Monday, September 24, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Miss Representation
Newest Miss Representation Trailer (2011 Sundance Film Festival Official Selection) from Miss Representation on Vimeo.
Find a screening: http://www.missrepresentation.org
Join the movement: http://facebook.com/missrepresentationcampaign
Spread the word: http://twitter.com/representpledge
Miss Representation explores women’s under-representation in positions of power and influence and challenges the limited and often disparaging portrayals of women in media. Writer/Director Jennifer Siebel Newsom brings together some of America’s most influential thought leaders in politics, news, entertainment, and academia, including Condoleezza Rice, Katie Couric, Geena Davis, Lisa Ling, Marissa Mayer, Cory Booker, Jean Kilbourne, and Jackson Katz, to give us an inside look at the media’s messaging. As one of the most persuasive and pervasive forces of communication in our culture, mainstream media is educating yet another generation that a woman’s primary value lies in her youth, beauty and sexuality—not in her capacity as a leader. Miss Representation premieres Saturday January 22 in the documentary competition at Sundance Film Festival and then travels to the Athena Film Festival in New York City February 12.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes, there will be war...
Songwriters: Valentin, Mats / Green, Marti Lynn Dodson
Until the philosophy which hold one race superior
And another
Inferior
Is finally
And permanently
Discredited
And abandoned -
Everywhere is war -
Me say war.
That until there no longer
First class and second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes -
Me say war.
That until the basic human rights
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race -
Dis a war.
That until that day
The dream of lasting peace,
World citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
But never attained -
Now everywhere is war - war.
And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes
That hold our brothers in Angola,
In Mozambique,
South Africa
Sub-human bondage
Have been toppled,
Utterly destroyed -
Well, everywhere is war -
Me say war.
War in the east,
War in the west,
War up north,
War down south -
War - war -
Rumours of war.
And until that day,
The African continent
Will not know peace,
We Africans will fight - we find it necessary -
And we know we shall win
As we are confident
In the victory
Of good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah! /fadeout/
War lyrics © Kobalt Music Publishing Ltd., Universal Music Publishing Group, EMI Music Publishing
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Happy Mother's Day To My Mom
I truly am blessed to have the greatest Mom in the whole wide world. She naturally exudes unconditional love. I am a lucky, lucky man to have been brought into being, nurtured and raised by such a beautiful human being.
I love you mom. Happy Mother's Day.
I love you mom. Happy Mother's Day.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Restorative Justice
One of the things I love about Facebook is my exposure to new "stuff". I've heard the term "restorative justice" before, but have never looked into it, and therefore never really understood what it was all about. Facebook is opening my already open mind on a daily basis. It is a portal to my continuing education.
But I'm preaching to the choir. I'm sure y'all feel the same way.
So here's the excerpt from the article in Psychology Today that resonated in my heart:
Restorative Circles provide a way for individuals and communities to handle conflicts compassionately rather than punitively, as well as to heal and learn from these conflicts. These days when I say I want justice, this is the kind of justice system I have in mind -- a system that values everyone's needs and is designed to address those needs without either blame or compromise.
How is it that a concept like this, which is so close to the fundamental truth, so right, so "just", is so far from our minds (here in the U.S.)?
How is it that something that makes so much sense, seems so obvious, yet seems so far from our collective consciousness and from a new and willfully manifested reality?
I wonder. I do know that it starts here and on Facebook and on Twitter - by sharing and reading and pondering. Planting the seeds of change.
Real change. Real. Change. Of the "fundamental truth" variety. Not the namby-pamby politi-speak mealy-mouthed bullshit we hear so much of today. All talk and no action.
Have a great new day y'all....
Our Justice System Requires Us To Punish Wrongdoers. What If There Were a Better Way?
Is there a better way of "doing justice"? The alternative may surprise you.
Published on August 18, 2010 by Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D. in Between the Lines
We think we know what it means -- that we who want justice are willing to fight for it. The words have a deeper meaning, of course. They are intended to remind us that it is not possible to have a peaceful society as long as there is injustice, because inevitably those who are oppressed will rise up.
As slogans go, this one is pretty clever, so clever, in fact, that it's easy to get caught up in the words and forget to think about what they actually mean.
What is it that we really want when we say we want justice?
A year ago I would have easily answered "true equality under the law" -- as opposed to our current criminal (in)justice system, in which race clearly plays a major role. More to the point, I would have said that I wanted the determination of guilt and the administration of punishment to not be correlated to race or any other demographic characteristic.
Today, I'm no longer satisfied with that.
For those of us living in the United States, "doing justice" is mostly synonymous with administering punishment. We may not literally follow the Biblical edict of "an eye for an eye", but most of us still believe that "the punishment must fit the crime". Indeed, many of us would be hard pressed to even come up with an alternative justice system.
Yet alternatives abound in the form of restorative justice.
There are many restorative justice systems. The one I've been studying is Restorative Circles (RC), a system developed by Dominic Barter in the shanty towns of urban Brazil and now spreading across the world as a means of promoting and facilitating social justice, group cohesion, resilient relationships and personal healing.
Restorative Circles provide a way for individuals and communities to handle conflicts, including racial conflicts, compassionately rather than punitively, as well as to heal and learn from these conflicts. These days when I say I want justice, this is the kind of justice system I have in mind -- a system that values everyone's needs and is designed to address those needs without either blame or compromise1.
To the uninitiated, restorative processes may appear idealistic and naive. After all, they reject the two core aspects of the traditional justice system: the assignment of blame and the administration of punishment. Instead, the goal of the Circle is for the parties involved in the conflict to first gain mutual understanding of the others' experiences and needs and then to restore or build a mutually satisfying relationship.
Talking is involved, so is listening. Lots of listening. But it's a decidedly different type of talk than people usually engage in2, and it's not just talk.
The restorative process is designed to lead to voluntary (and they really are voluntary!) acts offered to repair or restore the relationship. The two words are not synonymous. Reparative acts have to do with compensation -- paying for a broken window is a reparative act -- while restorative acts are those whose value is largely symbolic, a heart-felt apology may qualify, or a basket of vegetables from one's garden, or an invitation to dinner. It's certainly not surprising that people prefer to have both, but it turns out, Barter explains, that if they can only have one, there is a strong preference for acts that are restorative.
And yet, Restorative Circles aren't, at the heart of it, about apologies or even about restorative acts more generally. They're about mutual understanding and connection. Too often racial conflict is addressed with (legitimate) accusations. Denial ensues. Feelings are hurt. At the end, no one feels good about what happened.
Restorative processes offer an alternative, one that connects people by allowing them to not just understand each other but experience each other's humanity. That's why restorative acts are offered. That's why they are experienced as restorative. There is nothing like it in our current ways of doing justice.
In his trainings, Barter weaves in multiple examples from a variety of contexts. In one, a masked thief enters a small convenience store and robs the owner at gunpoint. He is apprehended a short while later and agrees to a restorative process. In that process, he explains that he did what he did because he was pressured to do so by a gang in order to demonstrate his commitment. The store owner shares how, weeks later, he still felt traumatized by the incident. It takes more than an hour to work through the nuances of understanding each other. When they finally reach the action phase of the process, the store owner offers the would-be-thief a job in the store.
Skeptical? I was too. And I wasn't about to be be convinced by testimonials and personal anecdotes. I wanted hard data, and I knew how to find it. What I found was one empirical study after another that demonstrated the effectiveness of restorative systems. Indeed, a review of research on restorative justice across multiple continents showed that restorative systems reduce recidivism in both violent and property crime in comparison to traditional justice systems and provide a variety of benefits to the "victims", including improved mental health and greater satisfaction with the justice process (Sherman & Strang, 2007).
Such a profound process should be difficult to facilitate, intimidating to even contemplate. It isn't. Part of the reason is that Barter has whittled the RC process to the bare essentials, which are few and relatively easy to learn, if not master. Another part is that Barter encourages a minimalist approach. "When I facilitate a circle," he says, "I intensely desire everyone's well-being and that's why I try to do nothing to help them." The statement seems paradoxical, but Barter is making an important point: The power of RC rests in the process, and it is the structure of the process that creates change, not the facilitator, whose job is merely to create and hold the space for the process to unfold.
Barter says the facilitators he enjoys observing most are those under the age of 10. Why not? In Dominic Barter's world, schoolchildren spontaneously break out into a restorative circle during recess. It seems downright inconceivable at first, but after a few days with Barter, the message sinks in: Facilitating a circle is child's play. Anyone can do it.
Given the level of conflict and injustice in our world, I wish everyone would.
Footnotes:
1. In regard to the "No Justice. No Peace" banner, in the context of restorative justice, the two concepts are not just interdependent, they are indistinguishable from each other. That is, justice is a way of resolving conflict compassionately by addressing everyone's needs, while peace is a way of living with conflict by engaging it effectively and compassionately.
2. Describing the actual process is beyond the scope of this particular piece, but interested readers should visit the restorative circles website.
But I'm preaching to the choir. I'm sure y'all feel the same way.
So here's the excerpt from the article in Psychology Today that resonated in my heart:
Restorative Circles provide a way for individuals and communities to handle conflicts compassionately rather than punitively, as well as to heal and learn from these conflicts. These days when I say I want justice, this is the kind of justice system I have in mind -- a system that values everyone's needs and is designed to address those needs without either blame or compromise.
How is it that a concept like this, which is so close to the fundamental truth, so right, so "just", is so far from our minds (here in the U.S.)?
How is it that something that makes so much sense, seems so obvious, yet seems so far from our collective consciousness and from a new and willfully manifested reality?
I wonder. I do know that it starts here and on Facebook and on Twitter - by sharing and reading and pondering. Planting the seeds of change.
Real change. Real. Change. Of the "fundamental truth" variety. Not the namby-pamby politi-speak mealy-mouthed bullshit we hear so much of today. All talk and no action.
Have a great new day y'all....
Our Justice System Requires Us To Punish Wrongdoers. What If There Were a Better Way?
Is there a better way of "doing justice"? The alternative may surprise you.
Published on August 18, 2010 by Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D. in Between the Lines
We think we know what it means -- that we who want justice are willing to fight for it. The words have a deeper meaning, of course. They are intended to remind us that it is not possible to have a peaceful society as long as there is injustice, because inevitably those who are oppressed will rise up.
As slogans go, this one is pretty clever, so clever, in fact, that it's easy to get caught up in the words and forget to think about what they actually mean.
What is it that we really want when we say we want justice?
A year ago I would have easily answered "true equality under the law" -- as opposed to our current criminal (in)justice system, in which race clearly plays a major role. More to the point, I would have said that I wanted the determination of guilt and the administration of punishment to not be correlated to race or any other demographic characteristic.
Today, I'm no longer satisfied with that.
For those of us living in the United States, "doing justice" is mostly synonymous with administering punishment. We may not literally follow the Biblical edict of "an eye for an eye", but most of us still believe that "the punishment must fit the crime". Indeed, many of us would be hard pressed to even come up with an alternative justice system.
Yet alternatives abound in the form of restorative justice.
There are many restorative justice systems. The one I've been studying is Restorative Circles (RC), a system developed by Dominic Barter in the shanty towns of urban Brazil and now spreading across the world as a means of promoting and facilitating social justice, group cohesion, resilient relationships and personal healing.
Restorative Circles provide a way for individuals and communities to handle conflicts, including racial conflicts, compassionately rather than punitively, as well as to heal and learn from these conflicts. These days when I say I want justice, this is the kind of justice system I have in mind -- a system that values everyone's needs and is designed to address those needs without either blame or compromise1.
To the uninitiated, restorative processes may appear idealistic and naive. After all, they reject the two core aspects of the traditional justice system: the assignment of blame and the administration of punishment. Instead, the goal of the Circle is for the parties involved in the conflict to first gain mutual understanding of the others' experiences and needs and then to restore or build a mutually satisfying relationship.
Talking is involved, so is listening. Lots of listening. But it's a decidedly different type of talk than people usually engage in2, and it's not just talk.
The restorative process is designed to lead to voluntary (and they really are voluntary!) acts offered to repair or restore the relationship. The two words are not synonymous. Reparative acts have to do with compensation -- paying for a broken window is a reparative act -- while restorative acts are those whose value is largely symbolic, a heart-felt apology may qualify, or a basket of vegetables from one's garden, or an invitation to dinner. It's certainly not surprising that people prefer to have both, but it turns out, Barter explains, that if they can only have one, there is a strong preference for acts that are restorative.
And yet, Restorative Circles aren't, at the heart of it, about apologies or even about restorative acts more generally. They're about mutual understanding and connection. Too often racial conflict is addressed with (legitimate) accusations. Denial ensues. Feelings are hurt. At the end, no one feels good about what happened.
Restorative processes offer an alternative, one that connects people by allowing them to not just understand each other but experience each other's humanity. That's why restorative acts are offered. That's why they are experienced as restorative. There is nothing like it in our current ways of doing justice.
In his trainings, Barter weaves in multiple examples from a variety of contexts. In one, a masked thief enters a small convenience store and robs the owner at gunpoint. He is apprehended a short while later and agrees to a restorative process. In that process, he explains that he did what he did because he was pressured to do so by a gang in order to demonstrate his commitment. The store owner shares how, weeks later, he still felt traumatized by the incident. It takes more than an hour to work through the nuances of understanding each other. When they finally reach the action phase of the process, the store owner offers the would-be-thief a job in the store.
Skeptical? I was too. And I wasn't about to be be convinced by testimonials and personal anecdotes. I wanted hard data, and I knew how to find it. What I found was one empirical study after another that demonstrated the effectiveness of restorative systems. Indeed, a review of research on restorative justice across multiple continents showed that restorative systems reduce recidivism in both violent and property crime in comparison to traditional justice systems and provide a variety of benefits to the "victims", including improved mental health and greater satisfaction with the justice process (Sherman & Strang, 2007).
Such a profound process should be difficult to facilitate, intimidating to even contemplate. It isn't. Part of the reason is that Barter has whittled the RC process to the bare essentials, which are few and relatively easy to learn, if not master. Another part is that Barter encourages a minimalist approach. "When I facilitate a circle," he says, "I intensely desire everyone's well-being and that's why I try to do nothing to help them." The statement seems paradoxical, but Barter is making an important point: The power of RC rests in the process, and it is the structure of the process that creates change, not the facilitator, whose job is merely to create and hold the space for the process to unfold.
Barter says the facilitators he enjoys observing most are those under the age of 10. Why not? In Dominic Barter's world, schoolchildren spontaneously break out into a restorative circle during recess. It seems downright inconceivable at first, but after a few days with Barter, the message sinks in: Facilitating a circle is child's play. Anyone can do it.
Given the level of conflict and injustice in our world, I wish everyone would.
Footnotes:
1. In regard to the "No Justice. No Peace" banner, in the context of restorative justice, the two concepts are not just interdependent, they are indistinguishable from each other. That is, justice is a way of resolving conflict compassionately by addressing everyone's needs, while peace is a way of living with conflict by engaging it effectively and compassionately.
2. Describing the actual process is beyond the scope of this particular piece, but interested readers should visit the restorative circles website.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
When is the last time...
you had a great conversation? One that wasn't just two intersecting monologues. One in which you overheard yourself saying things you didn't know you knew? One where you felt yourself receiving from somebody words that absolutely found places within you that you thought you had lost. With a sense of an event that brought the two of you onto a different plane. A conversation that continued to sing in your mind for weeks afterward?
[John O'Donoghue in an interview by Krista Tippett on "On Being" NPR]
Sent from my iPhone...'bout to cross the Pecos River...file under "Posts at 80mph"...
Beauty
There is so much beauty in the world, yet we seem only able to destroy it...
Sent from my iPhone
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The Sublime Door
I was just searching old emails and bookmarks looking for a link I sent myself many months ago - a special bronze valve that I found that appeared to be a good fit for building prototype shower and possibly lavatory fittings for the remodel. I haven't found it, and am now faced with starting my search over from scratch.
But I did find this. It appears that I wrote it to a friend, probably of the facebook variety, in response to her query about "a door opening when love stands in front it" or something or other. I can't recall who I wrote it for/to.
I had to read and re-read it a few times, where it lay there in my email "sent" box, sent to myself over a year ago, to figure out if it was something I actually wrote or if it was attribute-able to someone else. It was that unfamiliar to me. I was thinking to myself, "Self, did you write this?" It somehow seemed too good for lil' 'ol me to have written. But maybe not. Who knows?
Anyway, I thought it interesting enough to dredge it up and copy and paste it and tack it up here.
Now that I think about it, I think it's actually less about actual doors, and more about men. A well-built door, a well-hung door - as a metaphor of a man. It's starting to come back to me. I think I remember who I wrote this for, and I think there's a new door in her life.
There are closed doors that blow open in a breeze, sliding doors that open with a gesture (if they're not off-track); those stupid bi-fold doors that open easily but never seem to work right; dummy knobs with catches that open with a gentle pull; passage sets with no locking function - just turn the knob; privacy sets with a simple push button lock that you can unlock with a paper clip; entry latchsets that do require a key to open; the single cylinder deadbolt - key outside, simple turn knob inside; and the double cylinder deadbolt requiring a key to unlock both inside and out. We mustn't forget the padlock and hasp, iron bars, and additional security measures folks elect to employ on their doors.
All that said, a door that doesn't open automatically when love stands in front of it (like at Target), is usually broken.
It's nice when a beautiful door works perfectly - plumb, level, square, reveals aligned, no sagging jambs, weatherstripping in order, no cracks or gaps or dings, properly mortised strike for a tight fit, raised panels properly constructed and sound, newly coated with an environmentally sustainable natural oil finish, heavy cast bronze hardware that feels good in your hand, hinges that glide smoothly and don't squeak, and finally, that opens effortlessly, and closes with a solid sounding "klunck".
But it takes a rare and talented carpenter to build and set a perfect door. Those doors are rare in my experience. Most doors are imperfect, selected without due diligence for the intended use, hastily installed so that the foundations for continued trouble-free operation for the lifetime of the door have not been laid, and usually not well maintained over the years. These doors can always be repaired, if the end-user and the carpenter have the desire to do so, and the stamina to stick with it until the task is completed. At which time the door will operate like a charm for many years to come.
Keep in mind that there are very inexpensive, paint-grade, thin-walled, hollow core masonite doors, sometimes with a corrugated cardboard torsion box inside. These are common at Home Depot - for about $50 bucks. These doors usually need to be replaced after a very short time of service.
There are solid core doors with particle board or solid lumber cores and a veneered exterior. Pretty, solid feeling and sounding when you knock, but only a veneer of wood - and if the particle board gets wet, the veneer will begin to peel away and the door will begin to fall apart. Again, nice while it lasted, but these types will need replacing eventually.
The most sublime door is 1-3/4" thick, 3'-0" wide, and 8'-0" tall. It is made by hand of solid wood with no veneers. Alder, cherry, mahogany - ideally locally sourced from a storm-fallen hardwood in someone's backyard. Mesquite is a nice wood species with a local Texas flavor, and is very durable. The individual pieces of wood to make the door should be kiln dried to a proper moisture content - 12-15%. They should be hand/eye selected for soundness and straightness, free from warp, bow, wane, knots, and other defects. Unless you want a door with a rustic character - then knots are desirable. Sound, tight knots that aren't loose and threatening to crumble and fall out and become peep holes. This door is built with impeccable joinery, and the highest quality exterior glue. Mortise & tenon, with a thick raised panel, and a full bolection mould if that is the end user's desire. The door should have 5/4" jambs, and bronze spring weather stripping. The casing should be wide, and thick. 5/4" by 6". A natural pigment stain, and natural oil will suffice - with periodic maintenance. Four hinges, not three. Forged and machined hinges not stamped. Ball bearing hinges - at least 5", perhaps 6". Sand-cast bronze, full-mortise latchset. All hand forged and machined if possible. This hardware will feel like none other when it is in your grasp. Solid. Precise. Peerless. Without fail. Every time.
Hand crafted with loving care is my motto. That love and care is imbued into the wood, the door, the jambs, the casing, the construction, the installation, the glue and nails that bind it all together. And most importantly, the day-to-day operation of the door. These doors return that imbued love with every passing person, every grasp and turn of the handle. Imagine a door that loves back.
This door is your opening to the world, and the portal to your inner being. This door is your protector. It protects you from the elements and the cold winds, wild bears, small mice and the occasional interloper or intruder. It is built soundly, and will last a lifetime, albeit with proper maintenance and care. It opens freely, gliding smoothly, yet closes with a thunk and locks solidly when needed. The warm tone of the wood is welcoming all who stand before it. Those who do can't help but touch. The smooth wood, possibly with natural distressing gained by many years of use, begs to be caressed. A door should say "come in", "you are welcome in my house", "mi casa es su casa". The world that these doors exist in remain unlocked - almost always.
These doors are rare, but they do exist out there in the world.
[sorry...got carried away with a little creative writing very early in the morning...but you get my drift...I hope...for future doors in your life...not that you needed any of my carpenter/door wisdom...hope you're okay...beso...a]
Globular Cluster M53 :: For the Directionally Challenged
Thanks go to Stephen for the find. This clarifies something I've been wondering about since 1968 - "Where would you end up in space if you take off in a spaceship from the north pole and go straight "up" out into space?"
I feel much better now, knowing how I'm oriented within the Milky Way Galaxy.
I feel much better now, knowing how I'm oriented within the Milky Way Galaxy.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
The Fable of the Century, by Robert Reich
By Robert Reich, Thursday, April 5, 2012...
Imagine a country in which the very richest people get all the economic gains. They eventually accumulate so much of the nation’s total income and wealth that the middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going full speed. Most of the middle class’s wages keep falling and their major asset – their home – keeps shrinking in value.
Imagine that the richest people in this country use some of their vast wealth to routinely bribe politicians. They get the politicians to cut their taxes so low there’s no money to finance important public investments that the middle class depends on – such as schools and roads, or safety nets such as health care for the elderly and poor.
Imagine further that among the richest of these rich are financiers. These financiers have so much power over the rest of the economy they get average taxpayers to bail them out when their bets in the casino called the stock market go bad. They have so much power they even shred regulations intended to limit their power.
These financiers have so much power they force businesses to lay off millions of workers and to reduce the wages and benefits of millions of others, in order to maximize profits and raise share prices – all of which make the financiers even richer, because they own so many of shares of stock and run the casino.
Now, imagine that among the richest of these financiers are people called private-equity managers who buy up companies in order to squeeze even more money out of them by loading them up with debt and firing even more of their employees, and then selling the companies for a fat profit.
Although these private-equity managers don’t even risk their own money – they round up investors to buy the target companies – they nonetheless pocket 20 percent of those fat profits.
And because of a loophole in the tax laws, which they created with their political bribes, these private equity managers are allowed to treat their whopping earnings as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent – even though they themselves made no investment and didn’t risk a dime.
Finally, imagine there is a presidential election. One party, called the Republican Party, nominates as its candidate a private-equity manager who has raked in more than $20 million a year and paid only 13.9 percent in taxes – a lower tax rate than many in the middle class.
Yes, I know it sounds far-fetched. But bear with me because the fable gets even wilder. Imagine this candidate and his party come up with a plan to cut the taxes of the rich even more – so millionaires save another $150,000 a year. And their plan cuts everything else the middle class and the poor depend on – Medicare, Medicaid, education, job-training, food stamps, Pell grants, child nutrition, even law enforcement.
What happens next?
There are two endings to this fable. You have to decide which it’s to be.
In one ending the private-equity manager candidate gets all his friends and everyone in the Wall Street casino and everyone in every executive suite of big corporations to contribute the largest wad of campaign money ever assembled – beyond your imagination.
The candidate uses the money to run continuous advertisements telling the same big lies over and over, such as “don’t tax the wealthy because they create the jobs” and “don’t tax corporations or they’ll go abroad” and “government is your enemy” and “the other party wants to turn America into a socialist state.”
And because big lies told repeatedly start sounding like the truth, the citizens of the country begin to believe them, and they elect the private equity manager president. Then he and his friends turn the country into a plutocracy (which it was starting to become anyway).
But there’s another ending. In this one, the candidacy of the private equity manager (and all the money he and his friends use to try to sell their lies) has the opposite effect. It awakens the citizens of the country to what is happening to their economy and their democracy. It ignites a movement among the citizens to take it all back.
The citizens repudiate the private equity manager and everything he stands for, and the party that nominated him. And they begin to recreate an economy that works for everyone and a democracy that’s responsive to everyone.
Just a fable, of course. But the ending is up to you.
Imagine a country in which the very richest people get all the economic gains. They eventually accumulate so much of the nation’s total income and wealth that the middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going full speed. Most of the middle class’s wages keep falling and their major asset – their home – keeps shrinking in value.
Imagine that the richest people in this country use some of their vast wealth to routinely bribe politicians. They get the politicians to cut their taxes so low there’s no money to finance important public investments that the middle class depends on – such as schools and roads, or safety nets such as health care for the elderly and poor.
Imagine further that among the richest of these rich are financiers. These financiers have so much power over the rest of the economy they get average taxpayers to bail them out when their bets in the casino called the stock market go bad. They have so much power they even shred regulations intended to limit their power.
These financiers have so much power they force businesses to lay off millions of workers and to reduce the wages and benefits of millions of others, in order to maximize profits and raise share prices – all of which make the financiers even richer, because they own so many of shares of stock and run the casino.
Now, imagine that among the richest of these financiers are people called private-equity managers who buy up companies in order to squeeze even more money out of them by loading them up with debt and firing even more of their employees, and then selling the companies for a fat profit.
Although these private-equity managers don’t even risk their own money – they round up investors to buy the target companies – they nonetheless pocket 20 percent of those fat profits.
And because of a loophole in the tax laws, which they created with their political bribes, these private equity managers are allowed to treat their whopping earnings as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent – even though they themselves made no investment and didn’t risk a dime.
Finally, imagine there is a presidential election. One party, called the Republican Party, nominates as its candidate a private-equity manager who has raked in more than $20 million a year and paid only 13.9 percent in taxes – a lower tax rate than many in the middle class.
Yes, I know it sounds far-fetched. But bear with me because the fable gets even wilder. Imagine this candidate and his party come up with a plan to cut the taxes of the rich even more – so millionaires save another $150,000 a year. And their plan cuts everything else the middle class and the poor depend on – Medicare, Medicaid, education, job-training, food stamps, Pell grants, child nutrition, even law enforcement.
What happens next?
There are two endings to this fable. You have to decide which it’s to be.
In one ending the private-equity manager candidate gets all his friends and everyone in the Wall Street casino and everyone in every executive suite of big corporations to contribute the largest wad of campaign money ever assembled – beyond your imagination.
The candidate uses the money to run continuous advertisements telling the same big lies over and over, such as “don’t tax the wealthy because they create the jobs” and “don’t tax corporations or they’ll go abroad” and “government is your enemy” and “the other party wants to turn America into a socialist state.”
And because big lies told repeatedly start sounding like the truth, the citizens of the country begin to believe them, and they elect the private equity manager president. Then he and his friends turn the country into a plutocracy (which it was starting to become anyway).
But there’s another ending. In this one, the candidacy of the private equity manager (and all the money he and his friends use to try to sell their lies) has the opposite effect. It awakens the citizens of the country to what is happening to their economy and their democracy. It ignites a movement among the citizens to take it all back.
The citizens repudiate the private equity manager and everything he stands for, and the party that nominated him. And they begin to recreate an economy that works for everyone and a democracy that’s responsive to everyone.
Just a fable, of course. But the ending is up to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)