Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Why is being called a socialist now considered pejorative?
You might not have heard, but Barack Obama is a socialist (and a Nazi at the same time), Julia Gillard is a socialist. And no, these are not meant to be complimentary.
My dearest wish is that these people really were socialists, even a little bit. But they aren't.
When politicians who are a tiny bit to the left of centre-right are called socialists, what is meant is that they're not conservative enough. Obama has been accused of wishing for, believing in and working toward wealth re-distribution. Which is the policy that resources ought to be shared by all citizens equally. I think that equitable sharing of resources is a noble idea.
We ought not be able to watch members of our society starve, lose their homes or die of treatable infections and diseases simply because they aren't allocated a reasonable share of communal resources.
It's even more appalling when some nations of the world own or control the resources of other nations and live well or far too well, while the citizens of their client nations live in deplorable conditions, suffer, starve and die of easily controlled diseases.
So how do we know that Obama and Gillard are not socialists?
If they were, their governments would be more concerned with the well-being of citizens that ensuring that the corporations that bank roll their election campaigns are well looked after. Hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, and accommodation for the poor and the homeless would be priorities.
Instead, we see corporations being involved in negotiating the legislation that concerns them so that they're not overly impacted by any negative effects of new laws. We see legislation that ought to alleviate the disparity between the poor and the very rich watered down so that the very rich don't have their noses put out of joint.
The much vaunted "universal health care reform" legislation passed March 23, 2010 was initially intended to be a single-payer, universal cover, health-care system much like many European countries and others have. Instead, for example, one of the policies that was negotiated was mandatory health care, meaning that consumers HAD to purchase policies from the same insurers they'd already had problems with!
Julia's socialist credentials read like a conservative manifesto:
Treating refugees as criminals and lurching to the right to appease the less inclusive, redneck, voting bloc;
Following the lead of the conservative party in regards to supporting unfair and punitive wars in the oil and heroin hemisphere;
Continuing the insane policy of abrogating gay rights. Then minister, Penny Wong, herself and out gay, was responsible for Labor's policy of human rights for some, but not for gays;
It is a fact of modern political life that Socialists get very little respect, but the reason for this is not clear.
Socialism in a nutshell is concerned not with ripping your wallet from your hip pocket but with fairness for all; equal opportunity for all; human rights for all; free education for all and a safety net if you fall.
Why then is socialism seen as so evil?
My dearest wish is that these people really were socialists, even a little bit. But they aren't.
When politicians who are a tiny bit to the left of centre-right are called socialists, what is meant is that they're not conservative enough. Obama has been accused of wishing for, believing in and working toward wealth re-distribution. Which is the policy that resources ought to be shared by all citizens equally. I think that equitable sharing of resources is a noble idea.
We ought not be able to watch members of our society starve, lose their homes or die of treatable infections and diseases simply because they aren't allocated a reasonable share of communal resources.
It's even more appalling when some nations of the world own or control the resources of other nations and live well or far too well, while the citizens of their client nations live in deplorable conditions, suffer, starve and die of easily controlled diseases.
So how do we know that Obama and Gillard are not socialists?
If they were, their governments would be more concerned with the well-being of citizens that ensuring that the corporations that bank roll their election campaigns are well looked after. Hospitals, schools, soup kitchens, and accommodation for the poor and the homeless would be priorities.
Instead, we see corporations being involved in negotiating the legislation that concerns them so that they're not overly impacted by any negative effects of new laws. We see legislation that ought to alleviate the disparity between the poor and the very rich watered down so that the very rich don't have their noses put out of joint.
The much vaunted "universal health care reform" legislation passed March 23, 2010 was initially intended to be a single-payer, universal cover, health-care system much like many European countries and others have. Instead, for example, one of the policies that was negotiated was mandatory health care, meaning that consumers HAD to purchase policies from the same insurers they'd already had problems with!
Julia's socialist credentials read like a conservative manifesto:
Treating refugees as criminals and lurching to the right to appease the less inclusive, redneck, voting bloc;
Following the lead of the conservative party in regards to supporting unfair and punitive wars in the oil and heroin hemisphere;
Continuing the insane policy of abrogating gay rights. Then minister, Penny Wong, herself and out gay, was responsible for Labor's policy of human rights for some, but not for gays;
It is a fact of modern political life that Socialists get very little respect, but the reason for this is not clear.
Socialism in a nutshell is concerned not with ripping your wallet from your hip pocket but with fairness for all; equal opportunity for all; human rights for all; free education for all and a safety net if you fall.
Why then is socialism seen as so evil?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Socialism isn't evil, not even close.
Lately socialism has been getting some very bad press. If you believe those on the right, the world of ideas can be broken down into a few simple dichotomies.
Under their assumptions; war is just great - but peace activism is evil.
Further, gender rights are not human rights but a ghettoised, separate set of rights that only apply to individual interest groups. Just like the right not to be hungry only applies to the starving and not to the rest of us.
According to the "Right*", capitalism isn't just the best way to run an economy, it's the only way to run an economy. Some of them actually equate Democracy with capitalism. This is manifestly untrue, capitalism is one of the ways an economy can be managed. It allows market forces (Greed) to set prices, It allows enormous corporations to accrue masses of power and influence beholden to none but their share holders.
Democracy on the other hand is a political system of most of the western world and much of the rest of the world where individuals have an equal right to determine the composition of their government, subject to rules that preclute the very young, the mentally infirm and the criminally insane from participation in the process.
The simple illustration that capitalism and Democracy are not equivalent is the obvious fact that many non-democratic nations are also capitalistic. Nations like the Argentina of pinochet, the Italy of Mussolini, the many and varied dictatorships of South America, Asia and Africa are almost all capitalistic, run purely on greed and avarice.
Democracy not at all incompatible with Socialism, in fact many of the happiest and most forward thinking nations in the world are socialist democracies in all but name. Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and others are far in advance of the petty sloganism of countries like the USA, England and Australia.
There's much more to write about this, we need to move further to the left, toward caring for all and finding ways to foster independencce from insane growth economics and greedy capitalism.
Next time ...
*who are far too often wrong.
Under their assumptions; war is just great - but peace activism is evil.
Further, gender rights are not human rights but a ghettoised, separate set of rights that only apply to individual interest groups. Just like the right not to be hungry only applies to the starving and not to the rest of us.
According to the "Right*", capitalism isn't just the best way to run an economy, it's the only way to run an economy. Some of them actually equate Democracy with capitalism. This is manifestly untrue, capitalism is one of the ways an economy can be managed. It allows market forces (Greed) to set prices, It allows enormous corporations to accrue masses of power and influence beholden to none but their share holders.
Democracy on the other hand is a political system of most of the western world and much of the rest of the world where individuals have an equal right to determine the composition of their government, subject to rules that preclute the very young, the mentally infirm and the criminally insane from participation in the process.
The simple illustration that capitalism and Democracy are not equivalent is the obvious fact that many non-democratic nations are also capitalistic. Nations like the Argentina of pinochet, the Italy of Mussolini, the many and varied dictatorships of South America, Asia and Africa are almost all capitalistic, run purely on greed and avarice.
Democracy not at all incompatible with Socialism, in fact many of the happiest and most forward thinking nations in the world are socialist democracies in all but name. Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and others are far in advance of the petty sloganism of countries like the USA, England and Australia.
There's much more to write about this, we need to move further to the left, toward caring for all and finding ways to foster independencce from insane growth economics and greedy capitalism.
Next time ...
*who are far too often wrong.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Rip van Winkle Rat
The pope has awakened to the knowledge that Catholic clergy regularly abuse those in their charge. Further, he has become aware that some in his church are responsible for protecting these clergy from the legal consequences of their action.
Ahhh, all better now ...
Ahhh, all better now ...
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Democracy?
Once in a while, when both of my neurons fire in unison, I have an epiphany.
I and most people believe that we live in democratic societies. My realisation is that we don't. We abide under the illusion that we can choose political entities that reflect our desires and methodology. We don't of course; this is what out corporate masters want us to believe.
There is, in fact very little difference between "Conservative" and "Liberal" policies. These days most politicians are not free to decide policy but are pressured by lobby megaliths to do the bidding of corporations.
In practice the main difference, slight as it is, is the way in which the two sides bow to their masters.
The Left will introduce strong legislation that is purported to improve the lot of the working classes while limiting the power of the employers. This is the signal for the lobby groups to lean on legislators and a complaisant media to reduce the scope and strength of the legislation.
The Left always reluctantly complies.
The Right on the other hand, writes up legislation that purports to increase democracy, promote the creation of wealth - via the "trickle down" method - and crack down on criminal behaviour.
The Left always reluctantly complies.
Free will is dead. Democracy is moribund and being replaced by a new Fascism, an oligarchic monstrosity of "government of the people, for the corporations, by the corporations" ... and their elected lapdogs
I for one do not welcome our inhuman overlords.
I and most people believe that we live in democratic societies. My realisation is that we don't. We abide under the illusion that we can choose political entities that reflect our desires and methodology. We don't of course; this is what out corporate masters want us to believe.
There is, in fact very little difference between "Conservative" and "Liberal" policies. These days most politicians are not free to decide policy but are pressured by lobby megaliths to do the bidding of corporations.
In practice the main difference, slight as it is, is the way in which the two sides bow to their masters.
The Left will introduce strong legislation that is purported to improve the lot of the working classes while limiting the power of the employers. This is the signal for the lobby groups to lean on legislators and a complaisant media to reduce the scope and strength of the legislation.
The Left always reluctantly complies.
The Right on the other hand, writes up legislation that purports to increase democracy, promote the creation of wealth - via the "trickle down" method - and crack down on criminal behaviour.
The Left always reluctantly complies.
Free will is dead. Democracy is moribund and being replaced by a new Fascism, an oligarchic monstrosity of "government of the people, for the corporations, by the corporations" ... and their elected lapdogs
I for one do not welcome our inhuman overlords.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Papal Bull
A Papal Bull is a formal letter or decree written by the pope and sealed with a device called a Bulla. These papal missives have been disseminated this way for centuries, beginning in the sixth CE. The name Papal Bull, however, did not come into use officially until the fifteenth century.
I won't be discussing that type of Papal Bull today.
When Karol Wojtila became Pope John Paul II on October 16, 1978, he was widely regarded as the pope who would reform the Catholic church and finally bring some modernity to its ancient superstitions. It is widely accepted that he largely helped to end the rule of the communist party in his home country of Poland. Lech Walesa and Solidarity have contributed more significantly in my opinion, but church leaders will embellish whatever they think will aggrandize their particular version of Christianity.
His contribution to the Church included a general rapprochement with Judaism, a reduction in the requirements of beatification and sainthood, doing away with the office of advocatus diaboli, devil's advocate, and reducing the number of required "miracles" for sainthood to just two. The strict requirement for these miracles to be proven has also been softened so that now just about anyone can be canonised, even John Paul himself.
John Paul II also further entrenched his church in the workings of human sexuality and sexual politics, strengthening its position against homosexuality, abortion and contraception.
John Paul II also further entrenched his church in the workings of human sexuality and sexual politics, strengthening its position against homosexuality, abortion and contraception.
The pope's views on contraception in particular has resulted in millions of unwanted children being born as a result of the failure of the church condoned "Catholic Roulette", or the rhythm method of contraception. The amount of misery, disease and crime that this practice has caused may never fully be understood.
Further to his inappropriate, in my view, attention to matters of sexuality, was his blanket injunction against the use of condoms, even within marriage. This insistence on abstinence as the solution to the spread of AIDS in Africa and South America is responsible for the deaths of millions during John Paul II's reign and is the main reason that I, and many other liberals condemn his memory.
That his acts in this regard are despicable is one thing, but his successor, Joseph Ratzinger, has compounded the problem further by making this statement on a trip to Cameroon in March 2009, "(AIDS is) a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."
Aggravates, one might think, is Vatican-speak for "makes better".
Monday, January 18, 2010
Mo'Nique's Hairy Legs
Mo'Nique, winner of the best supporting actress award for her role as an abusive mother in the movie Precious, has "commentators" in an uproar with her outrageous behaviour. She doesn't shave her legs. And she's a woman.
As well as that, she has the temerity to show them off at he the Golden Globes. In front of, like, you know, everyone.
Really? People have hair? Well, men do, that's fine and dandy. Women are supposed to depilate scrupulously so as not to offend.
The reaction is even more underwhelming when we have real issues like the humanitarian crisis in Haiti, war in Afghanistan, Global Financial Crisis, Famine, Injustice, AIDS, Condom Deniers (I've got you in mind, pontiff), Vaccine Deniers, I could go on and on.
A woman's hairy legs cause a stir.
Get. A. Life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
