I've seen the new Walmart commercials, including the one with a man that says "When people look at me, I hope they see someone building a better life" and I want to finish the sentence "on the backs of the underpaid and abused Walmart workers." Because that IS what's happening.
I know there are people who need to shop at Walmart, even though these commercials are trying to appeal to better off shoppers, but the fact remains that the 'savings' the shoppers are getting come right out of the hides of the workers and the suppliers workers. This is no way to run an economy. The people at the top of Walmart take home $20 million plus. Those at the bottom $15K. They are not, as the people in the ad, putting aside a little for braces or college, they are praying they can keep feeding their family.
Many of them can't without government aid.
And then we have a Congressman quoting the bible about those who won't work not eating - OK, let's start with making sure all those who DO work can eat! Even that would be better than what we have now!
Walmart has stepped up for the environment, building green stores and carrying organic produce.
Smithfield stepped up for animal rights, guaranteeing the pigs humane working conditions.
Both companies did this BEFORE they would give their workers decent conditions.
Why is it that any other, every other concession will be made before simply treating your workers as human beings with the God given right to a decent life? Not anything special, not luxury, just a decent comfortable life.
And why do the American people continue to allow this?
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
Meeting halfway
First, let me say that I, like the vast majority of progressives, believe in the right to bear arms. Even someone like myself who finds no need to arm myself, is willing to let many people do so if they want or think they need to.
Second, the vast majority of conservatives really don't believe in an absolute right to bear any arms. No really, they don't. Unless you believe in the right of every human who wants to possess a nuclear bomb to do so, you believe in some form of arms control. Bombs and many other military type weapons are prohibited to non-military people and no one complains about that.
So really what we are talking about is a difference of degree in our desires for arms restrictions.
No one (sane) wants unfettered access and no one (contrary to the hyped up rhetoric of some so called leaders) wants total restriction.
Maybe if we can just realize this and take a few breaths, we can start to have a normal discussion on how to bridge the relatively small distance between us.
P.S. to those sending toxic letters: You are really not doing your side any favors by making it seem to be populated by crazy people.
Second, the vast majority of conservatives really don't believe in an absolute right to bear any arms. No really, they don't. Unless you believe in the right of every human who wants to possess a nuclear bomb to do so, you believe in some form of arms control. Bombs and many other military type weapons are prohibited to non-military people and no one complains about that.
So really what we are talking about is a difference of degree in our desires for arms restrictions.
No one (sane) wants unfettered access and no one (contrary to the hyped up rhetoric of some so called leaders) wants total restriction.
Maybe if we can just realize this and take a few breaths, we can start to have a normal discussion on how to bridge the relatively small distance between us.
P.S. to those sending toxic letters: You are really not doing your side any favors by making it seem to be populated by crazy people.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Looking and leaping
While I don't know yet the content of Obama's speech today, much of it has been 'leaked', so I will go ahead and comment on it.
I am really more interested in the Guantanamo part than the drone part. From what I have heard, we should expect some good news here. Around 1/2 of the remaining detainees can expect expedited action on their cases. This is a big and welcome step.
In addition, I am quite satisfied with the handling of the IRS 'scandal'. As a line worker in my career, it is very believable to me that these local workers came up with policy on their own. I think these congressmen must have never worked on the frontlines if they don't know this happens all the time in most, if not all, institutions. People who make policy don't get to see how it affects those who have to deal with it every day. OF COURSE they make changes to try to make it fit reality.
And it seems today that the document dump has taken the wind out of the Benghazi sails.
Many criticize the President for taking time and being cautious, but I think these examples show that this is a better way to govern. And they show that, after taking the time to gather and consider the necessary information, he can act quite decisively. This is an important combination for someone in his position.
I shudder to think of where we would be if Hairtrigger McCain had the power of the presidency.
When you have the responsibility of the leader of the free world, much more often than not, slow and steady wins the race.
I am really more interested in the Guantanamo part than the drone part. From what I have heard, we should expect some good news here. Around 1/2 of the remaining detainees can expect expedited action on their cases. This is a big and welcome step.
In addition, I am quite satisfied with the handling of the IRS 'scandal'. As a line worker in my career, it is very believable to me that these local workers came up with policy on their own. I think these congressmen must have never worked on the frontlines if they don't know this happens all the time in most, if not all, institutions. People who make policy don't get to see how it affects those who have to deal with it every day. OF COURSE they make changes to try to make it fit reality.
And it seems today that the document dump has taken the wind out of the Benghazi sails.
Many criticize the President for taking time and being cautious, but I think these examples show that this is a better way to govern. And they show that, after taking the time to gather and consider the necessary information, he can act quite decisively. This is an important combination for someone in his position.
I shudder to think of where we would be if Hairtrigger McCain had the power of the presidency.
When you have the responsibility of the leader of the free world, much more often than not, slow and steady wins the race.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Scandals
Here's my take on the Obama (non) scandals.
1. Benghazi: First, the biggest error there was not having adequate security. Why this happened is a mystery to me, but I do know that the Republicans denied additional funding for outpost security. As time goes on, this looks more and more like primarily a CIA outpost, which makes it confusing as to who should have provided security and why there may not have been more - were they trying to avoid attention on the spying?
In addition, the released documents show that most of the changes in the talking points were between state and the CIA, both trying to avoid blame and again, keep knowledge limited as to the covert nature of the installation.
Not much of a scandal there.
2. IRS. This seems to be working its way to a solution, and for me, the biggest question remaining, which may never be answered, is who were the other groups targeted? From a quarter to a third have been identified as having tea party, patriot, or other conservative watch words in their title, but there has been no identification of the remaining majority of the groups. One reporter stated that they were all conservative, but I have not heard this corroborated. This would make a huge difference in the case.Were all the groups conservative, or did they span a larger range? Either way, with no evidence for any involvement outside the agency, again - Not a big scandal for the administration.
3. The wiretaps of phones. Are the Republicans serious in pursuing this? Do they forget who it was that insisted on government access to ALL citizens information, phone records included? Is the Patriot Act not still in effect? Did they not vote against the Shield Law? Did they not scream for an aggressive investigation of the leaks? This is really a fishing expedition.
But, ultimately, I don't think it matters to them WHAT 'scandal' they can find to 'investigate', as long as they are NOT working on making the economy better for Americans so they realize that the government can work for them and deserves trust and support.
I think they will have to do a lot more to get people to give up the institution that protects their health, safety and security, along with providing many of the things that make everyday life more comfortable, but they are certainly trying their best.
Hopefully they will continue to be unable to prevent themselves from overreaching and alienating the very people they are trying to influence.
1. Benghazi: First, the biggest error there was not having adequate security. Why this happened is a mystery to me, but I do know that the Republicans denied additional funding for outpost security. As time goes on, this looks more and more like primarily a CIA outpost, which makes it confusing as to who should have provided security and why there may not have been more - were they trying to avoid attention on the spying?
In addition, the released documents show that most of the changes in the talking points were between state and the CIA, both trying to avoid blame and again, keep knowledge limited as to the covert nature of the installation.
Not much of a scandal there.
2. IRS. This seems to be working its way to a solution, and for me, the biggest question remaining, which may never be answered, is who were the other groups targeted? From a quarter to a third have been identified as having tea party, patriot, or other conservative watch words in their title, but there has been no identification of the remaining majority of the groups. One reporter stated that they were all conservative, but I have not heard this corroborated. This would make a huge difference in the case.Were all the groups conservative, or did they span a larger range? Either way, with no evidence for any involvement outside the agency, again - Not a big scandal for the administration.
3. The wiretaps of phones. Are the Republicans serious in pursuing this? Do they forget who it was that insisted on government access to ALL citizens information, phone records included? Is the Patriot Act not still in effect? Did they not vote against the Shield Law? Did they not scream for an aggressive investigation of the leaks? This is really a fishing expedition.
But, ultimately, I don't think it matters to them WHAT 'scandal' they can find to 'investigate', as long as they are NOT working on making the economy better for Americans so they realize that the government can work for them and deserves trust and support.
I think they will have to do a lot more to get people to give up the institution that protects their health, safety and security, along with providing many of the things that make everyday life more comfortable, but they are certainly trying their best.
Hopefully they will continue to be unable to prevent themselves from overreaching and alienating the very people they are trying to influence.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Give us independents
A lot has been said about the military's latest sex abuse scandal, but there is one aspect I think has not been brought up enough. Gillebrand is right in calling for independent review panels for charges that are made, but there is much more need for these than only these cases. Or only the military.
The same network she sees in the chain of command there, exists in all chains of command. It is only human nature to have feelings about those who work under or over you. This either makes you biased in their favor or against them. Whichever makes you unable to judge the complaint fairly. In my working life, I saw it over and over.
I wish her all the best in this effort, but even if she succeeds, it will be only the beginning of what is needed. Changing a power structure like this will be enormously difficult, because it will only benefit those at the bottom. Most of those invested in the structure, even just a little, will fight to keep it in order to cling to whatever power they have, or imagine they have. Only those with no power, or ethical enough to choose fairness will be willing allies for change.
If she can keep the issue in the public eye, and if she can get an independent panel established, and if it is successful, maybe the idea will catch on. We can hope.
The same network she sees in the chain of command there, exists in all chains of command. It is only human nature to have feelings about those who work under or over you. This either makes you biased in their favor or against them. Whichever makes you unable to judge the complaint fairly. In my working life, I saw it over and over.
I wish her all the best in this effort, but even if she succeeds, it will be only the beginning of what is needed. Changing a power structure like this will be enormously difficult, because it will only benefit those at the bottom. Most of those invested in the structure, even just a little, will fight to keep it in order to cling to whatever power they have, or imagine they have. Only those with no power, or ethical enough to choose fairness will be willing allies for change.
If she can keep the issue in the public eye, and if she can get an independent panel established, and if it is successful, maybe the idea will catch on. We can hope.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Work?
As a retired person, I see plenty of stories about people who kept working until well after the usual retirement age, and the impression is given that this makes them some kind of hero. BS.
With all the jobs going overseas or to machines/robots, the last thing we need is people working who don't need to.
Statistics show that we have a large number of 25-34 year olds who are unemployed. THIS is who should be working. Those who are older, unless they have to work, should not. If they really need to get out of the house every day, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities, not just calling, but screaming.
In addition, we as a society need to think about what we are going to do with all our 'workers' in the future, as the trend to self-service and automation continues.
Everyone has to make a living - how will we do it?
With all the jobs going overseas or to machines/robots, the last thing we need is people working who don't need to.
Statistics show that we have a large number of 25-34 year olds who are unemployed. THIS is who should be working. Those who are older, unless they have to work, should not. If they really need to get out of the house every day, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities, not just calling, but screaming.
In addition, we as a society need to think about what we are going to do with all our 'workers' in the future, as the trend to self-service and automation continues.
Everyone has to make a living - how will we do it?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Defense
Foreign policy has once again taken center stage in America and again the Democratic president has come under attack as too hesitant, not strong enough on defense. Happily some backtracking on the Republican side has already occurred, still the position is that he is not moving fast enough.
IMO, Obama has a strong record on defense and this old line has become more than stale. I also believe this in general is just another Republican delusion that has taken hold with the public through repetition.
Democrats have never been 'soft on defense' and this president most certainly is not. Just check your history:
A Democrat won WWI, a Democrat won WWII, Korea and Vietnam stymied Presidents from both parties, and more recently, it was a Republican who just plain tangled up our response to 9/11 and a Democrat who found and destroyed the instigator of that attack.
The myth of Democratic softness, as far as I can tell, originates from their more thoughtful and measured approach to the Defense Dept. If they were not for everything and anything military that could be imagined, they were accused. This is just hysteria and it seems the American people are finally realizing it.
If there is any good to be found in the GWB 'legacy' maybe this is it. He finally managed to overdo the hawkishness and drive Americans away from that immature state if mind.
As for me, at this point in time anyway, I have faith in Obama to do the right thing - just like he has before.
IMO, Obama has a strong record on defense and this old line has become more than stale. I also believe this in general is just another Republican delusion that has taken hold with the public through repetition.
Democrats have never been 'soft on defense' and this president most certainly is not. Just check your history:
A Democrat won WWI, a Democrat won WWII, Korea and Vietnam stymied Presidents from both parties, and more recently, it was a Republican who just plain tangled up our response to 9/11 and a Democrat who found and destroyed the instigator of that attack.
The myth of Democratic softness, as far as I can tell, originates from their more thoughtful and measured approach to the Defense Dept. If they were not for everything and anything military that could be imagined, they were accused. This is just hysteria and it seems the American people are finally realizing it.
If there is any good to be found in the GWB 'legacy' maybe this is it. He finally managed to overdo the hawkishness and drive Americans away from that immature state if mind.
As for me, at this point in time anyway, I have faith in Obama to do the right thing - just like he has before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)