For me voting is an honor. I think about all my female ancestors who never were allowed to vote and I feel humbled that I have been entrusted with that right. I think about all the women in third world countries whose voices are suppressed everyday because they are not afforded the opportunity to vote. I think about my sons and the example I want to set for them, the example I want them to look for in a partner.
And lastly, I think about myself. My beliefs, my values, my intellect all are voiced and enacted by filling out a single form once a year. It is the one time in my life when I can shout out with the loudest voice that I matter, that I inspire and I can do it without saying a word.
I vote in every election because I can. Next Tuesday millions of Americans will be showing their respect and honor for our country and the millions of men and women who have died to give us all this honor. Millions of Americans already have already taken their place in history by voicing their opinion of the way they want their government to run.
To be sure, this election is not an easy one. Because of the ruling by the Supreme Court earlier this year in the Citizens United decision, our entire system of democracy is threatened by PAC ad that have very little to do with informing us about what's best for us, but rather, fooling us into voting for what's best for them. That means that every one of us have a duty to inform ourselves about the candidates and the issues. Nothing and no one on the ballot is too small to be ignored this year.
I realize that what I'm asking is not easy or pleasant for most people. We work hard all day long and at the end of the day, we really don't want to have to do RESEARCH on what's really true and who's really best. What I suggest is that you get some of your friends together that live near you and divide the candidates and initiatives up and each research a few. Then get together to discuss and make your decision. If you don't have any friends, call the local headquarters of all political parties and ask for their recommendations. Be sure to ask WHY they recommend a certain person or initiative. They will gladly give you reasons why.
If enough of us do this and commit to doing it year after year, then we the people can render the Citizens United case irrelevant. If we can unseat a very strong incumbent who has spent millions on his/her campaign (personally I hope it will be Darrell Issa) then we can send a message that will ring out all over the country that our votes cannot be bought. That our elected representatives need to do more to start representing us and not their parties or their donors. We can preserve the America that so many have fought and died for. An America that we can be proud to leave for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Reflections on Religion
Religion fascinates me. For much of my life I have been a "spiritual" person. For much of my life a belief in something out there has sustained me. And for much of my life, I've been subject to being beaten over the head (literally and figuratively) by bad followers of good religions. My brothers and I were raised to believe in a sort of "Santa God" who would grant your every wish if you were good enough (and of course our parents told us that being good enough was doing everything they said without question- considering that one of these things was getting beaten with a belt and NOT crying- it was virtually impossible to be good enough). But if you slipped up even once you were going to hell and God couldn't wait to send you there. I know it's crazy to hear that now, but when you are a child and it's your parents are telling you this, you believe it.
In college I was exposed to the abstract thinking of philosophy and had found my match. A place where no thought was taboo. A discipline that not only welcomed my "weird" thinking (which we now call "outside the box" thinking) but praised it. Although I was going to a Jesuit college (yay Loyola Marymount) I was encouraged to learn about different religions and schools of thought. I suddenly realized that perhaps Christianity wasn't the best religion out there for me. Or if it was, perhaps there were things I could get from these other religions that would help me to be a better person, to understand things differently.
I won't go into my complete religious history and all the ins and outs (that's for another blog) but I will say that I have come around to the atheist side of things. For many monotheists I know this sounds like an empty existence, however, for me, it really has enhanced my life. I am able to take something from all the world's religions and incorporate them into my existence for the express purpose of being a better person.
As a result the patchwork of my spiritual quilt is made up of the strongest and the most beautiful pieces of the religions the world has to offer. If it were a work of art, it would far surpass the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel. I don't need a deity or an afterlife to make this happen either.
Freeing myself from the confines of religion, has liberated me. The biggest question I get asked by religious people is "aren't you afraid of what happens in the afterlife"? And the answer is "no." I know that if there were a universal God, there would be only one religion that would have been there from the beginning. I also know that an all loving deity would be more concerned with being a good person that its own ego. Believing in an invisible and unavailable God would not be a mandate. In addition, the idea an all powerful. all knowing God were to get so angry at a person for not believing is what is somewhat of a logical anomaly. What I mean is, anger comes from fear, and fear comes from weakness. Therefore an angry God is a weak God and if God is angry at me, then that means that I must be a threat to God in some way which means that I am stronger than God which means that even if the original premise were true, God probably wouldn't have the power to send me to an eternity of damnation anyway. So the answer is, no. I'm not afraid of the afterlife.
And really, it's been my experience that the people who judge other people for not believing exactly as they do are the same ones whom I mentioned above- the ones that are bad people in good religions. The fact of the matter is that there is more empirical evidence to support that God doesn't exist than supports the idea that God does exist. A good religious person acknowledges the fact that belief is hard for rational people to accept. A good religious person acknowledges that they too have their own doubts, but that they believe anyway.
Religion should make it easier for a person to be good, not easier for a person to be forgiven. I'm not slamming the idea of forgiveness, as I think its a really good concept. However, I've noticed that bad religious people tend to only forgive themselves. Good religious people forgive before its even asked for. Good religious people have a really well balanced life. Their spirituality enhances their day to day existence and helps them to be happy.
Bad religious people seem to be angry all the time. They are easily offended by everything. It never ceases to amaze me the number of Christians who fall into this category. They are offended by a bad word or even the hint of sex. The way I see it, if my Lord and Savior were nailed to a cross and left to die, and I got offended by anything less than that, I would be letting those little things have more significance to me than that sacrifice. That sacrifice should be the most offensive thing to me. These little things can't and shouldn't hurt me. But then, that's probably why I wasn't a very good Christian.
In college I was exposed to the abstract thinking of philosophy and had found my match. A place where no thought was taboo. A discipline that not only welcomed my "weird" thinking (which we now call "outside the box" thinking) but praised it. Although I was going to a Jesuit college (yay Loyola Marymount) I was encouraged to learn about different religions and schools of thought. I suddenly realized that perhaps Christianity wasn't the best religion out there for me. Or if it was, perhaps there were things I could get from these other religions that would help me to be a better person, to understand things differently.
I won't go into my complete religious history and all the ins and outs (that's for another blog) but I will say that I have come around to the atheist side of things. For many monotheists I know this sounds like an empty existence, however, for me, it really has enhanced my life. I am able to take something from all the world's religions and incorporate them into my existence for the express purpose of being a better person.
As a result the patchwork of my spiritual quilt is made up of the strongest and the most beautiful pieces of the religions the world has to offer. If it were a work of art, it would far surpass the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel. I don't need a deity or an afterlife to make this happen either.
Freeing myself from the confines of religion, has liberated me. The biggest question I get asked by religious people is "aren't you afraid of what happens in the afterlife"? And the answer is "no." I know that if there were a universal God, there would be only one religion that would have been there from the beginning. I also know that an all loving deity would be more concerned with being a good person that its own ego. Believing in an invisible and unavailable God would not be a mandate. In addition, the idea an all powerful. all knowing God were to get so angry at a person for not believing is what is somewhat of a logical anomaly. What I mean is, anger comes from fear, and fear comes from weakness. Therefore an angry God is a weak God and if God is angry at me, then that means that I must be a threat to God in some way which means that I am stronger than God which means that even if the original premise were true, God probably wouldn't have the power to send me to an eternity of damnation anyway. So the answer is, no. I'm not afraid of the afterlife.
And really, it's been my experience that the people who judge other people for not believing exactly as they do are the same ones whom I mentioned above- the ones that are bad people in good religions. The fact of the matter is that there is more empirical evidence to support that God doesn't exist than supports the idea that God does exist. A good religious person acknowledges the fact that belief is hard for rational people to accept. A good religious person acknowledges that they too have their own doubts, but that they believe anyway.
Religion should make it easier for a person to be good, not easier for a person to be forgiven. I'm not slamming the idea of forgiveness, as I think its a really good concept. However, I've noticed that bad religious people tend to only forgive themselves. Good religious people forgive before its even asked for. Good religious people have a really well balanced life. Their spirituality enhances their day to day existence and helps them to be happy.
Bad religious people seem to be angry all the time. They are easily offended by everything. It never ceases to amaze me the number of Christians who fall into this category. They are offended by a bad word or even the hint of sex. The way I see it, if my Lord and Savior were nailed to a cross and left to die, and I got offended by anything less than that, I would be letting those little things have more significance to me than that sacrifice. That sacrifice should be the most offensive thing to me. These little things can't and shouldn't hurt me. But then, that's probably why I wasn't a very good Christian.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Reflections on Bullying
Recently, there has been much made about bullying and the teenagers who have killed themselves as a result of school bullying. Here's my story:
I am not gay and my bullying did not occur at exclusively at school, but in my home. I was the youngest of 3 children and the only girl. I was told every day of my life by my parents and, to a lesser extent, my brothers that I was worthless and never going to amount to anything. I was called fat and ugly and my father used to say that I was everything he hated in a person. On top of that was the physical abuse. While there was teasing and a certain amount of bullying at school, it seemed like nothing in comparison to what I got at home every day of my life. When I called the police after a beating, they asked what I did to deserve it. When I told my teachers exactly who it was that gave me the black eye they told me to tell my father that I was too old for spankings and left it at that. I spent much of my teenage years just trying to find someone to love me. I thought I found that someone when I was 16 years-old. A 20 year-old man whom after we had dated for about 2 weeks told me that if I didn't sleep with him he was going to have to find someone more mature. I gave in. It was my first time. I will never forget the flood of empty despair that washed over me when my "best friend" told me four weeks later that she and this man were in fact "seeing" each other and were going to go to the prom together. Seeing that this was verification of what my parents had told me my whole life, that no one could ever love me and only foreseeing a future filled with desolation, I swallowed a bottle of sleeping pills. I did this in front of this "best friend" who was spending the night. The next morning she got up and went to school as if nothing had happened. To her credit, she called my mother the next morning to see if I was there. My mother then went to see if I had stayed home found me barely breathing. My heart stopped beating just as they got me into the Emergency Room and for 3 days I had a machine breathing for me until the drugs wore off.
Even while I was taking the sleeping pills, I knew that I really didn't want to die. But I knew that I couldn't live that way anymore. Things HAD to change or I would rather be dead. My parents didn't get me therapy and just wanted the whole thing to go away. And while things hadn't changed that much at home, I had changed after that incident. I realized that I wasn't the loser, but rather the people around me were. I realized that I really didn't want to die and in fact I wanted to LIVE more than ever. I realized that even though my family tormented me, in their own way, they did love me and actually didn't want me to die.
About two years later I moved out of my parents house and began liberating myself from the emotional brambles that had shaped my ideas about myself.
In the 30 years since that horrific time, I have grown into the stable, secure and intelligent woman I am today. It was not easy and it was not by myself. I went through several years of therapy and have had the support of a wonderful husband and amazing and outstanding children. The thought that had I succeeded that night and not survived that these incredible human beings would not be here today, fills me with stunned humility and even a bit of shame.
I am here today and I have broken the cycle of abuse and torment that I was raised with. I have made peace with both of my parents and understand that all the horrible things they did to me growing up were really things they wanted to do to themselves and really had very little to do with me. This is often the case with bullies. What they do to their victims is what they really think about themselves.
Do I regret my suicide attempt? Absolutely. I now realize that there are other ways to deal with these situations. I now realize that NO situation is worth killing yourself over. However, I do understand the hopelessness that teenagers feel when life comes at them full force. And while I'm not gay, I can relate to the gay teen who feels as if this is who they are and that won't change, therefore the world won't change.
I have a message for you. It will change. It does change and it will do so while you stay you. You are loved and you are lovable, and anyone that tells you any different is the real loser. YOU are a winner because you know who you are. The people who try to tell you differently know they are losers and are trying to bring you down with them. Don't go there. They don't have the courage to stand up for themselves like you do. You remind them how puny and pathetic their existence is.
Whether it's in your home or at your school- there is so much more to life than what you are feeling right now. If you haven't watched Joel Burns You Tube video please do so now (click the words). I recommend this for everyone. It doesn't matter how old you are, whether you are gay or straight this video is a must see. If you are contemplating suicide, please tell someone who loves you. If they don't listen or don't take you seriously, tell someone else and keep telling people until someone listens. It will get better. I promise.
I am not gay and my bullying did not occur at exclusively at school, but in my home. I was the youngest of 3 children and the only girl. I was told every day of my life by my parents and, to a lesser extent, my brothers that I was worthless and never going to amount to anything. I was called fat and ugly and my father used to say that I was everything he hated in a person. On top of that was the physical abuse. While there was teasing and a certain amount of bullying at school, it seemed like nothing in comparison to what I got at home every day of my life. When I called the police after a beating, they asked what I did to deserve it. When I told my teachers exactly who it was that gave me the black eye they told me to tell my father that I was too old for spankings and left it at that. I spent much of my teenage years just trying to find someone to love me. I thought I found that someone when I was 16 years-old. A 20 year-old man whom after we had dated for about 2 weeks told me that if I didn't sleep with him he was going to have to find someone more mature. I gave in. It was my first time. I will never forget the flood of empty despair that washed over me when my "best friend" told me four weeks later that she and this man were in fact "seeing" each other and were going to go to the prom together. Seeing that this was verification of what my parents had told me my whole life, that no one could ever love me and only foreseeing a future filled with desolation, I swallowed a bottle of sleeping pills. I did this in front of this "best friend" who was spending the night. The next morning she got up and went to school as if nothing had happened. To her credit, she called my mother the next morning to see if I was there. My mother then went to see if I had stayed home found me barely breathing. My heart stopped beating just as they got me into the Emergency Room and for 3 days I had a machine breathing for me until the drugs wore off.
Even while I was taking the sleeping pills, I knew that I really didn't want to die. But I knew that I couldn't live that way anymore. Things HAD to change or I would rather be dead. My parents didn't get me therapy and just wanted the whole thing to go away. And while things hadn't changed that much at home, I had changed after that incident. I realized that I wasn't the loser, but rather the people around me were. I realized that I really didn't want to die and in fact I wanted to LIVE more than ever. I realized that even though my family tormented me, in their own way, they did love me and actually didn't want me to die.
About two years later I moved out of my parents house and began liberating myself from the emotional brambles that had shaped my ideas about myself.
In the 30 years since that horrific time, I have grown into the stable, secure and intelligent woman I am today. It was not easy and it was not by myself. I went through several years of therapy and have had the support of a wonderful husband and amazing and outstanding children. The thought that had I succeeded that night and not survived that these incredible human beings would not be here today, fills me with stunned humility and even a bit of shame.
I am here today and I have broken the cycle of abuse and torment that I was raised with. I have made peace with both of my parents and understand that all the horrible things they did to me growing up were really things they wanted to do to themselves and really had very little to do with me. This is often the case with bullies. What they do to their victims is what they really think about themselves.
Do I regret my suicide attempt? Absolutely. I now realize that there are other ways to deal with these situations. I now realize that NO situation is worth killing yourself over. However, I do understand the hopelessness that teenagers feel when life comes at them full force. And while I'm not gay, I can relate to the gay teen who feels as if this is who they are and that won't change, therefore the world won't change.
I have a message for you. It will change. It does change and it will do so while you stay you. You are loved and you are lovable, and anyone that tells you any different is the real loser. YOU are a winner because you know who you are. The people who try to tell you differently know they are losers and are trying to bring you down with them. Don't go there. They don't have the courage to stand up for themselves like you do. You remind them how puny and pathetic their existence is.
Whether it's in your home or at your school- there is so much more to life than what you are feeling right now. If you haven't watched Joel Burns You Tube video please do so now (click the words). I recommend this for everyone. It doesn't matter how old you are, whether you are gay or straight this video is a must see. If you are contemplating suicide, please tell someone who loves you. If they don't listen or don't take you seriously, tell someone else and keep telling people until someone listens. It will get better. I promise.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Perspective on Illegal Immigration
It never ceases to amaze me how people are so willing to blame their woes on the weakest group. In the U.S. today that group is the "illegal alien." If we are being more precise about it, we are talking about the people who are in our country that speak Spanish. Most people assume that they are here illegally and while that isn't always the case, often it is. People who are anti-illegal immigrant (and from now on I will call them "xenophobes") are often citing how much they cost our country by taking advantage of our wonderful social programs we offer here in the U.S. Most xenophobes are conservative (although that's not always the case) and uneducated (and that's usually the case). Many of them support Arizona's law S.B. 1070 and favor deporting all illegal aliens back to where they came from. When questioning these people the vast majority of them cite the economics of the problem as their main impetus for why they favor this solution over others. So I decided to do a little research of my own.
First I need to state that generally speaking, I don't like anecdotal evidence, but because this is first hand to me, I will use it as I haven't seen any statistics on this. My husband's uncle is in law enforcement in Tucson, Arizona. His job is to accompany deportees back to Mexico and make sure they are deported according to the terms of American Immigration Law. When a judge has ruled that a person is to be deported, Uncle Tommy goes to pick them up at the courthouse, takes them to Tucson International Airport and purchases a round trip ticket for himself and a one way ticket for the deportee. The ticket for the deportee alone costs $1200. That is just in transportation costs alone. According to the U.S. Census- there are approximately 12 million people in this country who would qualify for deportation. If we were to take 12 million and multiply it by $1200, we would be talking about a cost of $14.4 Billion in transportation costs alone. And mind you, that is for one of the shortest trips possible from -Tucson to Mexico. That cost would no doubt go up if deporting from any other state or to any other country. It's a very conservative estimate and doesn't take into account the costs associated with rounding these people up and prosecuting them.
The economic absurdity of this solution becomes even clearer when you take a closer look at how much illegal aliens really cost us. According to fairus.org- an anti-illegal immigrant website, illegal immigrants cost the U.S. $29 Billion in what they utilize in social programs. These programs include education, healthcare and entitlement programs.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the annual cost in 2006-07 of public education in the U.S. was $562.3 billion. According to the Tax Policy Center, the U.S. spends over $600 Billion on healthcare. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The U.S. spend $708 Billion on Social Security and $482 Billion on Safety Net programs for the poor (what some people call "entitlement programs). When you add all of these programs together you get a total budget of
$2,352,300,000,000 or $2.352 Trillion. When you divide that number by the $29 billion of these budgets that go toward benefits for undocumented workers you find that only 1.2% of the Federal budget goes towards programs that benefit them (and since the majority of that number is for education- in the long run it benefits us too). That means that although undocumented workers make up 3% of the population they are actually UNDER utilizing these services for their proportion of the population, which means that they actually cost the U.S. less than its citizens do. In addition, this doesn't take into account that often these people do pay into they system when they use false ids to get gainful and legitimate employment.
And these are just the economic facts. This doesn't take into account the human factor involved. The vast majority of these people are hard working, honest people that are just trying to escape poverty and starvation in their own countries. The few violent criminals that sneak over the border with them give the whole lot a bad name, and truly, deportation for those few is a must, regardless of the cost. Even the staunchest advocate of SB 1070 agrees that the goal here is to do what's best for America and deporting honest hard working people is not the answer.
So what is the solution? Simple. Just go back to the immigration policy of the late 19th century. That is, allow anyone to come here to work legally, provided that they are able to work, don't have a communicable disease and do not have a criminal background. People won't need to sneak over the border. They will then be able to cross over and obtain a work visa. They will be paid what every American gets paid, therefore removing the incentive employers have to hire them in the first place, and then they will pay taxes on those wages. In fact, I would be willing to bet they would be glad to pay an additional tax just for the privilege of
working here.
Many Americans get adamant about allowing these people to become citizens. However, this is something I do NOT understand. We can make the criteria for citizenship the same criteria for the model citizen. For example, we could require that they learn to speak, read and write English; they have good credit, have never been arrested, have never been on a public assistance program, have lived here for a set number of years, et cetera
First I need to state that generally speaking, I don't like anecdotal evidence, but because this is first hand to me, I will use it as I haven't seen any statistics on this. My husband's uncle is in law enforcement in Tucson, Arizona. His job is to accompany deportees back to Mexico and make sure they are deported according to the terms of American Immigration Law. When a judge has ruled that a person is to be deported, Uncle Tommy goes to pick them up at the courthouse, takes them to Tucson International Airport and purchases a round trip ticket for himself and a one way ticket for the deportee. The ticket for the deportee alone costs $1200. That is just in transportation costs alone. According to the U.S. Census- there are approximately 12 million people in this country who would qualify for deportation. If we were to take 12 million and multiply it by $1200, we would be talking about a cost of $14.4 Billion in transportation costs alone. And mind you, that is for one of the shortest trips possible from -Tucson to Mexico. That cost would no doubt go up if deporting from any other state or to any other country. It's a very conservative estimate and doesn't take into account the costs associated with rounding these people up and prosecuting them.
The economic absurdity of this solution becomes even clearer when you take a closer look at how much illegal aliens really cost us. According to fairus.org- an anti-illegal immigrant website, illegal immigrants cost the U.S. $29 Billion in what they utilize in social programs. These programs include education, healthcare and entitlement programs.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the annual cost in 2006-07 of public education in the U.S. was $562.3 billion. According to the Tax Policy Center, the U.S. spends over $600 Billion on healthcare. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The U.S. spend $708 Billion on Social Security and $482 Billion on Safety Net programs for the poor (what some people call "entitlement programs). When you add all of these programs together you get a total budget of
$2,352,300,000,000 or $2.352 Trillion. When you divide that number by the $29 billion of these budgets that go toward benefits for undocumented workers you find that only 1.2% of the Federal budget goes towards programs that benefit them (and since the majority of that number is for education- in the long run it benefits us too). That means that although undocumented workers make up 3% of the population they are actually UNDER utilizing these services for their proportion of the population, which means that they actually cost the U.S. less than its citizens do. In addition, this doesn't take into account that often these people do pay into they system when they use false ids to get gainful and legitimate employment.
And these are just the economic facts. This doesn't take into account the human factor involved. The vast majority of these people are hard working, honest people that are just trying to escape poverty and starvation in their own countries. The few violent criminals that sneak over the border with them give the whole lot a bad name, and truly, deportation for those few is a must, regardless of the cost. Even the staunchest advocate of SB 1070 agrees that the goal here is to do what's best for America and deporting honest hard working people is not the answer.
So what is the solution? Simple. Just go back to the immigration policy of the late 19th century. That is, allow anyone to come here to work legally, provided that they are able to work, don't have a communicable disease and do not have a criminal background. People won't need to sneak over the border. They will then be able to cross over and obtain a work visa. They will be paid what every American gets paid, therefore removing the incentive employers have to hire them in the first place, and then they will pay taxes on those wages. In fact, I would be willing to bet they would be glad to pay an additional tax just for the privilege of
working here.
Many Americans get adamant about allowing these people to become citizens. However, this is something I do NOT understand. We can make the criteria for citizenship the same criteria for the model citizen. For example, we could require that they learn to speak, read and write English; they have good credit, have never been arrested, have never been on a public assistance program, have lived here for a set number of years, et cetera
Monday, October 18, 2010
Meg Whitman is a Weak Quitter.
Meg Whitman tries to represent herself as a true leader with the stuff to get California out of its economic woes. She's going to stand up to those politicians and special interest groups that have brought us down and will bring California back to its heyday. I have a few problems with all this and serious doubts about her ability to get this done due to her work record and her ability to be a democratic leader.
While it's true that she's quit most of the jobs she's been at, what troubles me the most is when she was on the Board of Directors at Goldman Sachs. It was during the time when she was making money off of insider deals in a practice called "spinning." At the time this was not illegal (it is now), but did create a conflict of interest while she was also serving as CEO of Ebay. Soon after the SEC started investigating her involvement in this practice is when she resigned her position with Goldman Sachs. In her autobiography she stated that she resigned from the Board because Paulson, then the CEO of Goldman Sachs, wanted people on the board who were just going to "rubber stamp" his plans and she wasn't willing to do that. This is very interesting to me since I always thought that it was the Board's job to make sure that the CEO couldn't have his/her plans just "rubber stamped." I thought they were the people who protected the interests of the stockholders. Isn't that why the CEO can't fire these people?
What really bothers me about this is that Ms. Whitman wasn't even willing to TRY and stand up to Paulson. She just quit. If she is supposed to be the person we in California will be depending on to stand up to the legislature and special interest groups but she was too weak to stand up to one CEO, then what makes her think that she can take on the groups of people and stand up to them. Her own record shows that she will back down or quit, like she always has.
I also have problems with Politicians who buy their own political seats. I didn't used to until I moved to the 49th Congressional district of California. My congressional representative, Darrell Issa, is the richest man in congress. When I call his office and say "Hi. My name is Rena Marrocco..." I get hung up on before I get a chance to say what I'm calling about. Now I pay taxes like everyone else in that district, and yet this is the representation I get. I think this is called "taxation without representation." Mr. Issa can do this because he doesn't need to answer to any of his constituents since he pays for his own seat each election cycle. This is exactly what I worry about from Meg Whitman. By buying their seats, these ultra rich people are able to practice a form of Oligarchical Imperialism, which leaves them free to ignore their constituents. This is exactly what Darrell Issa does (he votes with his party 95% of the time, abstains 2% which means that he only votes against his party 3% of the time- even though a full 55% of his constituents are NOT Republicans) and definitely what Meg Whitman will do too.
However, we the people still hold the ultimate key to democracy: the vote. If we just don't vote for the ultra rich, we can and will stop this trend. When someone touts themselves as a "business person," it doesn't always qualify them to be a good political leader. Sometimes it works out, but more often then not, in order to be a good business person, you have to be a good dictator. You have to do what's best for the business which isn't what's best for the employees and what's best for your customer base. Customer bases aren't everyone (unless you run a mortuary). They are a specific group of people that you have tailored your product and your image to. Which is why someone like Darrell Issa isn't able to "represent." He has tailored his representation to a few people- Republicans. As a business person you learn that you don't waste time and money trying to get someone who has no need for your product to buy your product. For example, insurance agents don't try to sell homeowners insurance to people who live in apartments. The problems is that democracy isn't and shouldn't be a commodity. The problem is that business leaders only know how to lead as if it is.
Meg Whitman has done nothing to prove to me that she will do anything more than put another nail in the coffin of democracy if she's elected. It is our job to stop her. On November 2, 2010, vote anyone but but Meg.
While it's true that she's quit most of the jobs she's been at, what troubles me the most is when she was on the Board of Directors at Goldman Sachs. It was during the time when she was making money off of insider deals in a practice called "spinning." At the time this was not illegal (it is now), but did create a conflict of interest while she was also serving as CEO of Ebay. Soon after the SEC started investigating her involvement in this practice is when she resigned her position with Goldman Sachs. In her autobiography she stated that she resigned from the Board because Paulson, then the CEO of Goldman Sachs, wanted people on the board who were just going to "rubber stamp" his plans and she wasn't willing to do that. This is very interesting to me since I always thought that it was the Board's job to make sure that the CEO couldn't have his/her plans just "rubber stamped." I thought they were the people who protected the interests of the stockholders. Isn't that why the CEO can't fire these people?
What really bothers me about this is that Ms. Whitman wasn't even willing to TRY and stand up to Paulson. She just quit. If she is supposed to be the person we in California will be depending on to stand up to the legislature and special interest groups but she was too weak to stand up to one CEO, then what makes her think that she can take on the groups of people and stand up to them. Her own record shows that she will back down or quit, like she always has.
I also have problems with Politicians who buy their own political seats. I didn't used to until I moved to the 49th Congressional district of California. My congressional representative, Darrell Issa, is the richest man in congress. When I call his office and say "Hi. My name is Rena Marrocco..." I get hung up on before I get a chance to say what I'm calling about. Now I pay taxes like everyone else in that district, and yet this is the representation I get. I think this is called "taxation without representation." Mr. Issa can do this because he doesn't need to answer to any of his constituents since he pays for his own seat each election cycle. This is exactly what I worry about from Meg Whitman. By buying their seats, these ultra rich people are able to practice a form of Oligarchical Imperialism, which leaves them free to ignore their constituents. This is exactly what Darrell Issa does (he votes with his party 95% of the time, abstains 2% which means that he only votes against his party 3% of the time- even though a full 55% of his constituents are NOT Republicans) and definitely what Meg Whitman will do too.
However, we the people still hold the ultimate key to democracy: the vote. If we just don't vote for the ultra rich, we can and will stop this trend. When someone touts themselves as a "business person," it doesn't always qualify them to be a good political leader. Sometimes it works out, but more often then not, in order to be a good business person, you have to be a good dictator. You have to do what's best for the business which isn't what's best for the employees and what's best for your customer base. Customer bases aren't everyone (unless you run a mortuary). They are a specific group of people that you have tailored your product and your image to. Which is why someone like Darrell Issa isn't able to "represent." He has tailored his representation to a few people- Republicans. As a business person you learn that you don't waste time and money trying to get someone who has no need for your product to buy your product. For example, insurance agents don't try to sell homeowners insurance to people who live in apartments. The problems is that democracy isn't and shouldn't be a commodity. The problem is that business leaders only know how to lead as if it is.
Meg Whitman has done nothing to prove to me that she will do anything more than put another nail in the coffin of democracy if she's elected. It is our job to stop her. On November 2, 2010, vote anyone but but Meg.
Traditional Values
One of the things I hear my Conservative friends wax nostalgic about is the America of yesteryear and its traditional values that are all but lost to us now. My Tea Bagger relatives will always cite "I Love Lucy" as the example of the America they want back. A black and white version of dilemmas solved in a half hour and sealed with a heart and a bow. These people don't need reality TV because for them, Lucy was it.
I must admit. I too would love to live in the Ricardo's midtown apartment, married to the dashing Cuban band leader with my best friend living downstairs. However, I'm not so sure I would want that dashing Cuban husband to tell me that I wasn't allowed to get a job. Nor do I think I would want to have him give me an "allowance." I know for sure that I wouldn't like it one bit when he took me over his knee and gave me a spanking. Although, like Lucy, I too would insist on separate beds after that.
The irony of the Conservatives line of reasoning is that the reality of the time was much different than Lucy would have us believe. Unlike the Ricardo's, the Arnaz's didn't live in Manhattan, but the San Fernando Valley. Not only was Desi an alcoholic, but a philanderer as well. Unfortunately, the beatings were all too real. And in fact, the true "traditional value" that was practiced back then was the value to keep a secret. When I question my "traditionalist" friends about these things that's when they play the "it wasn't reality" card. But I won't deny that there were some really good things about that era. Schools were outstanding- although, they could select which students attended just by virtue of the color of their skin. Jobs were plentiful- if you were a white man. And you rarely saw a homeless person on the streets in America- and most certainly they wouldn't be veterans. All the people who lament about how far America has fallen are the very same people who scream about taxes. Yet the America that they all yearn for was bought and paid for by our parents and grandparents. Under Eisenhower, the wealthiest 1% of the population were taxed at a rate of 90%. That money went to pay for the outstanding schools and hospitals and treatment for the mentally ill.
In addition, a 90% tax rate for the uber-rich helped stave off corporate greed. If a CEO were in the position to fall into that category, instead of paying the money to the government, he was probably more likely to give his employees a raise or expand the company by creating more jobs.
I'm certainly not advocating a complete regression back to era of the sock hop, especially on a social level. But for people who think that restoring America to the heyday of the 50s is a goal, they can start by getting the funding to bring back the good stuff. The rest will come naturally.
I must admit. I too would love to live in the Ricardo's midtown apartment, married to the dashing Cuban band leader with my best friend living downstairs. However, I'm not so sure I would want that dashing Cuban husband to tell me that I wasn't allowed to get a job. Nor do I think I would want to have him give me an "allowance." I know for sure that I wouldn't like it one bit when he took me over his knee and gave me a spanking. Although, like Lucy, I too would insist on separate beds after that.
The irony of the Conservatives line of reasoning is that the reality of the time was much different than Lucy would have us believe. Unlike the Ricardo's, the Arnaz's didn't live in Manhattan, but the San Fernando Valley. Not only was Desi an alcoholic, but a philanderer as well. Unfortunately, the beatings were all too real. And in fact, the true "traditional value" that was practiced back then was the value to keep a secret. When I question my "traditionalist" friends about these things that's when they play the "it wasn't reality" card. But I won't deny that there were some really good things about that era. Schools were outstanding- although, they could select which students attended just by virtue of the color of their skin. Jobs were plentiful- if you were a white man. And you rarely saw a homeless person on the streets in America- and most certainly they wouldn't be veterans. All the people who lament about how far America has fallen are the very same people who scream about taxes. Yet the America that they all yearn for was bought and paid for by our parents and grandparents. Under Eisenhower, the wealthiest 1% of the population were taxed at a rate of 90%. That money went to pay for the outstanding schools and hospitals and treatment for the mentally ill.
In addition, a 90% tax rate for the uber-rich helped stave off corporate greed. If a CEO were in the position to fall into that category, instead of paying the money to the government, he was probably more likely to give his employees a raise or expand the company by creating more jobs.
I'm certainly not advocating a complete regression back to era of the sock hop, especially on a social level. But for people who think that restoring America to the heyday of the 50s is a goal, they can start by getting the funding to bring back the good stuff. The rest will come naturally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)