Well, here it is, everyone: I support Barack Obama, even though Hillary is the darling now (God knows why). And I guess people have been trying to defeat Obama by bringing up the fact that he has Muslim heritage, and his middle name is Hussein. I have several problems with this. First of all, anyone who isn't a dumb American with no education would know that Hussein is a very common name in Muslim countries, it's like Hernandez in Spanish-speaking countries. So just because Obama's middle name is Hussein, it doesn't mean he's related to a dictator family, and it doesn't mean he is going to declare jihad on us (oh, and in case we forgot, Osama bin Laden of AFGHANISTAN and Al Qaida declared jihad on us, NOT Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Saddam was perfectly nice and quiet, just minding his own normal business of torturing his citizens, but he wasn't trying to blow up our skyscrapers. OSAMA was. In Afghanistan. Where he is, still alive, and still plotting against us. Hmmmm....we haven't really accomplished anything for our own safety, have we? DUH.)
Second of all, I would feel very safe having Obama fly around the world representing the United States as its president. If you think Bush is buddy-buddy with the oil-mongers in Saudi Arabia, think of what Obama could do in terms of relating to Muslim people. Muslims are going to be more likely to listen to an American who has a name similar to theirs and who vaguely resembles someone from their country than they will listen to Bushy-wushy with his darling curly hair and his Texan cowboy demeanor. Hey, maybe if we had a president who wasn't so antagonistic towards Muslims, the Muslim extremists wouldn't hate and want to blow us up so much! Do we really think Hillary is going to do a better job relating to Muslim countries than Barack Obama would? What experience does she have, except the same thing all the other presidents have had, the experience of a privileged white American?
I'm on Obama's side. Jihad, how ridiculous. If Bush's "war on terror" isn't jihad, I don't know what is.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Things I learned from the Lower Middle Class
Here are some little factoids I have learned so far in my sojourn from a comfy upper middle class lifestyle to a high-stress, depressing lower middle class lifestyle.
If you don't want to be laid off from your retail job, DON'T:
-take a job as seasonal staff and then call in sick on Thanksgiving Day, even if you really are sick
-sit down for any reason while on the clock
-linger for too long in any one place; keep moving and looking busy
-refuse overtime or you will be perceived as not sharing in the "company vision" (or at the least, be persecuted by your supervisors)
-spend too much time in the bathroom, or go to the bathroom more than once in the span of fours hours, unless you want your managers to start asking questions
If you want to get a good recommendation from your employers, DON'T:
-be late for any reason, even if your train was burning up in the subway
-call off of work unless you're passing out from fever or limping, or bleeding internally, or possibly throwing up
-allow your job status/title and the mind-numbing boredom set in to your psyche, lest you be perceived as sluggish
Also, DON'T:
-bother caring about the way you dress or your appearance in general. The people you serve, as well as your supervisors, look at you so rarely that there's a good chance no one will notice that you haven't washed your uniform in weeks
-even dream of buying new clothes. Nobody cares what you wear because nobody is looking at you to see what you are wearing, and why invest in new clothes when you wear the same bedraggled uniform day in and day out, the same exact uniform that three former employees of the company wore before you?
-spend money on anything other than survival, unless you want to be begging from people by the end of the month
-let on that you have more education than your managers
-expect to be treated equally as a female in the male dominated workforce
...this is just the beginning. More to come.
If you don't want to be laid off from your retail job, DON'T:
-take a job as seasonal staff and then call in sick on Thanksgiving Day, even if you really are sick
-sit down for any reason while on the clock
-linger for too long in any one place; keep moving and looking busy
-refuse overtime or you will be perceived as not sharing in the "company vision" (or at the least, be persecuted by your supervisors)
-spend too much time in the bathroom, or go to the bathroom more than once in the span of fours hours, unless you want your managers to start asking questions
If you want to get a good recommendation from your employers, DON'T:
-be late for any reason, even if your train was burning up in the subway
-call off of work unless you're passing out from fever or limping, or bleeding internally, or possibly throwing up
-allow your job status/title and the mind-numbing boredom set in to your psyche, lest you be perceived as sluggish
Also, DON'T:
-bother caring about the way you dress or your appearance in general. The people you serve, as well as your supervisors, look at you so rarely that there's a good chance no one will notice that you haven't washed your uniform in weeks
-even dream of buying new clothes. Nobody cares what you wear because nobody is looking at you to see what you are wearing, and why invest in new clothes when you wear the same bedraggled uniform day in and day out, the same exact uniform that three former employees of the company wore before you?
-spend money on anything other than survival, unless you want to be begging from people by the end of the month
-let on that you have more education than your managers
-expect to be treated equally as a female in the male dominated workforce
...this is just the beginning. More to come.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Moon Conquest
I was watching the full moon sink past the roof of my apartment building the other night, and for the first time in my life, I thought about the moon landings with a little lurch in my stomach. I grew up thinking, like every other American child, that the astronauts who landed on the moon were heroes, and that the whole NASA program is inspirational and overall positive.
But then I was watching the moon the other night, and thinking about how the only foreign objects on that body are male human footprints, an assortment of human trash, and a bunch of American flags. What kind of message does that send? Men stomp all over, leave their trash lying around, and assume that because they claimed something in the name of their country, that makes it rightfully theirs. It used to be that the sun never set on the British Empire. Now the sun indeed never sets on the American Empire, because even the moon belongs to us. With that kind of bravado and hubris, is it a wonder that everyone hates America?
During the first space race, Nixon heavily emphasized media focus on the space program, to distract and deter people from being unhappy and resentful about the Vietnam War, a war that we entered into to righteously rescue helpless Asians from evil communism and help their crippled country flourish into a beautiful, America-like democracy. We landed our men on the moon five years after we had engaged in war with North Vietnam. And if King George II's dreams had come true after he announced legislation for a new moon landing in January of 2004, we would have embarked on a new moon mission exactly five years after the start of the Iraq war.
(If this is so obvious to me, WHY aren't the rest of the American people demanding that we resolve the issues in Iraq immediately?)
It has been said that the moon landing helped chasten the tongues of irate opponents to the Vietnam war and glorified the names, however temporarily, of Kennedy and Nixon. I'm guessing that King George II wanted the same kind of warm spotlight on him so that he could go down in history, maybe as the first administration to send people to Mars, who knows.
How can anyone be patriotic when America refuses to learn from her mistakes, when we go to war time and time again with our administration piping vague excuses through our TV sets and radios, when we exhibit nothing short of intergalactic imperialism with every action we take? I was just reading about how our 'Merican military scientists exploded and increased the Van Allen radiation belts that surround Earth in the 1960s! How crass can America be, to think that we own the world and all its satellites, that the earth is our plaything and we can create or destroy it and everything in and/or on it whenever we want!? How can Americans sit by and twiddle their thumbs when our entire country is and has been plunging into some sort of sick plan for world domination?
I don't even want to look at the moon now, I want to move far far away from American soil and try to forget all about America, but the problem is, nobody can forget about America, because as long as a person can see the moon, a person can glimpse American-claimed soil, we can't escape it, and for me, that's not a comfort, it's a suffocating, terrifying thought.
But then I was watching the moon the other night, and thinking about how the only foreign objects on that body are male human footprints, an assortment of human trash, and a bunch of American flags. What kind of message does that send? Men stomp all over, leave their trash lying around, and assume that because they claimed something in the name of their country, that makes it rightfully theirs. It used to be that the sun never set on the British Empire. Now the sun indeed never sets on the American Empire, because even the moon belongs to us. With that kind of bravado and hubris, is it a wonder that everyone hates America?
During the first space race, Nixon heavily emphasized media focus on the space program, to distract and deter people from being unhappy and resentful about the Vietnam War, a war that we entered into to righteously rescue helpless Asians from evil communism and help their crippled country flourish into a beautiful, America-like democracy. We landed our men on the moon five years after we had engaged in war with North Vietnam. And if King George II's dreams had come true after he announced legislation for a new moon landing in January of 2004, we would have embarked on a new moon mission exactly five years after the start of the Iraq war.
(If this is so obvious to me, WHY aren't the rest of the American people demanding that we resolve the issues in Iraq immediately?)
It has been said that the moon landing helped chasten the tongues of irate opponents to the Vietnam war and glorified the names, however temporarily, of Kennedy and Nixon. I'm guessing that King George II wanted the same kind of warm spotlight on him so that he could go down in history, maybe as the first administration to send people to Mars, who knows.
How can anyone be patriotic when America refuses to learn from her mistakes, when we go to war time and time again with our administration piping vague excuses through our TV sets and radios, when we exhibit nothing short of intergalactic imperialism with every action we take? I was just reading about how our 'Merican military scientists exploded and increased the Van Allen radiation belts that surround Earth in the 1960s! How crass can America be, to think that we own the world and all its satellites, that the earth is our plaything and we can create or destroy it and everything in and/or on it whenever we want!? How can Americans sit by and twiddle their thumbs when our entire country is and has been plunging into some sort of sick plan for world domination?
I don't even want to look at the moon now, I want to move far far away from American soil and try to forget all about America, but the problem is, nobody can forget about America, because as long as a person can see the moon, a person can glimpse American-claimed soil, we can't escape it, and for me, that's not a comfort, it's a suffocating, terrifying thought.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
We lost the war.
As I was waiting for the train today I was thinking about why we're at war, why Osama bin Laden attacked us and why we're involved in this thing with Al-Qaida. King George tells us that they hate our freedom, they're attacking our freedom, and I guess they are, I guess they do...Maybe they're jealous, or maybe they think that capitalism is inherently evil, and maybe it is. Here's what I think. If Al-Qaida wanted to attack us to destroy our freedoms and destroy our way of life and tear apart our country, they have been more successful with one single blast than I'm sure they ever dreamed. Those twelve guys that murdered thousands of people with four airplanes brought heaps of success onto themselves and their comrades. Just look at what their actions have wrought. Now, America is in a death-lock with the Iraq war, stretching her resources very thin indeed to keep up the battle-pace. Meanwhile, America's attentions have turned away from her own corporeality, the plentiful gaze is on the military and keeping the fighting machine running without a draft or any of the other old war measures that used to be in place. Thus America is dying from the inside, like an old leathery smoker woman, piling on cakes of expensive makeup to "keep up appearances", buying expensive clothing and accessories to adorn the wasted body inside them. But it is to no avail. The downfall has begun. The terrorists have won, more than they ever intended. They wanted capitalism to crumble into ruin, beginning with the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And look, America, look at the wasteland around you, look at our wasted beaches, our burning forests, look at our dying children, our shut-up factories and businesses, look at the farms crippled with pestilence and drought. Look at the Dickensian world we have created together with the terrorists, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, where all those tools that we built to hold our fundamental democratic rights in place have been destroyed by greed and hubris. Even our sense of justice has died, that we see this all around us and wallow in our apathy, crippled by fear and ignorance.
So, next time you want to wave a flag or be proud of America, think of how we have lost, think of what we sacrificed the day we decided to invest in the prosperity of war rather than of our country. The mission was indeed accomplished, as King George put it, but preserving our freedoms was apparently not part of that mission. So let us march onward to preserve the freedoms of teh Iraqi people, while our own country falls into ruin. Let us sit back and admire the repulsive beauty of our hubris.
So, next time you want to wave a flag or be proud of America, think of how we have lost, think of what we sacrificed the day we decided to invest in the prosperity of war rather than of our country. The mission was indeed accomplished, as King George put it, but preserving our freedoms was apparently not part of that mission. So let us march onward to preserve the freedoms of teh Iraqi people, while our own country falls into ruin. Let us sit back and admire the repulsive beauty of our hubris.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Burning Bridges
First of all let me express my sympathies to the victims of the Minneapolis bridge collapse and their families. This kind of thing shouldn't happen in America unless it is instigated by some natural disaster: flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, blizzard...but in the richest country in the world, there is no excuse for our roads, bridges, and transport systems to be in their current state.
Everyone asks (just as they do in any disaster) why did this happen? Then again, the long Uncle Sam finger searches for someone at which to point in blame. But instead of Uncle Sam pointing outward, he should point inward and blame himself. This, like most American tragedies, is our fault, and we have the power to fix it if we begin thinking about our fellow Americans and stop thinking about ourselves.
Everyone wants tax cuts. Lower taxes, less government..blah blah blah. Politicians use the American avarice for their own benefit, winning whole elections based on their supposed viewpoint on lowering or cutting taxes. NO AMERICAN SHOULD SUPPORT TAX CUTS. It is selfish; every time someone gets a tax refund, they are stealing that money from society, they are refusing to help pay for the services we all need.
Why did the bridge collapse? The Minnesota Department of Transportation has most likely made budget cuts over several years to stay afloat; the funds allotted to them by the government have in turn been lessened. Why? The less taxes we pay as citizens, the less money goes into the government coffers to be distributed to entities like the Transportation Department. With budget cuts come layoffs and service cuts; repairs are made less frequently to roads because there simply is not enough money in the government bank to pay for it. So roads and bridges deteriorate, and then--what do we expect--bridges cave in, "accidents" happen, sinkholes appear...These events are not coincidence or chance, they are the direct result of our apathy as citizens and our selfish reluctance to contribute to the wellness of our society as a whole.
So ask your government representatives to raise taxes. Make charitable contributions. Adopt a highway. Volunteer. Do these things so that more people don't die needlessly on our roads, treading perilous paths that we have created through our hubris. Be not an America that says, I, me, my, mine...but we, ours, us.
Everyone asks (just as they do in any disaster) why did this happen? Then again, the long Uncle Sam finger searches for someone at which to point in blame. But instead of Uncle Sam pointing outward, he should point inward and blame himself. This, like most American tragedies, is our fault, and we have the power to fix it if we begin thinking about our fellow Americans and stop thinking about ourselves.
Everyone wants tax cuts. Lower taxes, less government..blah blah blah. Politicians use the American avarice for their own benefit, winning whole elections based on their supposed viewpoint on lowering or cutting taxes. NO AMERICAN SHOULD SUPPORT TAX CUTS. It is selfish; every time someone gets a tax refund, they are stealing that money from society, they are refusing to help pay for the services we all need.
Why did the bridge collapse? The Minnesota Department of Transportation has most likely made budget cuts over several years to stay afloat; the funds allotted to them by the government have in turn been lessened. Why? The less taxes we pay as citizens, the less money goes into the government coffers to be distributed to entities like the Transportation Department. With budget cuts come layoffs and service cuts; repairs are made less frequently to roads because there simply is not enough money in the government bank to pay for it. So roads and bridges deteriorate, and then--what do we expect--bridges cave in, "accidents" happen, sinkholes appear...These events are not coincidence or chance, they are the direct result of our apathy as citizens and our selfish reluctance to contribute to the wellness of our society as a whole.
So ask your government representatives to raise taxes. Make charitable contributions. Adopt a highway. Volunteer. Do these things so that more people don't die needlessly on our roads, treading perilous paths that we have created through our hubris. Be not an America that says, I, me, my, mine...but we, ours, us.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Notes on the War
As I climbed up to the train platform this morning for my daily commute, I noticed some Muslim women--most likely from West Africa--standing and sitting on the platform, floating still in brightly dyed hijab. I've seen them before; last time I saw them they were all huddled together, chatting and peering around at the plainly-clothed 'mericans. Today they were spread out along the platform, each standing or sitting alone or in pairs. I wanted to stare at them (their robes were so gorgeous!) but I lowered my eyes and found an un-crowded spot to stand. I stood there thinking, "why can't I admire them? Because I feel guilty. Why do I feel guilty? Because of the way they must see me. To them, I must be the ugly 'merican, so swollen with unchecked patriotic pride (in my red shirt, of all colors) that the righteousness must be dripping off of me.
"But I'm not that 'merican. I have a liberal arts degree, I'm educated, I want to be an advocate of kindness and justice, I just want to look at their pretty robes and smile and have us all be at peace and accept one another." And then the happy little bunnies and birdies will surround us and make a big rainbow.
Okay, so I have a right to feel guilty. I am an American, whether I like it or not, I am part of this establishment. I'm just astonished when I read what my fellow Americans are writing. In the opinion section of the online news, where comments on the articles are invited, I've read people say the most offensive things, like in this article http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/18/275611.aspx :
"When will the muslim world realize that their own religion is at the core of their own sorrows! That their religion causes the eventual infighting, hatred, extremism and the downright absurdness of their life. I know that this statement will be met with the "obligatory" defiant responses of the "truly devout", where (according to the Koran) you must register your opposition to anything wrong said about your religion, even when your gut tells you how wrong it is and where we all know you truely do not believe in this, or conversely if you will: we all know how you would wish that your religion would be otherwise.
Jonen Doe, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:51 PM"
"Less sex = less terrorists. Unfortunately, that's how I have to look at it. Sadly we don't have the ability to know which baby will become a terrorist who comes from afar to hurt us; or which baby will be raised in the US or UK, enjoying all its freedoms and still grow up to hurt us. The less of them there are, the safer we will be. Eugenics might be the answer.
Had enough, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:31 PM)"
"Any religion which promotes/reguires murdering of anyone who disagrees with them is simply unacceptable to a civilized person..Christianity has a lot to answer for in the past but thank God we moved on beyond that. Get out of there !! We can't change them---old habits are too hard to break--even if they wanted to---
Jim Evans,, Edgemont, Arkansas (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:52 PM)"
"So why are Muslim fundamentalists so nasty? To each other and to the world in general? So the point is (listen up, John Doe of Oregon) as long as their religion is opposed to making love and not war, there will always be disgruntaled unpleasant 20 something males who will be brainwashed into believing they can kill anyone in the name of their god. Pathetic. As soon as all Muslim women give up on their religion and tell the men no more sex until peace is put first, there will always be war. Oh never mind, their religion will always breed hate, regardless of any common sense.
Scott Sowle (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:35 PM)"
and my personal favorite:
"Thats really sad. Those poor poeple. Im glad I live in America.
Adel Roebel, Arlen, Texas (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:18 PM)"
From this I can see that what Americans have learned from this war is that Al-Qaida is the leader of Iraq, all Muslim men (and thus, all Iraqi men) are terrorists or terrorist supporters, and Islam is a religion that "breeds hate" and "promotes/requires murdering of anyone who disagrees with them." Also, Americans think that America is without any faults, being the good Christian nation that it is, and thank God we all live in a nation which is so free and accepting of others. Um, NO. CLEARLY, no.
Okay, everyone, remember September 11, 2001, when all the planes fell from the sky? Remember what our trusty president told us? We wanted him to blame someone for this tragedy, and he did. He blamed Al-Qaida, based in Afghanistan, and he swore to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan for us. But poor King George II couldn't FIND any terrorists to blow up in Afghanistan, so he decided to finish what his daddy had started and begin the task of usurping the dictator Saddam Hussein from his evil throne. Okay, fine. But Americans started to wonder: hey King George, um, excuse me, but, uh, weren't you supposed to be exacting our revenge on the Afghani terrorists? Why are you spending our money on fighting innocent Iraqi people? King George had to think fast. So he made up a story about how magically the Al-Qaida terrorists DON'T live in Afghanistan anymore, they REALLY live in Iraq, and King George is going to blow them all up, don't worry.
OH! We get it. They live in Iraq. Oh, well, sorry to interrupt. Please continue the revenge then.
I guess we really are that gullible. But come on, America. Don't you feel duped? Don't you feel swindled? I mean, from what I've seen, a good hearty 'merican holds on to his cowhide wallet for dear life and doesn't want no government spending his money. He wants to spend it himself. It doesn't sound very 'merican to give his government free reign over his wallet and allow the president to play out his little football fantasy war with hardworking 'merican money.
Americans get very angry when someone steals their credit card and runs up invalid charges. I just don't understand how we can all sit back and allow our leaders to shovel our money into the political black hole that is Iraq, without even a second thought. Are we really that stupid? Or are we afraid to speak out, afraid that if we try to change the way things are run, the terrorists will smell our momentary weakness and come snarling back at our heels? Are we really better off fighting stubbornly and making Iraqi people (most of whom weren't terrorists before we declared war on them) even more furious at us?
And what about the damage it's doing here in our country, the resentment and the prejudice it fosters? Even if the conflict in Iraq stopped right now, the damage to American sentiment is done. Americans--especially Christian Americans--generalize the work of a few militant extremists to encompass and reflect the entire belief system of Islam. Every man with a turban (including Indian and Asian people) and a beard and every woman with a head scarf (including orthodox Jews) is a terrorist, is friends with or related to a terrorist, or is sympathetic to the terrorists. Even Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, by definition is a terrorist. I mean, of course he is. His last name is Islam and he sings a song called "peace train." Sounds like a real warmonger to me.
We need to wake up and start taking responsibility for our actions and, vicariously, for the actions of our leaders. Because that's what democracy is supposed to accomplish. I don't know about the rest of you, America, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to wait until January of 2009 to see some change.
"But I'm not that 'merican. I have a liberal arts degree, I'm educated, I want to be an advocate of kindness and justice, I just want to look at their pretty robes and smile and have us all be at peace and accept one another." And then the happy little bunnies and birdies will surround us and make a big rainbow.
Okay, so I have a right to feel guilty. I am an American, whether I like it or not, I am part of this establishment. I'm just astonished when I read what my fellow Americans are writing. In the opinion section of the online news, where comments on the articles are invited, I've read people say the most offensive things, like in this article http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/18/275611.aspx :
"When will the muslim world realize that their own religion is at the core of their own sorrows! That their religion causes the eventual infighting, hatred, extremism and the downright absurdness of their life. I know that this statement will be met with the "obligatory" defiant responses of the "truly devout", where (according to the Koran) you must register your opposition to anything wrong said about your religion, even when your gut tells you how wrong it is and where we all know you truely do not believe in this, or conversely if you will: we all know how you would wish that your religion would be otherwise.
Jonen Doe, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:51 PM"
"Less sex = less terrorists. Unfortunately, that's how I have to look at it. Sadly we don't have the ability to know which baby will become a terrorist who comes from afar to hurt us; or which baby will be raised in the US or UK, enjoying all its freedoms and still grow up to hurt us. The less of them there are, the safer we will be. Eugenics might be the answer.
Had enough, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:31 PM)"
"Any religion which promotes/reguires murdering of anyone who disagrees with them is simply unacceptable to a civilized person..Christianity has a lot to answer for in the past but thank God we moved on beyond that. Get out of there !! We can't change them---old habits are too hard to break--even if they wanted to---
Jim Evans,, Edgemont, Arkansas (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:52 PM)"
"So why are Muslim fundamentalists so nasty? To each other and to the world in general? So the point is (listen up, John Doe of Oregon) as long as their religion is opposed to making love and not war, there will always be disgruntaled unpleasant 20 something males who will be brainwashed into believing they can kill anyone in the name of their god. Pathetic. As soon as all Muslim women give up on their religion and tell the men no more sex until peace is put first, there will always be war. Oh never mind, their religion will always breed hate, regardless of any common sense.
Scott Sowle (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:35 PM)"
and my personal favorite:
"Thats really sad. Those poor poeple. Im glad I live in America.
Adel Roebel, Arlen, Texas (Sent Wednesday, July 18, 2007 3:18 PM)"
From this I can see that what Americans have learned from this war is that Al-Qaida is the leader of Iraq, all Muslim men (and thus, all Iraqi men) are terrorists or terrorist supporters, and Islam is a religion that "breeds hate" and "promotes/requires murdering of anyone who disagrees with them." Also, Americans think that America is without any faults, being the good Christian nation that it is, and thank God we all live in a nation which is so free and accepting of others. Um, NO. CLEARLY, no.
Okay, everyone, remember September 11, 2001, when all the planes fell from the sky? Remember what our trusty president told us? We wanted him to blame someone for this tragedy, and he did. He blamed Al-Qaida, based in Afghanistan, and he swore to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan for us. But poor King George II couldn't FIND any terrorists to blow up in Afghanistan, so he decided to finish what his daddy had started and begin the task of usurping the dictator Saddam Hussein from his evil throne. Okay, fine. But Americans started to wonder: hey King George, um, excuse me, but, uh, weren't you supposed to be exacting our revenge on the Afghani terrorists? Why are you spending our money on fighting innocent Iraqi people? King George had to think fast. So he made up a story about how magically the Al-Qaida terrorists DON'T live in Afghanistan anymore, they REALLY live in Iraq, and King George is going to blow them all up, don't worry.
OH! We get it. They live in Iraq. Oh, well, sorry to interrupt. Please continue the revenge then.
I guess we really are that gullible. But come on, America. Don't you feel duped? Don't you feel swindled? I mean, from what I've seen, a good hearty 'merican holds on to his cowhide wallet for dear life and doesn't want no government spending his money. He wants to spend it himself. It doesn't sound very 'merican to give his government free reign over his wallet and allow the president to play out his little football fantasy war with hardworking 'merican money.
Americans get very angry when someone steals their credit card and runs up invalid charges. I just don't understand how we can all sit back and allow our leaders to shovel our money into the political black hole that is Iraq, without even a second thought. Are we really that stupid? Or are we afraid to speak out, afraid that if we try to change the way things are run, the terrorists will smell our momentary weakness and come snarling back at our heels? Are we really better off fighting stubbornly and making Iraqi people (most of whom weren't terrorists before we declared war on them) even more furious at us?
And what about the damage it's doing here in our country, the resentment and the prejudice it fosters? Even if the conflict in Iraq stopped right now, the damage to American sentiment is done. Americans--especially Christian Americans--generalize the work of a few militant extremists to encompass and reflect the entire belief system of Islam. Every man with a turban (including Indian and Asian people) and a beard and every woman with a head scarf (including orthodox Jews) is a terrorist, is friends with or related to a terrorist, or is sympathetic to the terrorists. Even Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, by definition is a terrorist. I mean, of course he is. His last name is Islam and he sings a song called "peace train." Sounds like a real warmonger to me.
We need to wake up and start taking responsibility for our actions and, vicariously, for the actions of our leaders. Because that's what democracy is supposed to accomplish. I don't know about the rest of you, America, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to wait until January of 2009 to see some change.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Chicago, Illiniwek
I just finished perusing the American Indian Center of Chicago's website, and the conditions in which American Indians live in the city of Chicago are deplorable. Absolutely deplorable. The main events on the social calendar are events geared towards social services and helping the homeless and addicted. I saw a weekly AA meeting and a weekly function to give clothing and food to the needy. I am aghast. How can we, as Americans who claim to be members of a "good Christian nation," as citizens of Chicago who claim to embrace diversity, allow the original and rightful owners of the land we inhabit to live without any resources, and without any hope of receiving those basic life needs? Shame on you, Chicago.
Coming from the point of view of a native Coloradan, Chicago clearly does not know how to expose the public to information about the first nations of Illinois. I blame the city and the state for their ignorance in this matter and their apathy in helping to improve the situation. The Native Americans of Chicago need more than just a small central base in sketchy Uptown and a little art gallery in Schaumburg. I pledge to do what I can to improve the situation, whether it's lending my own talents or giving away a little money or clothing, because this is unacceptable. Every single state in the union should have such a wealth of information on and exposure to its native peoples that their stories, achievements, and histories should be staring every visitor in the face and should always be in the back of every citizen's educational memory. If that could happen, we would no longer allow our fellow citizens who are Native to live in the third world countries of reservations or in shabby AA centers in boarded-Up-town.
Coming from the point of view of a native Coloradan, Chicago clearly does not know how to expose the public to information about the first nations of Illinois. I blame the city and the state for their ignorance in this matter and their apathy in helping to improve the situation. The Native Americans of Chicago need more than just a small central base in sketchy Uptown and a little art gallery in Schaumburg. I pledge to do what I can to improve the situation, whether it's lending my own talents or giving away a little money or clothing, because this is unacceptable. Every single state in the union should have such a wealth of information on and exposure to its native peoples that their stories, achievements, and histories should be staring every visitor in the face and should always be in the back of every citizen's educational memory. If that could happen, we would no longer allow our fellow citizens who are Native to live in the third world countries of reservations or in shabby AA centers in boarded-Up-town.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
We've got "problems"
I keep hearing of these tragic shootings occurring when the gunman had a "problem," or "something wasn't quite right" in his mental state. First, the college shooting in West Virginia. Now, some guy claiming to be the emperor of Colorado strolls into the governor's offices and gets himself shot (before he is able to shoot anyone else) by the security staff. Governor Bill Ritter is quoted as saying, "it does seem like he was having some sort of psychotic lapse..." In the aftermath of these attacks, everyone shakes their heads and says, "oh how terrible, how evil, crime doesn't pay, who would be so full of hate that they could commit such an act?"
What is at the root of gun violence and other violence? People think:
-guns are too easy to get
-there aren't enough restrictions on firearm usage and ownership
-people don't have enough/the right education/attention from parents
-bad influences from video games, movies and books
-not enough police and law enforcement
-not enough security tags/officers/screenings/doors/metal detectors
and so on and so forth. Americans, the classic individualists (E Pluribus Unum/Out of Many, ONE) point their fingers in blame everywhere but towards themselves. We should hang our heads in shame because every single one of us American citizens has the power to stop violence and we ignore or refuse that right time after time.
I maintain that the real and truthful cause of violence in America is the utterly dilapidated state of our health care system and specifically, our mental health care system. I acknowledge that thse other factors play a role in violence; poor parenting, violent imagery, violent environments, or poor security and regulation of weapons. But these factors would never have the kind of impact they have on our society if we provided our fellow citizens with adequate mental health care using our own taxable resources.
I believe that, with the rare exception here and there, no human being is purely evil. While people may commit evil acts, these acts do not make people evil, nor do they imply a kind of inherent evil. Rather, evil acts reveal an underlying illness, condition, or coping mechanism brought on by a variety of catalysts. Yet when violent crimes are committed, the knee-jerk reaction is to conjure up satanic images and damn the perpetrators, without giving the slightest thought to motive or medical history.
Amazingly these impulsive generalizations drift into the minds of our policymakers and politicians, who make hasty decisions in their attempt to please the groaning masses. So we are saddled with a swarm of half-baked gun-control laws and ordinances and speedily constructed metal detectors while mental hospitals and wards are closing their doors left and right, and state budget cuts force mental health clinics to lay off trained psychological professionals and prevent patients from receiving much-needed care.
This trend is not remarkable when one considers the current state of the health care and insurance industry. If people can't even afford decent health care for their most basic human needs, how can we expect the mental health industry to be any better? When we do establish a universal health care system and eliminate the health care problems that plague us once and for all, we absolutely must make room for mental health. Indeed we must give it the same precedence we give to our broken limbs, our liposuction, and our heart attacks, because if a heart attack is considered a dire situation, a relapse of psychosis is just as much a life-or-death scenario, even if its violent face does not immediately reveal itself.
We Americans need to start seeing mental health as equally important as physical health. Physical health and mental health are inextricably entwined; when one is failing, inevitably the other begins its decline. Thus the "problems" that these gunmen have need to be addressed before they ever buy the gun, load the bullets, and pull the trigger. Americans are too trigger-happy as it is, eager to point blaming fingers at every obvious culprit, but we need to step back and examine the clear evidence that is laid before us. Of course these violent people have "problems." They become violent because they lack the resources to solve their problems, and those of us who do have resources or have the power to create resources need to do so before any more needless blood is shed. Right now, the blood of both the victims and the killers whose lives are forever ruined is on our hands.
What is at the root of gun violence and other violence? People think:
-guns are too easy to get
-there aren't enough restrictions on firearm usage and ownership
-people don't have enough/the right education/attention from parents
-bad influences from video games, movies and books
-not enough police and law enforcement
-not enough security tags/officers/screenings/doors/metal detectors
and so on and so forth. Americans, the classic individualists (E Pluribus Unum/Out of Many, ONE) point their fingers in blame everywhere but towards themselves. We should hang our heads in shame because every single one of us American citizens has the power to stop violence and we ignore or refuse that right time after time.
I maintain that the real and truthful cause of violence in America is the utterly dilapidated state of our health care system and specifically, our mental health care system. I acknowledge that thse other factors play a role in violence; poor parenting, violent imagery, violent environments, or poor security and regulation of weapons. But these factors would never have the kind of impact they have on our society if we provided our fellow citizens with adequate mental health care using our own taxable resources.
I believe that, with the rare exception here and there, no human being is purely evil. While people may commit evil acts, these acts do not make people evil, nor do they imply a kind of inherent evil. Rather, evil acts reveal an underlying illness, condition, or coping mechanism brought on by a variety of catalysts. Yet when violent crimes are committed, the knee-jerk reaction is to conjure up satanic images and damn the perpetrators, without giving the slightest thought to motive or medical history.
Amazingly these impulsive generalizations drift into the minds of our policymakers and politicians, who make hasty decisions in their attempt to please the groaning masses. So we are saddled with a swarm of half-baked gun-control laws and ordinances and speedily constructed metal detectors while mental hospitals and wards are closing their doors left and right, and state budget cuts force mental health clinics to lay off trained psychological professionals and prevent patients from receiving much-needed care.
This trend is not remarkable when one considers the current state of the health care and insurance industry. If people can't even afford decent health care for their most basic human needs, how can we expect the mental health industry to be any better? When we do establish a universal health care system and eliminate the health care problems that plague us once and for all, we absolutely must make room for mental health. Indeed we must give it the same precedence we give to our broken limbs, our liposuction, and our heart attacks, because if a heart attack is considered a dire situation, a relapse of psychosis is just as much a life-or-death scenario, even if its violent face does not immediately reveal itself.
We Americans need to start seeing mental health as equally important as physical health. Physical health and mental health are inextricably entwined; when one is failing, inevitably the other begins its decline. Thus the "problems" that these gunmen have need to be addressed before they ever buy the gun, load the bullets, and pull the trigger. Americans are too trigger-happy as it is, eager to point blaming fingers at every obvious culprit, but we need to step back and examine the clear evidence that is laid before us. Of course these violent people have "problems." They become violent because they lack the resources to solve their problems, and those of us who do have resources or have the power to create resources need to do so before any more needless blood is shed. Right now, the blood of both the victims and the killers whose lives are forever ruined is on our hands.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Sugar, sugar, everywhere
I am of the opinion that American food has more sugar content than anywhere else in the world. When I studied in Germany, I found myself buying Gummi Bears and Kinder chocolate eggs every day to eat as a snack between meals of soft bread, pretzels, bratwursts, fresh eggs, cold meats and cheeses, unbelievably fresh vegetables, yoghurt, pasta, soups, and sauces. I didn't give it much thought while I was in Germany; it just tasted so good to have a handful of Gummi Bears two or three times a day, or to break open a fresh bag of wafer cookies. It was only when I came home to Colorado and immediately ceased my junk food binge that I began to realize what was going on.
I deduced that when I am living normally in America, my food has a much higher sugar content than the food I ate in Germany. I craved sugary foods in Germany because German food is not produced with any extra sugar, and much of it has no preservatives. My American diet already had all the sugar I needed, so when I came back to Colorado my stomach turned at the thought of more sugar. I surmised that German foods include less sugar because of the way German foods have always been (and continue to be) prepared.
My theory is supported by the work done by Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, who examines the contents of fast foods and of American processed foods in general.
With the onset of the early twentieth century came the advent of the fast food chain and the idea that food can be prepared on an assembly line. Connected to the assembly line "manufacturing" of food was the evolution of food into a business commodity. The better food tasted and smelled, the more colorful it was, and the more toys and other incentives were included, the better the product sold. This meant that everyone in the food industry, from merchants to growers and farmers, had to step up "production" quality of food to make it more appealing to the consumer. Merchants of fast food found that when miniscule amounts of sugar were added to their products, the consumer noticed an improved taste, resulting in higher sales of the products. Making foods sweeter proved to be a "cash cow" of sorts for merchants, whether they were selling steaks, onions, apples, or bread. Sugar added at the molecular level improved foods' taste and eventually, their sales numbers. Livestock were fed a diet higher in sugar and plants were genetically altered to contain more sugar.
By the turn of the twenty-first century, this decades-long process of sweetening, altering, and processing foods has fostered a generation of Americans whose lifelong diet has been foods enhanced to include more sugar. Yet this phenomenon has largely been ignored by the mainstream population (indeed, it would cripple the economy of the food industry and the broader American economy if people were to react all at once to the omnipresence of sugar in all their foods), who continue to be baffled by the relatively sudden outbreak of morbid obesity, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases linked to the presence of unhealthy sugars in the body. For me the explanation is clear: without low-sugar alternatives to the American diet, Americans will continue to suffer the consequences of a few peoples' business decisions which were at best, entrepreneurial, and at worst, hubris. Furthermore, Americans will continue to slowly kill themselves with their own ignorance and their denial of plain truths which reveal themselves in between the lines of every menu and ingredient label in America.
The recent health disaster linked to pet food and toothpaste ingredients which are imported (tainted) from China further indicate the urgency for Americans to awaken from their comatose apathy and demand that the source and content of everything ingested by American human beings and animals be offered in clear and present terms.
But even if we do know these facts with perfect clarity, as long as we are careless with our waste and exhaust, we will continue to poison ourselves with tainted water and air. The only difference is that we will finally see the scope and impact of our sloth.
I deduced that when I am living normally in America, my food has a much higher sugar content than the food I ate in Germany. I craved sugary foods in Germany because German food is not produced with any extra sugar, and much of it has no preservatives. My American diet already had all the sugar I needed, so when I came back to Colorado my stomach turned at the thought of more sugar. I surmised that German foods include less sugar because of the way German foods have always been (and continue to be) prepared.
My theory is supported by the work done by Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, who examines the contents of fast foods and of American processed foods in general.
With the onset of the early twentieth century came the advent of the fast food chain and the idea that food can be prepared on an assembly line. Connected to the assembly line "manufacturing" of food was the evolution of food into a business commodity. The better food tasted and smelled, the more colorful it was, and the more toys and other incentives were included, the better the product sold. This meant that everyone in the food industry, from merchants to growers and farmers, had to step up "production" quality of food to make it more appealing to the consumer. Merchants of fast food found that when miniscule amounts of sugar were added to their products, the consumer noticed an improved taste, resulting in higher sales of the products. Making foods sweeter proved to be a "cash cow" of sorts for merchants, whether they were selling steaks, onions, apples, or bread. Sugar added at the molecular level improved foods' taste and eventually, their sales numbers. Livestock were fed a diet higher in sugar and plants were genetically altered to contain more sugar.
By the turn of the twenty-first century, this decades-long process of sweetening, altering, and processing foods has fostered a generation of Americans whose lifelong diet has been foods enhanced to include more sugar. Yet this phenomenon has largely been ignored by the mainstream population (indeed, it would cripple the economy of the food industry and the broader American economy if people were to react all at once to the omnipresence of sugar in all their foods), who continue to be baffled by the relatively sudden outbreak of morbid obesity, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases linked to the presence of unhealthy sugars in the body. For me the explanation is clear: without low-sugar alternatives to the American diet, Americans will continue to suffer the consequences of a few peoples' business decisions which were at best, entrepreneurial, and at worst, hubris. Furthermore, Americans will continue to slowly kill themselves with their own ignorance and their denial of plain truths which reveal themselves in between the lines of every menu and ingredient label in America.
The recent health disaster linked to pet food and toothpaste ingredients which are imported (tainted) from China further indicate the urgency for Americans to awaken from their comatose apathy and demand that the source and content of everything ingested by American human beings and animals be offered in clear and present terms.
But even if we do know these facts with perfect clarity, as long as we are careless with our waste and exhaust, we will continue to poison ourselves with tainted water and air. The only difference is that we will finally see the scope and impact of our sloth.
No insurance! Scary!
It;s unbelievable how many Americans don't have health insurance. I am about to become one of those people, if I'm not already. And I've been reading horror stories about people who have accidents and end up being charged thousands of dollars that takes years to pay off. What kind of country do I live in where people have to pay money for being injured in an accident, just because their employer doesn't offer insurance and they don't make enough income to afford a private policy? I mean, I guess I understand the fact that we don't have free college education in America, but no free universal health care is preposterous. Whoever came up with a reason for this to be so must have also come up with the reason why we can't use electric cars instead of oil-propelled vehicles.
I'm literally afraid for my life here. By the way, I can't wait to see Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko." I'm sure I'll have plenty more to say about insurance and health care after I've seen his film.
I'm literally afraid for my life here. By the way, I can't wait to see Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko." I'm sure I'll have plenty more to say about insurance and health care after I've seen his film.
Friday, June 15, 2007
No Child Left Behind: Leaving all of us behind
I wrote this article about a year ago and sent it in to the local newspaper but it went unpublished. I am using it now to supplement what I am about to write:
"I believe that those who support the No Child Left Behind Act and its subsequent permutations (standardized testing, etc.) should read the Act in its entirety before voicing their support. When I read the Act, it came to my attention that one of the ways in which schools can monitor their improvement and avoid punitive measures is by noting the “changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses” (NCLB Act, Sec. 1111: State Plans).
This presumes that the eventual goal is to see the majority of students achieving at the levels required for enrollment in said courses. It is truly daunting to think that every child can potentially be enrolled in a gifted and talented program when most require an I.Q. test with results above the average level. Since I.Q. cannot be learned or adapted, I find it difficult to understand how any teacher could alter a child’s I.Q. to then be acceptable for gifted and talented programs.
Secondly, I am curious to know how lawmakers envision the state of America’s colleges and universities if EVERY child has taken college preparatory courses with the logical intention of applying to and attending a college. I would like to know if these lawmakers would like to return to their alabaster Ivy League schools, overcrowded and crippled, lacking the resources to accommodate EVERY child.
It is irresponsible and foolhardy to create a secondary education system which aims every child towards higher education, when no changes have been made in the realms of higher education to accommodate those students. This is another example of the Bush administration creating a program that sounds optimistic and laudable in speeches and campaigns, but lacks realism. George Bush, where are all your “No Child Left Behind” high school graduates going to go to college? Personally, I am glad to be graduating college this year, so that I may avoid losing at academic musical chairs to the children you refused to leave behind."
Additionally, I feel that the No Child Left Behind Act has been successful in its attempt to urge more young people towards graduating from college. However, lawmakers have not had the foresight to see the repercussions of so many new college graduates being introduced to the job market after earning their degrees. If more children are graduating from college, that equals more workers competing for a very limited number of job openings. It hearkens back to the simple question of supply and demand; when balanced, a country or institution can run more efficiently. But when the "supply" as it were of newly educated wokers exceeds the "demand" of job vacancies, the results are, at least frustrating, and at most, tragic. George W. Bush has essentially set up a nation full of young people to postpone their failures until after college graduation. Instead of failing to reach excellence in school, they fail at acquiring the job for which they have been trained. America's rates of bankruptcy, debt, and poverty are skyrocketing. But Americans fail to see the connection between their beloved educational reform and the rapid breakdown of the country's infrastructure.
Again, we need look no further for inspiration than our near European neighbors, whose educational system allows for young people to be educated in every different type of job, not just an elite and elusive few professions. The German school system breaks down into three parts, covering the whole spectrum of potential employment, while the American system covers only one third of the jobs created by the German system. It seems, once again, we have a lot to learn, though we are too proud and patriotic to ever admit it and pursue a prudent solution.
"I believe that those who support the No Child Left Behind Act and its subsequent permutations (standardized testing, etc.) should read the Act in its entirety before voicing their support. When I read the Act, it came to my attention that one of the ways in which schools can monitor their improvement and avoid punitive measures is by noting the “changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses” (NCLB Act, Sec. 1111: State Plans).
This presumes that the eventual goal is to see the majority of students achieving at the levels required for enrollment in said courses. It is truly daunting to think that every child can potentially be enrolled in a gifted and talented program when most require an I.Q. test with results above the average level. Since I.Q. cannot be learned or adapted, I find it difficult to understand how any teacher could alter a child’s I.Q. to then be acceptable for gifted and talented programs.
Secondly, I am curious to know how lawmakers envision the state of America’s colleges and universities if EVERY child has taken college preparatory courses with the logical intention of applying to and attending a college. I would like to know if these lawmakers would like to return to their alabaster Ivy League schools, overcrowded and crippled, lacking the resources to accommodate EVERY child.
It is irresponsible and foolhardy to create a secondary education system which aims every child towards higher education, when no changes have been made in the realms of higher education to accommodate those students. This is another example of the Bush administration creating a program that sounds optimistic and laudable in speeches and campaigns, but lacks realism. George Bush, where are all your “No Child Left Behind” high school graduates going to go to college? Personally, I am glad to be graduating college this year, so that I may avoid losing at academic musical chairs to the children you refused to leave behind."
Additionally, I feel that the No Child Left Behind Act has been successful in its attempt to urge more young people towards graduating from college. However, lawmakers have not had the foresight to see the repercussions of so many new college graduates being introduced to the job market after earning their degrees. If more children are graduating from college, that equals more workers competing for a very limited number of job openings. It hearkens back to the simple question of supply and demand; when balanced, a country or institution can run more efficiently. But when the "supply" as it were of newly educated wokers exceeds the "demand" of job vacancies, the results are, at least frustrating, and at most, tragic. George W. Bush has essentially set up a nation full of young people to postpone their failures until after college graduation. Instead of failing to reach excellence in school, they fail at acquiring the job for which they have been trained. America's rates of bankruptcy, debt, and poverty are skyrocketing. But Americans fail to see the connection between their beloved educational reform and the rapid breakdown of the country's infrastructure.
Again, we need look no further for inspiration than our near European neighbors, whose educational system allows for young people to be educated in every different type of job, not just an elite and elusive few professions. The German school system breaks down into three parts, covering the whole spectrum of potential employment, while the American system covers only one third of the jobs created by the German system. It seems, once again, we have a lot to learn, though we are too proud and patriotic to ever admit it and pursue a prudent solution.
Friday, June 1, 2007
What's Wrong?
This blog is here to inform its readers of the flaws I perceive in American society that have the potential to be solved if enough people stand up for justice and solve it.
I will discuss them one by one, although it should be noted that they all fit together within the fabric of our society and each problem affects the structure as a whole.
First on my list is something near to my heart at the moment: business and commerce. I am a recent liberal arts college graduate waiting to begin my career, but I have yet to find an institution that will hire me. So, I turn for need of survival to customer service jobs, working retail, etc. The federal government has all but eradicated the existence of workers' unions, leaving "blue-collar" commercial workers with effectively no rights and no protection by law. This means that corporations can create their own set of rules for their workers according to what will be the most economical for the company, without giving a thought to the humane rights of the workers.
The result? Workers struggle daily with tyrannical supervisors who care little for the niceties of respectfulness. Companies take advantage of their helpless workers, randomly cutting their hours or witholding paychecks. Without the protection of labor unions to keep management in check, workers are treated like second-class citizens who don't deserve the same respect given in other professions.
Yet this is a phenomenon that seems to be found only in America. American educational systems raise up "white-collar" professions as not only the ideal, but the minimum requirement for participation in the middle class. All other jobs, the janitors, the salespeople, the waitstaff, are seen as somehow failing in society. No one in America chooses to become a truck driver. It is merely something that is settled for, when one fails at becoming the quintissential doctor or lawyer.
Yet in other countries of the world, the janitor, the waiter, and the sales clerk are treated with the same professional respect given to a doctor. In Europe, the school systems are organized so that when one completes school, one has become a master in a profession, whether it be law-making or baking. There is little resentment or condescension upon "blue-collar" workers, for they have mastered their profession like everyone else in the society.
I conclude that America needs to reinstate the forceful presence of unions, making them available to all workers in every field, enabling workers to exercise their rights and giving them protection from corporate corruption. The government also should protect and encourage unionization, to ensure quality work and to help eliminate abuse and poor morale. Moreover, workers should know of their existing rights and, be they doctor or grocer, never hesitate to speak out in defense of them.
I will discuss them one by one, although it should be noted that they all fit together within the fabric of our society and each problem affects the structure as a whole.
First on my list is something near to my heart at the moment: business and commerce. I am a recent liberal arts college graduate waiting to begin my career, but I have yet to find an institution that will hire me. So, I turn for need of survival to customer service jobs, working retail, etc. The federal government has all but eradicated the existence of workers' unions, leaving "blue-collar" commercial workers with effectively no rights and no protection by law. This means that corporations can create their own set of rules for their workers according to what will be the most economical for the company, without giving a thought to the humane rights of the workers.
The result? Workers struggle daily with tyrannical supervisors who care little for the niceties of respectfulness. Companies take advantage of their helpless workers, randomly cutting their hours or witholding paychecks. Without the protection of labor unions to keep management in check, workers are treated like second-class citizens who don't deserve the same respect given in other professions.
Yet this is a phenomenon that seems to be found only in America. American educational systems raise up "white-collar" professions as not only the ideal, but the minimum requirement for participation in the middle class. All other jobs, the janitors, the salespeople, the waitstaff, are seen as somehow failing in society. No one in America chooses to become a truck driver. It is merely something that is settled for, when one fails at becoming the quintissential doctor or lawyer.
Yet in other countries of the world, the janitor, the waiter, and the sales clerk are treated with the same professional respect given to a doctor. In Europe, the school systems are organized so that when one completes school, one has become a master in a profession, whether it be law-making or baking. There is little resentment or condescension upon "blue-collar" workers, for they have mastered their profession like everyone else in the society.
I conclude that America needs to reinstate the forceful presence of unions, making them available to all workers in every field, enabling workers to exercise their rights and giving them protection from corporate corruption. The government also should protect and encourage unionization, to ensure quality work and to help eliminate abuse and poor morale. Moreover, workers should know of their existing rights and, be they doctor or grocer, never hesitate to speak out in defense of them.
Enough Already
I am a concerned American citizen. I am tired of the apathy that runs rampant among my fellow citizens. In response to this apathy I have created a blog, in which I will post a wide spectrum of political commentary ranging from informal gripes to more formal articles and letters. My blog is named "Streets of Gold" because of the idea that fueled the imagination of so many nineteenth century immigrants: that the streets of America are paved with gold; not only the gold of wealth and prosperity, but the gold of righteousness and equality. To say the least, the shimmer of America's gold has grown dim and tarnished, and I refuse to stand idly by while the infrastructure of my country crumbles around me. I hope to inspire others to think, speak, and act according to the American ideals which we citizens should all hold dear. Read my posts, respond if you feel so inclined, argue with what I say and argue with your fellow American. We can solve many problems by debating them and resolving them in a fair, open-minded way. E Pluribus Unum: Out of Many, One.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)