcement of all content from all suppliers (advertisers included).
Fourth, the proposed legislation isn't as much about copyright protection as it is about copyright law enforcement. The existing laws protecting copyrighted material are more than adequate (perhaps too much so). What is lacking is the ability to enforce those laws which, ever since Xerox corporation produced the photo copier, has been a major problem for copyright owners. Since then, technology has provided everyone with the ability to reproduce copyrighted material in all forms thus exacerbating the problem of enforcing copyright laws. Given the inability to enforce any law invites arbitrary and often capricious enforcement of the law which is detrimental to society as a whole. (And, in fact, copyright violators are seldom prosecuted except when very large sums of money are involved. (Another form of discrimination.))
While well intentioned, the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation will create far more problems than solutions. This issue begs the question of how much protection should society give to creators of “intellectual” material. Before we plunge headlong into legislating more enforcement, we need to rethink the entire problem.
The proposed legislation shifts the burden of copyright enforcement to internet service providers (ISPs) in essence forcing them to don the uniforms of copyright law enforcement policemen. This, they are not equipped, funded or chartered to do and it should not be their job.
Second, it is generally the subscriber who posts content to an ISP host and not the ISP host who has violated any copyright laws. Thus, the proposed legislation makes one person accountable for the behavior of others (and in this case, many others). Except in the case of parents who are accountable for the behavior of their dependent children, it is morally wrong to hold one person accountable for the behavior of another.
Third, the proposed legislation is discriminatory in that focuses only on ISPs and not on radio, television, newspaper, magazine, book publishers, libraries, and retail merchants that, in principle, differ from ISPs only in process, technology and ownership in making copyrighted material available to the public. If ISPs are going to be held accountable for copyright enforcement of all content posted to their sites, then, by the same token, all publishers, broadcasters, merchants and purveyors of all forms of copyright material should be held accountable for copyright enforcement of all content from all suppliers (advertisers included).
Fourth, the proposed legislation isn't as much about copyright protection as it is about copyright law enforcement. The existing laws protecting copyrighted material are more than adequate (perhaps too much so). What is lacking is the ability to enforce those laws which, ever since Xerox corporation produced the photo copier, has been a major problem for copyright owners. Since then, technology has provided everyone with the ability to reproduce copyrighted material in all forms thus exacerbating the problem of enforcing copyright laws. Given the inability to enforce any law invites arbitrary and often capricious enforcement of the law which is detrimental to society as a whole. (And, in fact, copyright violators are seldom prosecuted except when very large sums of money are involved. (Another form of discrimination.))
While well intentioned, the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation will create far more problems than solutions. This issue begs the question of how much protection should society give to creators of “intellectual” material. Before we plunge headlong into legislating more enforcement, we need to rethink the entire problem.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Discontent with our Government
I hear way too much complaining about the symptoms of the disease and not near enough discussion about the disease or its cure. The disease is hiding in plain view and anyone who opens his eyes to it will immediately recognize both it and its cure. The disease is American voter apathy and the cure is to wake up the citizenry, remove their opiates and turn them into informed and involved voters.
Be forewarned. While the cure may be more painful that the current symptoms, if untreated, the disease is fatal.
Be forewarned. While the cure may be more painful that the current symptoms, if untreated, the disease is fatal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)