Sunday, November 11, 2012
Vote? No!
Two agonizing years in the making, a multi-million dollar process, climaxing today -- Tuesday, November 6, 2012 -- in Election Day. It’s the day that most Americans believe must be participated in; a citizen’s duty to assure that the “greatest government process ever devised” will survive and prosper. Well, I did not participate and what follows is my rationale for refusing to vote.
Simply stated, I cannot, with a clear conscience, support a plutocracy that purchases power, lies with impunity, prospers from illegal financial transactions and, when all is said and done, never has to worry about accountability. Once in office, our politicians are no longer mere citizens; success in the election process is their initiation into the plutocracy. They are in the envious position of being able to make laws and decisions that impact the governed masses while assuring that they remain exempt – immune. Their healthcare and retirement programs are separate and superior to what most of the middle class can get, and those benefits come at no cost to them. Their constitutional responsibilities – legislating, leading and representing constituents – are blatantly neglected in lieu of catering to their wealthy benefactors and raising funds to position themselves for reelection.
We are taught and have come to accept the premise that ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. This in spite of overwhelming evidence that the power lies in money, not in people. The recent economic crisis should make that quite clear. Not only were financial sector plutocrats able to create complex and often illegal insider investment packages that bloated their wealth while devastating the economy, they were able to maintain their lofty and powerful positions and never looked back with the slightest sense of guilt. Part of that system led to the housing bubble debacle that financially ruined tens of thousands of citizens while lining the pockets of those responsible. To my way of thinking, that cannot happen in a nation governed by a constitution of, by and for the people. It can only happen in that nation when constitutional powers are usurped by money.
How much money was spent on campaigns over the past two years? According to the November 19 issue of Time Magazine, the presidential candidates spent more than $1.9 billion and the U.S. congressional races accounted for another $4.1 billion. And add to that all of the state-run races. Most of this money came from wealthy donors who can contribute enormous amounts of money and remain anonymous since the Supreme Court’s ruling that paved the way for PACs and other organizations to contribute unlimited amounts. These are the same folks who strongly object to even a slight increase in their personal income tax. One of their arguments against raising taxes is legitimate – wasteful spending by congress. And so, they are willing to give millions to get candidates elected, anticipating paybacks in legislation and spending decisions that are overwhelmingly advantageous to their financial status. They also claim that taxing wealth adversely impacts job creation. What a hollow argument that is! If the top 10% of wealthy Americans want to engage in job-creating endeavors, they can comfortably do so under the current or any proposed tax levels. But why expose themselves to the work and the risks of job-creating enterprises when far more favorable gains can be realized
through relatively safe global investments? In addition to being relatively safe they are heavily tilted to favor the wealthy investor. That’s because they possess the tremendous advantages of volume and knowledge. Volume provides the leverage to realize substantial gains even from relatively slight increases in an investment’s value. As for knowledge, the insider information, both the legal and illegal to which they are privy, cannot be overstated.
In today’s political environment, the primary concern of our elected officials is getting reelected. One of the favored avenues toward that end is to castigate and spurn the opposition. It is more important to assure that the opposition will not succeed or be given credit for a bill or a proposal than it is to pass legislation that would be good for the country. In this negatively tainted environment democracy suffers, the wealthy thrive and the masses are duped. We should be governed by congressional representatives who temporarily leave their civilian occupations to serve their constituents within the constraints of what is best for the nation overall. Instead we have career politicians who, when no longer in office, remain in the game as overpaid influence peddlers, either lobbying their former colleagues or fundraising to perpetuate their favored-status positions. Does that not speak volumes for term limits, not to mention serious and sincere campaign finance reform? In parliamentary systems an election can be called and completed in six weeks and within reasonable costs. Why is our election process on-going and astronomically expensive?
Were it not for history books and biographies, dictionaries would have to classify the word “statesman” as an obsolete term. There are none. Instead we have career politicians whose celebrity and uber-citizen status link them solidly with the ruling oligarchy of wealth. In our two-party system, that ruling class carries on an endless competition, not unlike professional athletics, where we the spectators take sides, cheer them on, provide support and remain loyal even when their concern for us is evidently a very low priority.
If I were to vote, knowing that my vote doesn’t count and that the system will not change regardless of who is elected, I would be acknowledging and supporting a system that I consider flawed, unfair, and detrimental to the future well-being of this great nation.
A.N. Pavia
November, 2012
Friday, December 23, 2011
The Tip of an Expanding Iceberg
Creating jobs is one of the key topics on the campaign trail, with Republican candidates blaming the Obama administration for high unemployment while they themselves are demanding job cuts in the public sector. The public sector, of course, is the area in which the government can effectively influence job growth or decline. Countering the Republicans, Obama and his team are eager to bring forth any statistic that can beam a favorable light on the ever-darkening job scene. No one, however, is willing to consider the very real possibility that the world economy does not require the enormous number of jobs that would be needed to remedy unemployment, nor will anyone admit that unemployment is but one symptom of our global economic crisis.
Globalization, fueled by intense, often cut-throat, commercial competition, has created a relentless chase for cheap labor, moving manufacturing facilities from one developing country to another, ostensibly to protect or enhance the almighty bottom line. After all, without profit, commercial enterprises cannot exist. But an honest look at today’s business environment will clearly reveal that personal greed almost always trumps corporate profit or, perhaps more accurately, corporate well-being. When executive salaries soar to more than 400 times greater than the compensation paid to entry-level employees, there exists a systemic cancer that eats away at not only the institution, but the overall economy as well. Efforts to maximize profit have led to advances in automation, enhanced efficiencies and the global race to capture cheaper and cheaper labor. Technological advances in communication and transportation were the catalysts to globalization which vastly changed the economic, political and even social landscapes. All of which have contributed to a worldwide dilemma that neither liberals, conservatives nor centrists are willing to address.
Socialism as defined in the dictionary may not be all that offensive, but decades of ideological conflict, political unrest and economic competition have resulted in negative connotations being attached to any socialistic programs brought forth in our capitalist environment. Since the birth of this great nation, such concepts as “the land of opportunity” and “free enterprise” have evolved to where they are unquestionably accepted as the American Way. “Come to America, work hard, succeed. The sky is the limit. It’s all in your hands.” These have become commonly accepted phrases expressing the presumed opportunity available to all in America. Paralleling the development and acceptance of this attitude has been the constant denigration of anything that can be associated with socialism or deemed socialistic. To many, perhaps most, Americans, socialism and liberalism connote four-letter words, isms that surely will destroy the American way of life. Were it not for the fear and desperation arising from the Great Depression, there would be no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, welfare or even the degree of progressive taxation that exists today. And despite evidence showing the benefits of these programs, they are often condemned as un-American and anti-Capitalist.
The antithesis of that attitude is evident in the fact that some abusive “socialistic” practices are not only accepted by most Americans but applauded and put forth as examples of what makes the American system and the American people so great. We rail against welfare and Social Security as government forms of largess, while we take on airs of righteous superiority by answering the unending calls for charitable contributions. It is just fine for us to “unselfishly” give to those less fortunate, thus providing us with that warm, satisfying feeling of caring and philanthropy, even if we have no clue as to the effectiveness or honesty of the particular charity involved. Using contrived logic, we comfortably convince ourselves that it is better to provide for the poor through the auspices of uncoordinated, uncontrolled and often inefficient charities or faith based organizations rather than a government agency. Granted, government agencies could be better regulated, more effective and more accountable; but overcoming those government shortcomings holds more possibilities than attempting to exercise control over private or faith-based charities. But let’s face it, none of us really wants to give up that smug, condescending air of superiority we relish when tossing pennies to the poor.
We’ve developed a system wherein the very wealthy can establish foundations and institutions into which they deposit large financial holdings that grow in value through sound, relatively safe investing, while lowering their personal tax liability. Through these financial institutions the wealthy can wallow in their self-promoting aggrandizement of charitable giving. These are voluntary gifts. Thus, in spite of the fact that charitable giving is just another form of welfare, it avoids the unsavory distinction of being allied with, or labeled as, socialism. And when it comes to socialism, when it comes to giving and receiving, what could be more unsavory than wealthy political candidates soliciting millions in campaign contributions to secure relatively short terms in office that guarantee them financial security for life? When irresponsible Wall Street bankers and financiers take taxpayer bailouts for personal gain, and when profitable corporations unabashedly belly up to the trough to slurp up federal subsidies meant to sustain those in financial straits, is it really all that difficult to call it what it is, a bastardized form of socialism? No, socialism will never be associated with the handouts given to the rich or financially comfortable Americans. It is destined to carry a negative connotation of taking from the hard working and giving to the unworthy.
Inequality and unfair economic policies are not unique to America. They are global. We see growing unrest as the number of “have nots” mushrooms, not only from birthrates in developing countries but increasingly from aspiring “haves” falling uncontrollably into the realm of the “have nots”. These are people who used to say, but now are angered when they hear, “Why don’t you just get up off your lazy ass and get a job?” And so we see rallies and demonstrations that escalate into riots as protesters gather to demand social and political reforms. It should come as no surprise that the protester was named as Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. Be aware that what we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg – a unique iceberg that is not melting away.
Globalization, fueled by intense, often cut-throat, commercial competition, has created a relentless chase for cheap labor, moving manufacturing facilities from one developing country to another, ostensibly to protect or enhance the almighty bottom line. After all, without profit, commercial enterprises cannot exist. But an honest look at today’s business environment will clearly reveal that personal greed almost always trumps corporate profit or, perhaps more accurately, corporate well-being. When executive salaries soar to more than 400 times greater than the compensation paid to entry-level employees, there exists a systemic cancer that eats away at not only the institution, but the overall economy as well. Efforts to maximize profit have led to advances in automation, enhanced efficiencies and the global race to capture cheaper and cheaper labor. Technological advances in communication and transportation were the catalysts to globalization which vastly changed the economic, political and even social landscapes. All of which have contributed to a worldwide dilemma that neither liberals, conservatives nor centrists are willing to address.
Socialism as defined in the dictionary may not be all that offensive, but decades of ideological conflict, political unrest and economic competition have resulted in negative connotations being attached to any socialistic programs brought forth in our capitalist environment. Since the birth of this great nation, such concepts as “the land of opportunity” and “free enterprise” have evolved to where they are unquestionably accepted as the American Way. “Come to America, work hard, succeed. The sky is the limit. It’s all in your hands.” These have become commonly accepted phrases expressing the presumed opportunity available to all in America. Paralleling the development and acceptance of this attitude has been the constant denigration of anything that can be associated with socialism or deemed socialistic. To many, perhaps most, Americans, socialism and liberalism connote four-letter words, isms that surely will destroy the American way of life. Were it not for the fear and desperation arising from the Great Depression, there would be no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, welfare or even the degree of progressive taxation that exists today. And despite evidence showing the benefits of these programs, they are often condemned as un-American and anti-Capitalist.
The antithesis of that attitude is evident in the fact that some abusive “socialistic” practices are not only accepted by most Americans but applauded and put forth as examples of what makes the American system and the American people so great. We rail against welfare and Social Security as government forms of largess, while we take on airs of righteous superiority by answering the unending calls for charitable contributions. It is just fine for us to “unselfishly” give to those less fortunate, thus providing us with that warm, satisfying feeling of caring and philanthropy, even if we have no clue as to the effectiveness or honesty of the particular charity involved. Using contrived logic, we comfortably convince ourselves that it is better to provide for the poor through the auspices of uncoordinated, uncontrolled and often inefficient charities or faith based organizations rather than a government agency. Granted, government agencies could be better regulated, more effective and more accountable; but overcoming those government shortcomings holds more possibilities than attempting to exercise control over private or faith-based charities. But let’s face it, none of us really wants to give up that smug, condescending air of superiority we relish when tossing pennies to the poor.
We’ve developed a system wherein the very wealthy can establish foundations and institutions into which they deposit large financial holdings that grow in value through sound, relatively safe investing, while lowering their personal tax liability. Through these financial institutions the wealthy can wallow in their self-promoting aggrandizement of charitable giving. These are voluntary gifts. Thus, in spite of the fact that charitable giving is just another form of welfare, it avoids the unsavory distinction of being allied with, or labeled as, socialism. And when it comes to socialism, when it comes to giving and receiving, what could be more unsavory than wealthy political candidates soliciting millions in campaign contributions to secure relatively short terms in office that guarantee them financial security for life? When irresponsible Wall Street bankers and financiers take taxpayer bailouts for personal gain, and when profitable corporations unabashedly belly up to the trough to slurp up federal subsidies meant to sustain those in financial straits, is it really all that difficult to call it what it is, a bastardized form of socialism? No, socialism will never be associated with the handouts given to the rich or financially comfortable Americans. It is destined to carry a negative connotation of taking from the hard working and giving to the unworthy.
Inequality and unfair economic policies are not unique to America. They are global. We see growing unrest as the number of “have nots” mushrooms, not only from birthrates in developing countries but increasingly from aspiring “haves” falling uncontrollably into the realm of the “have nots”. These are people who used to say, but now are angered when they hear, “Why don’t you just get up off your lazy ass and get a job?” And so we see rallies and demonstrations that escalate into riots as protesters gather to demand social and political reforms. It should come as no surprise that the protester was named as Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. Be aware that what we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg – a unique iceberg that is not melting away.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
BOLD STEPS
BOLD STEPS
The critical nature of that which confounds us these days demands that positive action be taken – action based on unequivocal, quantifiable facts that test alternative approaches to those that currently are proving to be un- or counter-productive. The concept of “testing” alternative policies cannot be considered precedent-setting since most legislation, even after passed, continues to be debated, amended, overturned or even allowed to expire. That being the case, it is difficult to comprehend the unwillingness to try or test alternatives, as though to do so would establish concrete, non-amendable policies never to be altered or reversed.
The abrasive verbal battles raging within and between the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government produce animosity and headlines, but no significant results. The Right insists that taxing wealth stymies job creative incentives, while entitlement spending compounds our already unprecedented budget deficit through irresponsible spending that only adds to the debt. The operative word there is irresponsible, and though there is theoretical support for such points of view, today’s economic realities do not bear them out. For example, the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy have done nothing to stimulate job creation here in the U.S. nor have they bolstered our staggering economy. We must get money in the hands of those with needs in order to stimulate consumer spending. The wealthy, with or without tax breaks, have the wherewithal to invest in job-creating opportunities here at home, but why would they when it is easier, less risky and probably more profitable to invest globally – a strategy that may even provide them with additional tax-lowering benefits. It is the less-affluent, budding entrepreneurs who are more likely to take risks and embark on job-creating enterprises in this economy. Many who have lost their jobs and find employment opportunities bleak, would enthusiastically venture into a start-up business. If only they had access to capital. But proposing to provide such opportunity alarms many who fear runaway entitlement expenditures will only increase welfare dependency while compounding the debt. The Left, though verbally expressing opposing points of view, doesn’t seem to have the backbone or the confidence to stand firm. Even when in the majority, they fold; seemingly cowered by opposition intimidation or fear that supporting entitlements or taxing wealth will bring consequences when they again must face reelection. Unfortunately, in the minds of our politicians, nothing takes precedence over getting reelected.
The negative aspects attributed to entitlements can appear legitimate, especially where such spending can too easily, though often erroneously, be equated to larger deficits and a looming economic collapse. But we really don’t know that that would happen and that is why it is important to take intelligent, calculated bold action to prove one way or the other how increased spending on entitlements would impact the economy and the debt. It is too easy to make claims and accusations based on preconceived notions and anecdotal “evidence” that may well be proven wrong if put to the test. Unfortunately, in today’s legislative environment nothing is put to the test, the bills that are eventually passed are so watered down, as a result of compromise and intimidation, that the resultant legislation is insignificant and ineffectual. The highly touted Health Care Reform Act and the stimulus package are examples.
Where is the evidence that taxing wealth stifles job creation? Where is the evidence that increasing entitlements will increase spending and welfare dependence more than it will stimulate job opportunity and consumer spending, thus favorably increasing the tax base? Where is the evidence that protecting and enhancing wealth is more vital to the future of this great nation than protecting the middle class? Where are the statesmen/women to replace the backstabbing, celebrity-hungry politicians who can figure out how to raise unlimited campaign funds, but can’t find ways to get dollars for education and infrastructure? Answering these questions may be the first step toward a brighter future.
A.N. Pavia
July, 2011
The critical nature of that which confounds us these days demands that positive action be taken – action based on unequivocal, quantifiable facts that test alternative approaches to those that currently are proving to be un- or counter-productive. The concept of “testing” alternative policies cannot be considered precedent-setting since most legislation, even after passed, continues to be debated, amended, overturned or even allowed to expire. That being the case, it is difficult to comprehend the unwillingness to try or test alternatives, as though to do so would establish concrete, non-amendable policies never to be altered or reversed.
The abrasive verbal battles raging within and between the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government produce animosity and headlines, but no significant results. The Right insists that taxing wealth stymies job creative incentives, while entitlement spending compounds our already unprecedented budget deficit through irresponsible spending that only adds to the debt. The operative word there is irresponsible, and though there is theoretical support for such points of view, today’s economic realities do not bear them out. For example, the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy have done nothing to stimulate job creation here in the U.S. nor have they bolstered our staggering economy. We must get money in the hands of those with needs in order to stimulate consumer spending. The wealthy, with or without tax breaks, have the wherewithal to invest in job-creating opportunities here at home, but why would they when it is easier, less risky and probably more profitable to invest globally – a strategy that may even provide them with additional tax-lowering benefits. It is the less-affluent, budding entrepreneurs who are more likely to take risks and embark on job-creating enterprises in this economy. Many who have lost their jobs and find employment opportunities bleak, would enthusiastically venture into a start-up business. If only they had access to capital. But proposing to provide such opportunity alarms many who fear runaway entitlement expenditures will only increase welfare dependency while compounding the debt. The Left, though verbally expressing opposing points of view, doesn’t seem to have the backbone or the confidence to stand firm. Even when in the majority, they fold; seemingly cowered by opposition intimidation or fear that supporting entitlements or taxing wealth will bring consequences when they again must face reelection. Unfortunately, in the minds of our politicians, nothing takes precedence over getting reelected.
The negative aspects attributed to entitlements can appear legitimate, especially where such spending can too easily, though often erroneously, be equated to larger deficits and a looming economic collapse. But we really don’t know that that would happen and that is why it is important to take intelligent, calculated bold action to prove one way or the other how increased spending on entitlements would impact the economy and the debt. It is too easy to make claims and accusations based on preconceived notions and anecdotal “evidence” that may well be proven wrong if put to the test. Unfortunately, in today’s legislative environment nothing is put to the test, the bills that are eventually passed are so watered down, as a result of compromise and intimidation, that the resultant legislation is insignificant and ineffectual. The highly touted Health Care Reform Act and the stimulus package are examples.
Where is the evidence that taxing wealth stifles job creation? Where is the evidence that increasing entitlements will increase spending and welfare dependence more than it will stimulate job opportunity and consumer spending, thus favorably increasing the tax base? Where is the evidence that protecting and enhancing wealth is more vital to the future of this great nation than protecting the middle class? Where are the statesmen/women to replace the backstabbing, celebrity-hungry politicians who can figure out how to raise unlimited campaign funds, but can’t find ways to get dollars for education and infrastructure? Answering these questions may be the first step toward a brighter future.
A.N. Pavia
July, 2011
THE UBSUSTAINABLE STATUS QUO
THE UNSUSTAINABLE STATUS QUO
Globalization – initially the child of a world growing progressively smaller due to advances in transportation, communication and commerce – has now, thanks to the digital age, become seemingly unstoppable, making every point on the globe virtually as close as a next door neighbor. Our ever-shrinking world seems bent on self destruction; either physically, through nuclear disaster or man-enhanced environmental catastrophes, or we may simply do ourselves in with inequitable, run amuck socio-economic policies. In either case it is conceivable that these destructive forces will not be seriously addres- sed until tragic events occur to force the issues. By then, of course, it may be too late.
Physical destruction – be it nuclear annihilation, or reckless “progress” devastat- ing the environment – will not be curtailed as long as we maintain our dependence upon and love affair with those destructive forces. With heightened levels of hate and intolerance manifested in suicide bombings and other irrational acts of terror, is there any reason to believe that things will improve? If that isn’t enough, we’re also faced with numerous socio-economic injustices perpetuated by greed, arrogance, intolerance and an obvious overabundance of stupidity. The manifestations of these injustices are evident throughout the world. In capitalist democracies the ever-widening chasm between the haves and have-nots is firmly embedding, possibly even legitimizing, an oligarchy of wealth that is blindly bent on destroying the middle class; the very class necessary to sustain democracy and maintain a viable economy upon which that oligarchy depends. Unfortunately, too few of them seem to realize it, insisting instead on pursing reckless, myopic wealth enhancement. Then we have the totalitarian/dictatorial developing nations, where the advent of the cell phone and the internet now provides oppressed citizens with a view of what life could and should be like, along with the capability of documenting and reporting their plight to the rest of the world. There we are witnessing violent protests spreading rapidly from one nation to another.
The U.S. has a deplorable history of supporting corrupt, strong-arm tyrants simply because they were anti-Communist or because they controlled sources of oil, for which we possess an insatiable thirst. Think Noriega in Panama, Pinochet in Chile, the Shah of Iran, even the Taliban. These past foibles of ours can be understood, maybe even forgiven, if one considers the exigencies of the Cold War and the memories from both World Wars. But shouldn’t we have learned something from Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Iraq and the changing status of the modern world? George W. Bush’s unforgivable squandering of goodwill and solidarity throughout the Free World after 911 is but one significant example of American arrogance and hubris. He could not have done it without the misconception that an invasion of Iraq would be quick and easy, and that our military superiority allows us to take unilateral actions with impunity. For further emphasis one need only consider the support he received from a cowering congress and too many flag-waving patriots for the invasion of Iraq, passage of the freedom-squelching Patriot Act and our questionable actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After Abu Ghraib, who’d have thought our troops could, or ever would, proceed unchecked with further atrocities? (See “The Kill Team” March 27, 2011 Rolling Stone Magazine) At some
2
point, concerned and intelligent people must at least acknowledge past errors and indiscretions.
We’ve come to accept the unending barrage or lies, half truths and innuendos spewing unchallenged from politicians, news anchors, pundits and bloggers. Those eager sources along with our idolized celebrity entertainers and athletes, tell us what is happening, what it means and how it will affect us. And we take it all in, abdicating the awesome responsibilities of thinking and reasoning for ourselves. What is seldom ever considered is the obvious fact that all of these idea mongers are firmly linked to and influenced by that oligarchy of wealth. They have a vested interest in promoting and perpetuating policies that protect and enhance wealth. With lives in turmoil since the economic collapse brought on by the bursting housing market bubble, those of us not members of that oligarchy are left clinging to any signs of hope or optimism, no matter how meager. Meanwhile, the corrupt and greedy Wall Street brokers and financiers, who knowingly caused the collapse and profited egregiously from it, not only go unprosecuted but remain in their lofty positions replete with exorbitant salaries, astronomical bonuses and more than enough power to perpetuate their sweet system. When there is a slight drop in the unemployment figures for example, we are told it is a good sign, so we naively view it positively despite the fact that it may simply be a reflection of fewer people actively looking for work rather than an accurate indicator of the unemployment crisis. We are also urged to believe that upward trends in financial markets are favorable signs of economic recovery. But, in reality, those increases are disproportionately favorable to the rich. The rich, who rather than spend to create jobs and stimulate the economy, as they would have us believe they are doing, are more than content to sit back in luxuriously watching their wealth bloat.
Meanwhile people are hurting. More and more well-educated, hard-working people find themselves in a steadily submerging economic sinkhole from which the outlook for a brighter future is anything but bright. Of the jobs being created, many lack the quality of those lost and very few offer real security or growth potential. We blame the job drain and our economic woes on our inability to compete with cheap labor, lower environmental standards, tax benefits and other governmental subsidies that provide unfair advantages in most emerging markets. Though all of these factors are significant today, they will eventually be moot as unemployment dilemmas become global. Simply stated, the need for productive people will diminish while populations continue to grow. Manufacturing and manual labor jobs will increasingly be displaced by automation. The same is true for agriculture and food processing. Artificial intelligence and IT technology in general will significantly reduce the need for legal and medical support staffs, researchers, actuaries, meteorologists, the list goes on. There is concern in China that their one child per family policy will have deleterious economic impacts as the Chinese
3
population ages. The concern, of course, is that there won’t be enough young workers to support the expanding older population. We too are concerned as baby boomers retire,
leaving fewer workers contributing to social security, Medicare and the overall tax base. Realistically however, the answers will not be found in job creation. In fact, the answers
may not be found at all, for to do so would require radical changes to our values, attitudes and beliefs that are contrary to human nature as it has come to be.
For example, our attitude toward environmental preservation must change from, “It can’t really be that bad and even if it is, science will eventually find the remedies”, to one of immediately addressing worse-case scenarios and pledging not to proceed with any potentially dangerous projects until environmental impact issues have been adequately resolved. Does a rational mind believe we can experience Valdez tanker spills, BP Gulf oil well explosions, radiation leaks from ever-growing and vulnerable stashes of nuclear waste, while continuing our “normal” polluting activities, without inflicting long term devastation? How long can we put off mandating unpopular and inconvenient lifestyle changes necessary to curb global warming? And as for war, we’ve come to accept it as inevitable, a product of human nature. And it may well be. But that should move the most advanced and powerful nations to seriously seek alternative methods of conflict resolution – reserving war as only the final option. Surely we can see the futility in many of our armed conflicts. And what folly we perpetuate when labeling all those in uniform as heroes; as if creating heroes justifies barbarism. Those who make the ultimate sacrifice are, as should be, honored with heroic memorials, even if they are all too soon forgotten. But the tragedy inflicted on those who return from war mentally or physically maimed, cannot be compensated with an all too easily overlooked and often meaningless hero label. What value is there in being an unemployed, divorced, homeless, depressed war hero unable to cope with civilian life after experiencing the horrors of war?
With war seemingly inevitable, world population growth dramatically outpacing demand for labor, technology recklessly advancing with total disregard for prudent safeguards, the only hope for future generations is a major worldwide attitude adjustment. We must voluntarily accept the need to control population, place egalitarian values ahead of competitive greed and willingly place environmental preservation ahead of unchecked “progress” on our list of priorities. Unfortunately, there are two insurmountable impediments to achieving those attitude changes: Religion and Greed! There is little, if any, hope that either of those impediments can or will ever be overcome, mainly because man’s psyche will not recognize, let alone acknowledge, that they are in fact negative attributes. We produce enough food, goods and services, and generate enough wealth (call it GWP, Gross World Product) to adequately sustain the world population, yet we insist that so many suffer. The problem is an unwillingness to distribute the GWP adequately and equitably. Proposing to do so strikes the dissonant chord of socialism.
4
Even if the proposal stresses equitable as opposed to equal distribution, thus maintaining a financially unequal though just and humane society, there would still be few supporters. After all, socialism by any other name here in America is still a four letter word. Con- sequently, we will no doubt continue idolizing, envying and empowering the already powerfully rich and famous, all the while praying to God that we will somehow join their ranks. If not, well that’s okay too; because, even if we’re annihilating ourselves, our faith and prayers are paving the way toward that unimaginably blissful life everlasting.
A.N. Pavia
April 2011
Globalization – initially the child of a world growing progressively smaller due to advances in transportation, communication and commerce – has now, thanks to the digital age, become seemingly unstoppable, making every point on the globe virtually as close as a next door neighbor. Our ever-shrinking world seems bent on self destruction; either physically, through nuclear disaster or man-enhanced environmental catastrophes, or we may simply do ourselves in with inequitable, run amuck socio-economic policies. In either case it is conceivable that these destructive forces will not be seriously addres- sed until tragic events occur to force the issues. By then, of course, it may be too late.
Physical destruction – be it nuclear annihilation, or reckless “progress” devastat- ing the environment – will not be curtailed as long as we maintain our dependence upon and love affair with those destructive forces. With heightened levels of hate and intolerance manifested in suicide bombings and other irrational acts of terror, is there any reason to believe that things will improve? If that isn’t enough, we’re also faced with numerous socio-economic injustices perpetuated by greed, arrogance, intolerance and an obvious overabundance of stupidity. The manifestations of these injustices are evident throughout the world. In capitalist democracies the ever-widening chasm between the haves and have-nots is firmly embedding, possibly even legitimizing, an oligarchy of wealth that is blindly bent on destroying the middle class; the very class necessary to sustain democracy and maintain a viable economy upon which that oligarchy depends. Unfortunately, too few of them seem to realize it, insisting instead on pursing reckless, myopic wealth enhancement. Then we have the totalitarian/dictatorial developing nations, where the advent of the cell phone and the internet now provides oppressed citizens with a view of what life could and should be like, along with the capability of documenting and reporting their plight to the rest of the world. There we are witnessing violent protests spreading rapidly from one nation to another.
The U.S. has a deplorable history of supporting corrupt, strong-arm tyrants simply because they were anti-Communist or because they controlled sources of oil, for which we possess an insatiable thirst. Think Noriega in Panama, Pinochet in Chile, the Shah of Iran, even the Taliban. These past foibles of ours can be understood, maybe even forgiven, if one considers the exigencies of the Cold War and the memories from both World Wars. But shouldn’t we have learned something from Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Iraq and the changing status of the modern world? George W. Bush’s unforgivable squandering of goodwill and solidarity throughout the Free World after 911 is but one significant example of American arrogance and hubris. He could not have done it without the misconception that an invasion of Iraq would be quick and easy, and that our military superiority allows us to take unilateral actions with impunity. For further emphasis one need only consider the support he received from a cowering congress and too many flag-waving patriots for the invasion of Iraq, passage of the freedom-squelching Patriot Act and our questionable actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After Abu Ghraib, who’d have thought our troops could, or ever would, proceed unchecked with further atrocities? (See “The Kill Team” March 27, 2011 Rolling Stone Magazine) At some
2
point, concerned and intelligent people must at least acknowledge past errors and indiscretions.
We’ve come to accept the unending barrage or lies, half truths and innuendos spewing unchallenged from politicians, news anchors, pundits and bloggers. Those eager sources along with our idolized celebrity entertainers and athletes, tell us what is happening, what it means and how it will affect us. And we take it all in, abdicating the awesome responsibilities of thinking and reasoning for ourselves. What is seldom ever considered is the obvious fact that all of these idea mongers are firmly linked to and influenced by that oligarchy of wealth. They have a vested interest in promoting and perpetuating policies that protect and enhance wealth. With lives in turmoil since the economic collapse brought on by the bursting housing market bubble, those of us not members of that oligarchy are left clinging to any signs of hope or optimism, no matter how meager. Meanwhile, the corrupt and greedy Wall Street brokers and financiers, who knowingly caused the collapse and profited egregiously from it, not only go unprosecuted but remain in their lofty positions replete with exorbitant salaries, astronomical bonuses and more than enough power to perpetuate their sweet system. When there is a slight drop in the unemployment figures for example, we are told it is a good sign, so we naively view it positively despite the fact that it may simply be a reflection of fewer people actively looking for work rather than an accurate indicator of the unemployment crisis. We are also urged to believe that upward trends in financial markets are favorable signs of economic recovery. But, in reality, those increases are disproportionately favorable to the rich. The rich, who rather than spend to create jobs and stimulate the economy, as they would have us believe they are doing, are more than content to sit back in luxuriously watching their wealth bloat.
Meanwhile people are hurting. More and more well-educated, hard-working people find themselves in a steadily submerging economic sinkhole from which the outlook for a brighter future is anything but bright. Of the jobs being created, many lack the quality of those lost and very few offer real security or growth potential. We blame the job drain and our economic woes on our inability to compete with cheap labor, lower environmental standards, tax benefits and other governmental subsidies that provide unfair advantages in most emerging markets. Though all of these factors are significant today, they will eventually be moot as unemployment dilemmas become global. Simply stated, the need for productive people will diminish while populations continue to grow. Manufacturing and manual labor jobs will increasingly be displaced by automation. The same is true for agriculture and food processing. Artificial intelligence and IT technology in general will significantly reduce the need for legal and medical support staffs, researchers, actuaries, meteorologists, the list goes on. There is concern in China that their one child per family policy will have deleterious economic impacts as the Chinese
3
population ages. The concern, of course, is that there won’t be enough young workers to support the expanding older population. We too are concerned as baby boomers retire,
leaving fewer workers contributing to social security, Medicare and the overall tax base. Realistically however, the answers will not be found in job creation. In fact, the answers
may not be found at all, for to do so would require radical changes to our values, attitudes and beliefs that are contrary to human nature as it has come to be.
For example, our attitude toward environmental preservation must change from, “It can’t really be that bad and even if it is, science will eventually find the remedies”, to one of immediately addressing worse-case scenarios and pledging not to proceed with any potentially dangerous projects until environmental impact issues have been adequately resolved. Does a rational mind believe we can experience Valdez tanker spills, BP Gulf oil well explosions, radiation leaks from ever-growing and vulnerable stashes of nuclear waste, while continuing our “normal” polluting activities, without inflicting long term devastation? How long can we put off mandating unpopular and inconvenient lifestyle changes necessary to curb global warming? And as for war, we’ve come to accept it as inevitable, a product of human nature. And it may well be. But that should move the most advanced and powerful nations to seriously seek alternative methods of conflict resolution – reserving war as only the final option. Surely we can see the futility in many of our armed conflicts. And what folly we perpetuate when labeling all those in uniform as heroes; as if creating heroes justifies barbarism. Those who make the ultimate sacrifice are, as should be, honored with heroic memorials, even if they are all too soon forgotten. But the tragedy inflicted on those who return from war mentally or physically maimed, cannot be compensated with an all too easily overlooked and often meaningless hero label. What value is there in being an unemployed, divorced, homeless, depressed war hero unable to cope with civilian life after experiencing the horrors of war?
With war seemingly inevitable, world population growth dramatically outpacing demand for labor, technology recklessly advancing with total disregard for prudent safeguards, the only hope for future generations is a major worldwide attitude adjustment. We must voluntarily accept the need to control population, place egalitarian values ahead of competitive greed and willingly place environmental preservation ahead of unchecked “progress” on our list of priorities. Unfortunately, there are two insurmountable impediments to achieving those attitude changes: Religion and Greed! There is little, if any, hope that either of those impediments can or will ever be overcome, mainly because man’s psyche will not recognize, let alone acknowledge, that they are in fact negative attributes. We produce enough food, goods and services, and generate enough wealth (call it GWP, Gross World Product) to adequately sustain the world population, yet we insist that so many suffer. The problem is an unwillingness to distribute the GWP adequately and equitably. Proposing to do so strikes the dissonant chord of socialism.
4
Even if the proposal stresses equitable as opposed to equal distribution, thus maintaining a financially unequal though just and humane society, there would still be few supporters. After all, socialism by any other name here in America is still a four letter word. Con- sequently, we will no doubt continue idolizing, envying and empowering the already powerfully rich and famous, all the while praying to God that we will somehow join their ranks. If not, well that’s okay too; because, even if we’re annihilating ourselves, our faith and prayers are paving the way toward that unimaginably blissful life everlasting.
A.N. Pavia
April 2011
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
SHARING THE WEALTH
SHARING THE WEALTH
A Concept to Ponder
Nothing seems crystal clear anymore. There is a dull film, a kind of haze, clouding many of the principles that are purported to have made America great. Our economy, and its ability to grow and prosper, is dependent upon a strong middle class. No one disagrees with that. Yet, there are only a few who are willing to support legislation or policies that would reinvigorate our dying middle class. And there are a whole lot fewer willing to sacrifice even a smidgen to save our crumbling economic foundation. We all seem to think it will take care of itself. Or even worse, we think those Wall Street financiers – the ones we baled out so they could get right back into the business of gouging us – will fix everything. How gullible can we be?
As we watch the middle class decline, with hardworking folks falling toward or below the poverty line, we cling desperately to the adage that this is The Land of Opportunity. It is true that we Americans are free to embark on entrepreneurial enterprises, to start a business, to change jobs, to move from one city to another in search of better employment opportunities; and there are some success stories. There are many more stories, however, of financial ruin or economic deterioration that reflect the eroding quality of life now confronting so many of our intelligent, educated, hardworking individuals and families.
With that in mind, consider our heroes and role models – political leaders, athletes, entertainers, executives, pundits – the vastly overpaid celebrities who we actually believe have earned and deserve their astronomic incomes. In fact, we insist that American capitalism was built on and is dependent upon that sky-is-the-limit philosophy of income and return on investment. It’s what makes America great. As we say that however, we fail to see America’s greatness fading; we refuse to admit that there is anything wrong with our basic economic concepts, concepts that have worked for 150 years.
The nonsense and naivety brought forth in support of our economic system, reinforced by the insistence that the opportunity to accumulate limitless wealth is paramount in promoting and sustaining our way of life, are attitudes that all but insure that meaningful reform is hopeless. Reform that could remedy much of what ails our economy would never be considered by the majority of Americans today. Rich or poor, Americans have been led to believe the system is fine, it’s the best we can hope for, and with hard work and intelligence anyone can succeed and even become wealthy. We believe this despite current trends showing no growth in real income, buying power or overall financial well being for all but the very wealthy. We have been convinced that taxes create bigger, more intrusive government; that more government leads to less individual freedom; that a reduction in individual freedom equates to a restriction of economic opportunity which, of course, stifles incentive, thus blocking economic progress. But in reality we could significantly increase tax revenues and enhance our nation’s economic well-being without incurring those negative repercussions.
The exorbitant incomes generated by our top executives, athletes, entertainers, etc. are testament to those individuals’ prowess in their professional endeavors. It is argued that without those extremely lavish incentives we would lose the contributions those individuals provide to the economy and to society in general. Really? What else would they do and where would they go if, say, instead of multimillions they were limited to just a few million? They would still be doing exactly what they’re doing today because their status wouldn’t change. They would continue to constitute society’s wealthiest class. They would still be identified as the most successful in their fields of endeavor. And they would maintain their precious and idolized celebrity status. Further- more, such an income restriction could be implemented without any change to the competitive system and measurement of success currently in place.
These individuals would continue to compete for the same multimillion dollar contracts as they are now. Their egos, as well as their competitive rankings, would be no different than they are today. For example, consider a professional athlete who distinguishes him/herself by commanding a $120 million multiyear contract. With a maximum income limit placed at two million dollars a year, that athlete would still receive all the accolades and the distinction of “earning” that $120 million. The contract would still be the measurement upon which salary caps are calculated, and the contract would also provide that athlete with bragging rights so important to salve sensitive egos. Most of the money, however, would go toward enhancing the well-being of the American economy. And the same holds true for entertainers, executives, financiers, and all other grossly overpaid individuals.
What is there in such a scheme that would destroy individual incentive? What else would these wealthy folks do? Granted, the concept of sharing or spreading the wealth has been given a bad name. It’s socialism! It’ll destroy the capitalist system upon which our great democratic republic is based. But how would any of us suffer? And, really, how would the system suffer? There would be no adverse affect on the GDP from limiting individual income as long as the total contractual dollars were circulated. The GDP would grow, however, and the national debt would diminish, if all those millions of dollars provided a significant hike in buying power for those without it and thus would increase tax revenues where none or very little exist today.
Think about it. Then explain to me how such a system would be detrimental to the economy, the nation or the individual?
A.N. Pavia
May, 2010
A Concept to Ponder
Nothing seems crystal clear anymore. There is a dull film, a kind of haze, clouding many of the principles that are purported to have made America great. Our economy, and its ability to grow and prosper, is dependent upon a strong middle class. No one disagrees with that. Yet, there are only a few who are willing to support legislation or policies that would reinvigorate our dying middle class. And there are a whole lot fewer willing to sacrifice even a smidgen to save our crumbling economic foundation. We all seem to think it will take care of itself. Or even worse, we think those Wall Street financiers – the ones we baled out so they could get right back into the business of gouging us – will fix everything. How gullible can we be?
As we watch the middle class decline, with hardworking folks falling toward or below the poverty line, we cling desperately to the adage that this is The Land of Opportunity. It is true that we Americans are free to embark on entrepreneurial enterprises, to start a business, to change jobs, to move from one city to another in search of better employment opportunities; and there are some success stories. There are many more stories, however, of financial ruin or economic deterioration that reflect the eroding quality of life now confronting so many of our intelligent, educated, hardworking individuals and families.
With that in mind, consider our heroes and role models – political leaders, athletes, entertainers, executives, pundits – the vastly overpaid celebrities who we actually believe have earned and deserve their astronomic incomes. In fact, we insist that American capitalism was built on and is dependent upon that sky-is-the-limit philosophy of income and return on investment. It’s what makes America great. As we say that however, we fail to see America’s greatness fading; we refuse to admit that there is anything wrong with our basic economic concepts, concepts that have worked for 150 years.
The nonsense and naivety brought forth in support of our economic system, reinforced by the insistence that the opportunity to accumulate limitless wealth is paramount in promoting and sustaining our way of life, are attitudes that all but insure that meaningful reform is hopeless. Reform that could remedy much of what ails our economy would never be considered by the majority of Americans today. Rich or poor, Americans have been led to believe the system is fine, it’s the best we can hope for, and with hard work and intelligence anyone can succeed and even become wealthy. We believe this despite current trends showing no growth in real income, buying power or overall financial well being for all but the very wealthy. We have been convinced that taxes create bigger, more intrusive government; that more government leads to less individual freedom; that a reduction in individual freedom equates to a restriction of economic opportunity which, of course, stifles incentive, thus blocking economic progress. But in reality we could significantly increase tax revenues and enhance our nation’s economic well-being without incurring those negative repercussions.
The exorbitant incomes generated by our top executives, athletes, entertainers, etc. are testament to those individuals’ prowess in their professional endeavors. It is argued that without those extremely lavish incentives we would lose the contributions those individuals provide to the economy and to society in general. Really? What else would they do and where would they go if, say, instead of multimillions they were limited to just a few million? They would still be doing exactly what they’re doing today because their status wouldn’t change. They would continue to constitute society’s wealthiest class. They would still be identified as the most successful in their fields of endeavor. And they would maintain their precious and idolized celebrity status. Further- more, such an income restriction could be implemented without any change to the competitive system and measurement of success currently in place.
These individuals would continue to compete for the same multimillion dollar contracts as they are now. Their egos, as well as their competitive rankings, would be no different than they are today. For example, consider a professional athlete who distinguishes him/herself by commanding a $120 million multiyear contract. With a maximum income limit placed at two million dollars a year, that athlete would still receive all the accolades and the distinction of “earning” that $120 million. The contract would still be the measurement upon which salary caps are calculated, and the contract would also provide that athlete with bragging rights so important to salve sensitive egos. Most of the money, however, would go toward enhancing the well-being of the American economy. And the same holds true for entertainers, executives, financiers, and all other grossly overpaid individuals.
What is there in such a scheme that would destroy individual incentive? What else would these wealthy folks do? Granted, the concept of sharing or spreading the wealth has been given a bad name. It’s socialism! It’ll destroy the capitalist system upon which our great democratic republic is based. But how would any of us suffer? And, really, how would the system suffer? There would be no adverse affect on the GDP from limiting individual income as long as the total contractual dollars were circulated. The GDP would grow, however, and the national debt would diminish, if all those millions of dollars provided a significant hike in buying power for those without it and thus would increase tax revenues where none or very little exist today.
Think about it. Then explain to me how such a system would be detrimental to the economy, the nation or the individual?
A.N. Pavia
May, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
God Laughs
Part Two – The Ten Commandments
When asked if he believed Moses receiving the Ten Commandments was a revelation, Thomas Paine replied, “Yes, but only to Moses. To everyone else it is hearsay.” Much of what should be considered hearsay is all too often taken as gospel by Christians because of what they interpret from the Bible, and other religions look to proverbs and passages from their holy texts with the same results. Unfortunately, that which is considered to be gospel is seldom questioned or challenged as surely it should be. The content of those Ten Commandments should raise serious questions, not simply whether they ought to be displayed publicly on federal property, but whether they should be accepted as rules from God, and further, whether or not they are good rules to live by.
At the outset let’s acknowledge that Moses was a wise, capable and well-qualified leader, one who recognized what was needed to maintain order and one who was aware of his own limitations. As he may well have seen it, laws and rules derived by Moses may carry some weight with the children of Israel, but Commandments from God would definitely carry a whole lot more weight. Commandments from God, rather than from Moses, would give much needed credence to the rules, but more importantly from Moses’ point of view, they would solidify his role as leader. One may or may not choose to obey the word of Moses, but one will surely strive to obey the word of God. And who would one choose to follow, a common leader or one who communicates directly with God? Moses recognized those nuances; why else go up into the mountains alone?
The idea that God has communicated directly with a few, a extremely scarce few, chosen men, and that mankind must heed and obey that which is passed along by those chosen few, has evolved beyond religious mythology. Man possesses the capacity to think and reason, yet many believe that God wants them to suppress their reasoning ability and accept without question that which is hearsay. God must laugh at such a concept. Sheep and lemmings were created to be sheep and lemmings. Man was not!
But back to the Ten Commandments. Civilized man realizes the need for laws and beyond that he knows that laws often require complex explanations and definitions for reasons of clarity in order to avoid loopholes, exceptions and confusion. Consequently, we do not have such simple laws as: ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ These simple thou shalt nots, left to interpretation of convenience, have plagued man with moral dilemmas for centuries. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ means one thing, while ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ means something else and ‘turn thy cheek’ something completely different and contradictory. So we conveniently find exceptions to ‘Thou shalt not kill’ in order to accommodate our justification of war, self-defense, and the death penalty. Then there are the myriad issues concerning taking a life that is not human life. Is hunting okay? Can we kill those pesky insects?
The real issue concerning those Ten Commandments, however, goes beyond critiquing their vulnerability to interpretation. The real issue is their value as rules to live by, to improve human civility and man’s ability to coexist with his fellow man in harmony with the natural environment. Remember, this is THE Ten Commandments, God’s directives, what He demands of man. A Supreme Being would never include triviality and nonsense in such a list.
Triviality? Is it not blasphemous to claim the Ten Commandments to be trivial? ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’ In the overall scheme of things, that is trivial. ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.’ This from the Supreme Being? He does not need your worship nor does He need your undivided attention. He put you here with other objectives in mind. Besides, and do give this serious consideration, since He knows what is in your heart and on your mind, does that not make overt worship a wasted effort. Is it not redundant?
If the above assertion of triviality is blasphemous, it is but a venial blasphemy when compared with what must be the deadly sin of claiming some Commandments to be nonsense. Nonetheless, commanding one to not covet is commanding one to not wish, want, or desire and that simply goes against human nature. To not covet is tantamount to not living, or even worse, living after a lobotomy. The sin is not in coveting. Coveting is natural. The sin is what one does as a result of, or in response to, his coveting, and the commandment should so specify. Perhaps the commandment should read: Though Thou may be beset by extremely strong wants, desires and urges that cannot and often should not be fulfilled, it is incumbent upon thee to learn to live with and accept those disappointments.
But the very worst of the Commandments, one that truly does more harm than good, and one that was obviously derived from man and not from God is: ‘Honor thy father and thy mother.’ God would never put the onus on the child! This crutch for poor parenting must be recognized and acknowledged for what it is. Becoming a parent is all too simple and natural. Being a parent, a good parent, is far more difficult. Children come into the world wanting nothing more than to honor, love and respect their parents. It is the parents who must be commanded to always strive to earn the honor and respect of their children. Using the fear of God’s wrath to control and manipulate a child is detrimental to both child and parent.
God cannot be happy with our interpretation and blind acceptance of the Ten Commandments. But then, as thinking, reasoning and supposedly rational beings, we do manage to disappoint in oh so many ways.
Part Two – The Ten Commandments
When asked if he believed Moses receiving the Ten Commandments was a revelation, Thomas Paine replied, “Yes, but only to Moses. To everyone else it is hearsay.” Much of what should be considered hearsay is all too often taken as gospel by Christians because of what they interpret from the Bible, and other religions look to proverbs and passages from their holy texts with the same results. Unfortunately, that which is considered to be gospel is seldom questioned or challenged as surely it should be. The content of those Ten Commandments should raise serious questions, not simply whether they ought to be displayed publicly on federal property, but whether they should be accepted as rules from God, and further, whether or not they are good rules to live by.
At the outset let’s acknowledge that Moses was a wise, capable and well-qualified leader, one who recognized what was needed to maintain order and one who was aware of his own limitations. As he may well have seen it, laws and rules derived by Moses may carry some weight with the children of Israel, but Commandments from God would definitely carry a whole lot more weight. Commandments from God, rather than from Moses, would give much needed credence to the rules, but more importantly from Moses’ point of view, they would solidify his role as leader. One may or may not choose to obey the word of Moses, but one will surely strive to obey the word of God. And who would one choose to follow, a common leader or one who communicates directly with God? Moses recognized those nuances; why else go up into the mountains alone?
The idea that God has communicated directly with a few, a extremely scarce few, chosen men, and that mankind must heed and obey that which is passed along by those chosen few, has evolved beyond religious mythology. Man possesses the capacity to think and reason, yet many believe that God wants them to suppress their reasoning ability and accept without question that which is hearsay. God must laugh at such a concept. Sheep and lemmings were created to be sheep and lemmings. Man was not!
But back to the Ten Commandments. Civilized man realizes the need for laws and beyond that he knows that laws often require complex explanations and definitions for reasons of clarity in order to avoid loopholes, exceptions and confusion. Consequently, we do not have such simple laws as: ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ These simple thou shalt nots, left to interpretation of convenience, have plagued man with moral dilemmas for centuries. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ means one thing, while ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ means something else and ‘turn thy cheek’ something completely different and contradictory. So we conveniently find exceptions to ‘Thou shalt not kill’ in order to accommodate our justification of war, self-defense, and the death penalty. Then there are the myriad issues concerning taking a life that is not human life. Is hunting okay? Can we kill those pesky insects?
The real issue concerning those Ten Commandments, however, goes beyond critiquing their vulnerability to interpretation. The real issue is their value as rules to live by, to improve human civility and man’s ability to coexist with his fellow man in harmony with the natural environment. Remember, this is THE Ten Commandments, God’s directives, what He demands of man. A Supreme Being would never include triviality and nonsense in such a list.
Triviality? Is it not blasphemous to claim the Ten Commandments to be trivial? ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’ In the overall scheme of things, that is trivial. ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.’ This from the Supreme Being? He does not need your worship nor does He need your undivided attention. He put you here with other objectives in mind. Besides, and do give this serious consideration, since He knows what is in your heart and on your mind, does that not make overt worship a wasted effort. Is it not redundant?
If the above assertion of triviality is blasphemous, it is but a venial blasphemy when compared with what must be the deadly sin of claiming some Commandments to be nonsense. Nonetheless, commanding one to not covet is commanding one to not wish, want, or desire and that simply goes against human nature. To not covet is tantamount to not living, or even worse, living after a lobotomy. The sin is not in coveting. Coveting is natural. The sin is what one does as a result of, or in response to, his coveting, and the commandment should so specify. Perhaps the commandment should read: Though Thou may be beset by extremely strong wants, desires and urges that cannot and often should not be fulfilled, it is incumbent upon thee to learn to live with and accept those disappointments.
But the very worst of the Commandments, one that truly does more harm than good, and one that was obviously derived from man and not from God is: ‘Honor thy father and thy mother.’ God would never put the onus on the child! This crutch for poor parenting must be recognized and acknowledged for what it is. Becoming a parent is all too simple and natural. Being a parent, a good parent, is far more difficult. Children come into the world wanting nothing more than to honor, love and respect their parents. It is the parents who must be commanded to always strive to earn the honor and respect of their children. Using the fear of God’s wrath to control and manipulate a child is detrimental to both child and parent.
God cannot be happy with our interpretation and blind acceptance of the Ten Commandments. But then, as thinking, reasoning and supposedly rational beings, we do manage to disappoint in oh so many ways.
GOD LAUGHS
Part I – Man and Sex
The concept of God, The Supreme Being, The Creator, from a religious perspective is quite different from that which one could ever perceive if left solely to one’s personal experiences and observations, especially if those experiences and observations pertain to sex. Human sexuality, if nothing else, provides overwhelming evidence that God has a sense of humor. But where to begin?
Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, A-sexuality, transvestites, fetishes, rape, prostitution, pornography, paedophilia, nymphomania, frigidity, incest, masturbation, sexual dysfunction, libidos, hormones all are parts of human sexuality and all, to one degree or another, impact human behavior. To encumber man with such a powerful, complex and frustrating psychological modifier as the sex drive, with all of its obvious consequences, surely requires a sense of humor. And after inflicting man and woman with this overpowering source of pleasure, pain and frustration, should not God, at the very least, have addressed the issue in more than just a few of His Ten Commandments? Does it make sense that an all-knowing God, aware of man’s penchant toward extreme behavior, would limit His concerns and admonitions regarding sexual excesses to adultery and coveting? Only, it would seem, if He possessed a cynical sense of humor. That being the case, one can only conclude that God laughs. What else can He do?
Think Tiger Woods and his recent fall from grace, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Gary Hart and Donna Rice, or go back to the Profumo Affair that rocked the U.K. in the early 60’s, or Jimmy Swaggert and other evangelicals who could not or would not control their libidos. Can you really think about these kinds of events and not imagine God chuckling? Even that which is not funny can have humorous aspects. Suicide bombings certainly are not funny, but the concept of carrying out such an extreme act of violence for Allah’s promise of forty virgins in paradise; that is laughable, an example of the thin line that can exist between pathos and humor. And what of those other men of God, the priests whose sexual transgressions have shaken the very foundation of the Catholic Church? It is not their homosexual predations that evoke humor. It is the concept of mandatory, institutionalized celibacy that is funny. God provides a domineering sex drive, then demands that you suppress and overcome that drive in order to “serve” Him.
The inability to control one’s sex drive is not rare. Nor is it limited to identifiable segments of the population. The fact is, we know not what transpires behind another’s closed doors, even another whom we consider to be quite close to us. One man’s normal sexual activity is another’s guilt-ridden fantasy, and another may consider it to be deviant, taboo or even sinful behavior.
Sexual compatibility, though probably not rare, is certainly not the norm. The term sexual compatibility here pertains to couples supposedly “in love” and committed to one another’s happiness. The processes couples go through to determine if in fact they are compatible are fraught with humor, especially from the standpoint of a neutral third party. Couples must “work” at sex; there are no universally enjoyable or accepted sexual practices and, even if there were, people would still raise issue concerning time, size, mood, distractions, deviations…
Just as we laugh at the inept actions and frustrations of others, surely a Supreme Being would laugh at man’s sexual fumbling, his excesses and abuses. People pray that He, “Lead us not into temptation”, then conduct themselves as though tempting others and being tempted were life’s main objectives. The media, specifically entertainment and advertising, fashion, books and now even medicine are dominated by sex. Today’s standards tolerate far more than yesterday’s, and tomorrow's will make today look tame. Religion cannot control it. Society does not control it. And when either of these entities tries to control it, their efforts prove more detrimental than helpful.
Man is quick to determine God’s will in this regard. That is, most believe that what is abhorrent to them is abhorrent to God, and should therefore be forbidden. Well, if all of this does not make Him laugh, then He must be shaking His head and reminding Himself to do it a little differently next time.
Part I – Man and Sex
The concept of God, The Supreme Being, The Creator, from a religious perspective is quite different from that which one could ever perceive if left solely to one’s personal experiences and observations, especially if those experiences and observations pertain to sex. Human sexuality, if nothing else, provides overwhelming evidence that God has a sense of humor. But where to begin?
Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, A-sexuality, transvestites, fetishes, rape, prostitution, pornography, paedophilia, nymphomania, frigidity, incest, masturbation, sexual dysfunction, libidos, hormones all are parts of human sexuality and all, to one degree or another, impact human behavior. To encumber man with such a powerful, complex and frustrating psychological modifier as the sex drive, with all of its obvious consequences, surely requires a sense of humor. And after inflicting man and woman with this overpowering source of pleasure, pain and frustration, should not God, at the very least, have addressed the issue in more than just a few of His Ten Commandments? Does it make sense that an all-knowing God, aware of man’s penchant toward extreme behavior, would limit His concerns and admonitions regarding sexual excesses to adultery and coveting? Only, it would seem, if He possessed a cynical sense of humor. That being the case, one can only conclude that God laughs. What else can He do?
Think Tiger Woods and his recent fall from grace, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Gary Hart and Donna Rice, or go back to the Profumo Affair that rocked the U.K. in the early 60’s, or Jimmy Swaggert and other evangelicals who could not or would not control their libidos. Can you really think about these kinds of events and not imagine God chuckling? Even that which is not funny can have humorous aspects. Suicide bombings certainly are not funny, but the concept of carrying out such an extreme act of violence for Allah’s promise of forty virgins in paradise; that is laughable, an example of the thin line that can exist between pathos and humor. And what of those other men of God, the priests whose sexual transgressions have shaken the very foundation of the Catholic Church? It is not their homosexual predations that evoke humor. It is the concept of mandatory, institutionalized celibacy that is funny. God provides a domineering sex drive, then demands that you suppress and overcome that drive in order to “serve” Him.
The inability to control one’s sex drive is not rare. Nor is it limited to identifiable segments of the population. The fact is, we know not what transpires behind another’s closed doors, even another whom we consider to be quite close to us. One man’s normal sexual activity is another’s guilt-ridden fantasy, and another may consider it to be deviant, taboo or even sinful behavior.
Sexual compatibility, though probably not rare, is certainly not the norm. The term sexual compatibility here pertains to couples supposedly “in love” and committed to one another’s happiness. The processes couples go through to determine if in fact they are compatible are fraught with humor, especially from the standpoint of a neutral third party. Couples must “work” at sex; there are no universally enjoyable or accepted sexual practices and, even if there were, people would still raise issue concerning time, size, mood, distractions, deviations…
Just as we laugh at the inept actions and frustrations of others, surely a Supreme Being would laugh at man’s sexual fumbling, his excesses and abuses. People pray that He, “Lead us not into temptation”, then conduct themselves as though tempting others and being tempted were life’s main objectives. The media, specifically entertainment and advertising, fashion, books and now even medicine are dominated by sex. Today’s standards tolerate far more than yesterday’s, and tomorrow's will make today look tame. Religion cannot control it. Society does not control it. And when either of these entities tries to control it, their efforts prove more detrimental than helpful.
Man is quick to determine God’s will in this regard. That is, most believe that what is abhorrent to them is abhorrent to God, and should therefore be forbidden. Well, if all of this does not make Him laugh, then He must be shaking His head and reminding Himself to do it a little differently next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
