A friend came by Saturday. He'd been trying to find a phone number in the AT&T Yellow Pages from a city where he (but not I) lives. He knew the business exists, because another similar merchant had referred him. I looked in the Yellow Pages for my little city. Similar results. Same for Yellow Book, a Yellow Pages competitor. They frequently come through when Yellow Pages fails.
I commented on the uselessness of the new trend in phone books -- covering only your own small scrap of space, instead of the previous phone books covering the entire metropolitan area.
"Yeah, they expect everyone to go online for everything, but if you can't be on the internet, that's too bad."
This reminded me of an article I started a couple of weeks ago but never finished. It's about how the business world controls buying and selling by their individual versions of gouging the public.
For instance, if we want a complete listing of phone numbers even for just our own cities, we must have internet service. To heck with someone who can't afford internet. Of course one can go to the library and get an hour of borrowed time, but how often can people make that trip? And if they go, do they have transportation? Being poor is being poor. For the impoverished, being on-line is a distinctive luxury. I'm not talking about what kind of Smart Phone is inexpensive enough here. I'm talking about not being able to afford it at all. The man in question finds the cost over his head, as he found the expense of a car for several years.
Another way businesses gouge the public is to quit making parts for useable, if out of date, equipment. Perhaps the worst offenders are the makers of printers for computers. How many times have you had to buy a new printer because you could no longer find ink cartridges or they used a new kind of paper?
Or how about changing the kind of printer to wireless so they are incompatible with your perfectly good computer.
In the world in which many of us live, there simply isn't money to replace a computer system just because a printer goes out and the bottom line guys have quit making the kind of printer that goes with it.
This kind of thing is called gouging the public. It is forcing them to upgrade their equipment or go without completely. It is one more sign that our world is becoming morally bankrupt. One more sign of man's inhumanity to man -- of kicking a person when he's down.
I can't imagine a city, state or country where everyone is upper class. I'm not sure that is even possible. So why do the fortunate exploit those with less? I guess money is how they get their jollies. What do you think? Oh, yes, same for car companies that quit making parts for useable cars. I can assure you they won't be getting the sale when the customer is forced to upgrade. So where's their bottom line then?
Sunday, August 24, 2014
When Speaking Of The Poor
On a recent This Week Robert Reich said that Paul Ryan was running around Congress with a new budget that includes a commitment for Americans to take care of their poor. He said that Ryan had experienced some kind of a conversion. Good for Paul Ryan. I hope more members of Congress will see the light and let the light shine all the way from increased minimum wages to supporting all of our most down and out. I'm sure God, Jesus and Pope Francis will all be proud if this takes place.
According to the Paul Ryan interview in the back of the current Time Magazine, Ryan has written a book in which he proposes that we renew the American idea of equality for all. Government should ensure we all have that right.
He believes the recovery from our recent recession took too long, certainly longer than any other since World War II. He seems not to have noticed it was the worst recession since the Great Depression. It should have taken longer.
So Ryan, with his newly found concern for the poor and his consistent belief in his own ability to solve our problems, has taken upon himself to start visiting black neighborhoods so he can find out how they are successfully beating back poverty.
Now, herein lies the crux of one of our biggest problems -- those who think and act like those who are in need of government assistance for handouts are limited to African Americans. There are people of all races and creeds who are poor. Experts have been quoting stats for years that show that many, many Caucasians have to depend on assistance. In fact, a huge draw on subsistence funds is being made by formerly hard working Senior Citizens who have fallen victim to Congressional attempts to save Social Security for future generations. That, although a good and laudable goal, is not a good and laudable excuse for forcing current seniors onto the welfare roles. There have to be other ways to save the fund than this.
Such misunderstandings about poverty are no doubt the cause of much hatred of the subsistence programs. Some people think the handouts go only to the black community and this interacts with their extreme and deep rooted prejudices.
I could quote you the stats again, but people have ignored them always before and would probably negate them now. So, Congressman Ryan, write another book which requires you to look them up yourself. Then, they might mean something to you. And while you are studying the facts, take a look at who is in the top one per cent, or two, or three or more.
You and I should be so fortunate as to have a small fraction of the wealth of Oprah, Herman Cain, Puff Daddy, Snoop Dogg, etc., etc., etc.
America, the equal opportunity country, is succeeding beyond belief. And it's time for Congress to get with the program and continue this equalization by keeping jobs at home, taxing those who have, and limiting our contributions to other countries (at least until we seriously reduce our debt). And also continuing to work for job creation and pleasing the Almighty by extending opportunity and helping those at home as freely as you pass out cash to the unworthy and false friends abroad. When speaking of the poor, be cognizant of the facts, the stats, and then educate the knee jerk responsive masses of these facts.
According to the Paul Ryan interview in the back of the current Time Magazine, Ryan has written a book in which he proposes that we renew the American idea of equality for all. Government should ensure we all have that right.
He believes the recovery from our recent recession took too long, certainly longer than any other since World War II. He seems not to have noticed it was the worst recession since the Great Depression. It should have taken longer.
So Ryan, with his newly found concern for the poor and his consistent belief in his own ability to solve our problems, has taken upon himself to start visiting black neighborhoods so he can find out how they are successfully beating back poverty.
Now, herein lies the crux of one of our biggest problems -- those who think and act like those who are in need of government assistance for handouts are limited to African Americans. There are people of all races and creeds who are poor. Experts have been quoting stats for years that show that many, many Caucasians have to depend on assistance. In fact, a huge draw on subsistence funds is being made by formerly hard working Senior Citizens who have fallen victim to Congressional attempts to save Social Security for future generations. That, although a good and laudable goal, is not a good and laudable excuse for forcing current seniors onto the welfare roles. There have to be other ways to save the fund than this.
Such misunderstandings about poverty are no doubt the cause of much hatred of the subsistence programs. Some people think the handouts go only to the black community and this interacts with their extreme and deep rooted prejudices.
I could quote you the stats again, but people have ignored them always before and would probably negate them now. So, Congressman Ryan, write another book which requires you to look them up yourself. Then, they might mean something to you. And while you are studying the facts, take a look at who is in the top one per cent, or two, or three or more.
You and I should be so fortunate as to have a small fraction of the wealth of Oprah, Herman Cain, Puff Daddy, Snoop Dogg, etc., etc., etc.
America, the equal opportunity country, is succeeding beyond belief. And it's time for Congress to get with the program and continue this equalization by keeping jobs at home, taxing those who have, and limiting our contributions to other countries (at least until we seriously reduce our debt). And also continuing to work for job creation and pleasing the Almighty by extending opportunity and helping those at home as freely as you pass out cash to the unworthy and false friends abroad. When speaking of the poor, be cognizant of the facts, the stats, and then educate the knee jerk responsive masses of these facts.
Friday, August 8, 2014
Basic Human Rights
Over the course of history, the population has grown too large for people to be completely autonomous. There was, no doubt, a good deal of sense when individuals began to bond together for hunting and gathering. There was safety in numbers. Less animals like buffalo and deer had to be slaughtered when a group shared the bounty. There was less waste that way. Crops could be grown by some people working together while others tanned the skins or preserved the foods.
But with the advantages of socialization came problems as well. Alone, man had complete control over himself. With others he had to learn to adapt to the needs of his clan. (You know, what we would call being considerate of others and using manners). It was not okay for individual man to hurt, steal from or abuse others just because he needed or wanted something they had.
Each society developed their own rules and regulations to keep some from impinging on the individual human rights of others. William Graham Sumner introduced the word mores into our language in the early nineteen hundreds. Sumner said -- as we can concur -- each society believes their own mores are the right ones. Sumner said that believing our own mores are the most desirable is ethnocentrism.
Per Random House Collegiate Dictionary, ethnocentrism is the belief in the superiority of one's own group or culture. It is also a tendency to view other cultures in terms of our own. Snobbery or arrogance, in other words. I'm right, you're wrong, and I don't care what you think.
People believe what they are taught to believe and their way is the only right way -- in their own opinion. But who made their rules? Did their mores and then their laws evolve from agreement of all individuals, no matter their sex, age, level of education, temperament, etc.? Or, did a bunch of bullies bash others into submission and tell them what to do?
We've all seen cartoon pictures of ancient man clothed in animal skins and dragging a large club with one hand and a woman by her hair with the other. Is that the kind of individual that made our rules, or did everybody have a say?
In the Garden of Eden, after God made woman to be a companion for man, there was only one rule -- don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Per Bible history, a serpent enticed Eve to eat the fruit, and then Eve enticed Adam to have some, too. Adam, of course, could have said no, but did he? No, he was more than willing to join the fun. Yet man is never, ever held responsible for his enjoyment. It is always a woman's fault.
Although most of us know this story from the Christian Bible, which includes books from the Torah in it's Old Testament, other cultures also tell first man/first woman stories and some even tell of the flood.
Much of the thinking and rule making of the Middle Eastern cultures was based on the idea women sinned all by themselves and enticed men to join them. And God supposedly punished women by making them have the children. Hence, all things women, especially those related to childbirth, became woman's cross to bear and man should not be involved.
Radical religious people today still blame woman for all sexual exploits, even if a man rapes a woman -- which western cultures now know to be a man's need for power and control over the victim. It is never a need or aberration of a man that is at fault, it is always the fault of Eve and her female descendants. Jesus, himself, happened on a stoning where two individuals had actually committed adultery. He stopped the stoning by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Everybody walked away that time. But stoning still takes place in non-Christian cultures and religious zealots still sometimes kill their daughters who have been raped. The family's own pride and embarrassment is considered more important than the child they supposedly loved from birth. Such love I can do without.
From this environment came early Christians. None of us seem to be able to totally shed our learning and reconstruct ourselves completely with new beliefs. The early Christians, such as the eleven remaining disciples and Paul and his followers did the best they could. Yet, we find hints of previous religions in our current religious practices. For example, the habit of saying Amen was a holdover from Egyptian religions. Easter came from a celebration for the goddess Ishtar. You understand? Our beliefs, our mores, our practices hinge on our backgrounds and our cultural habits. So, we differ in many ways, yet we all think we are right.
Westerners, particularly North Americans, have learned to fight and stand up for our rights. The country as a whole fought for freedom. African Americans, with the help of several generations of Caucasians, have fought for their freedom. Women and slaves had to fight for the right to learn as well as the right to vote. Both have had to assert their right for equal opportunities of employment. Both are still fighting for equal pay for equal work. Both still have to insist that government men and employers recognize their rights.
The revered papers written by our forefathers declare that all men are created equal. The problem is they were not speaking of mankind. Their definition, if you recall, did not include women and slaves. Both were chattel -- the one meant to serve man as servants and the other meant to serve them as people who carried and delivered men's children, plus supervised the running of their homes.
Men began our country. Men have served as our presidents. Mostly men have written our laws. Mostly men have peopled our courts. Mostly men have served in our churches, written our religious laws. In fact, Catholics and Southern Baptists still don't permit women in the ministry. Women are relegated to the serving roles facilitating the work of the important individuals -- mostly white men.
People who are attracted to power positions in religious and public life are usually people seeking control over others as well as personal recognition. A lot of these individuals take it as their basic right to tell others what to do through mores and rules and laws. Often their fervor goes well beyond the necessity for helping us all to live well together. They forget to focus on basic individual human rights. They focus instead on their needs to tell others what to do.
When people do point out that the federal government is out of line -- out of control -- they are usually saying the States should have the rule. Wrong. No one body, or two bodies, or even four bodies of power should have the ability to infringe on individuals. Whether government or religious, no group -- Congress, Southern Baptists, Catholics or Muslims, even -- has a right to try to bend others or design rules to bend others to their will.
Both government and religion should facilitate us living more rewarding and happier lives. They should not be allowed to dictate how we live our daily lives. They should not be bastions of power for the ever greedy control freaks. They should not be places where the weak can be exploited by the strong. They should be places that foster the growth and dignity of each individual, black or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor.
And once we seek to right a recognized wrong, we need to see to it that the pendulum does not swing too far in the other direction either. Change comes easier through rational and reasonable means than it does when a whole mob stones -- literally and figuratively.
Don't mess with my rights. I won't mess with yours. As long as I don't infringe on you or others, nobody has the right to infringe on me.
But with the advantages of socialization came problems as well. Alone, man had complete control over himself. With others he had to learn to adapt to the needs of his clan. (You know, what we would call being considerate of others and using manners). It was not okay for individual man to hurt, steal from or abuse others just because he needed or wanted something they had.
Each society developed their own rules and regulations to keep some from impinging on the individual human rights of others. William Graham Sumner introduced the word mores into our language in the early nineteen hundreds. Sumner said -- as we can concur -- each society believes their own mores are the right ones. Sumner said that believing our own mores are the most desirable is ethnocentrism.
Per Random House Collegiate Dictionary, ethnocentrism is the belief in the superiority of one's own group or culture. It is also a tendency to view other cultures in terms of our own. Snobbery or arrogance, in other words. I'm right, you're wrong, and I don't care what you think.
People believe what they are taught to believe and their way is the only right way -- in their own opinion. But who made their rules? Did their mores and then their laws evolve from agreement of all individuals, no matter their sex, age, level of education, temperament, etc.? Or, did a bunch of bullies bash others into submission and tell them what to do?
We've all seen cartoon pictures of ancient man clothed in animal skins and dragging a large club with one hand and a woman by her hair with the other. Is that the kind of individual that made our rules, or did everybody have a say?
In the Garden of Eden, after God made woman to be a companion for man, there was only one rule -- don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Per Bible history, a serpent enticed Eve to eat the fruit, and then Eve enticed Adam to have some, too. Adam, of course, could have said no, but did he? No, he was more than willing to join the fun. Yet man is never, ever held responsible for his enjoyment. It is always a woman's fault.
Although most of us know this story from the Christian Bible, which includes books from the Torah in it's Old Testament, other cultures also tell first man/first woman stories and some even tell of the flood.
Much of the thinking and rule making of the Middle Eastern cultures was based on the idea women sinned all by themselves and enticed men to join them. And God supposedly punished women by making them have the children. Hence, all things women, especially those related to childbirth, became woman's cross to bear and man should not be involved.
Radical religious people today still blame woman for all sexual exploits, even if a man rapes a woman -- which western cultures now know to be a man's need for power and control over the victim. It is never a need or aberration of a man that is at fault, it is always the fault of Eve and her female descendants. Jesus, himself, happened on a stoning where two individuals had actually committed adultery. He stopped the stoning by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Everybody walked away that time. But stoning still takes place in non-Christian cultures and religious zealots still sometimes kill their daughters who have been raped. The family's own pride and embarrassment is considered more important than the child they supposedly loved from birth. Such love I can do without.
From this environment came early Christians. None of us seem to be able to totally shed our learning and reconstruct ourselves completely with new beliefs. The early Christians, such as the eleven remaining disciples and Paul and his followers did the best they could. Yet, we find hints of previous religions in our current religious practices. For example, the habit of saying Amen was a holdover from Egyptian religions. Easter came from a celebration for the goddess Ishtar. You understand? Our beliefs, our mores, our practices hinge on our backgrounds and our cultural habits. So, we differ in many ways, yet we all think we are right.
Westerners, particularly North Americans, have learned to fight and stand up for our rights. The country as a whole fought for freedom. African Americans, with the help of several generations of Caucasians, have fought for their freedom. Women and slaves had to fight for the right to learn as well as the right to vote. Both have had to assert their right for equal opportunities of employment. Both are still fighting for equal pay for equal work. Both still have to insist that government men and employers recognize their rights.
The revered papers written by our forefathers declare that all men are created equal. The problem is they were not speaking of mankind. Their definition, if you recall, did not include women and slaves. Both were chattel -- the one meant to serve man as servants and the other meant to serve them as people who carried and delivered men's children, plus supervised the running of their homes.
Men began our country. Men have served as our presidents. Mostly men have written our laws. Mostly men have peopled our courts. Mostly men have served in our churches, written our religious laws. In fact, Catholics and Southern Baptists still don't permit women in the ministry. Women are relegated to the serving roles facilitating the work of the important individuals -- mostly white men.
People who are attracted to power positions in religious and public life are usually people seeking control over others as well as personal recognition. A lot of these individuals take it as their basic right to tell others what to do through mores and rules and laws. Often their fervor goes well beyond the necessity for helping us all to live well together. They forget to focus on basic individual human rights. They focus instead on their needs to tell others what to do.
When people do point out that the federal government is out of line -- out of control -- they are usually saying the States should have the rule. Wrong. No one body, or two bodies, or even four bodies of power should have the ability to infringe on individuals. Whether government or religious, no group -- Congress, Southern Baptists, Catholics or Muslims, even -- has a right to try to bend others or design rules to bend others to their will.
Both government and religion should facilitate us living more rewarding and happier lives. They should not be allowed to dictate how we live our daily lives. They should not be bastions of power for the ever greedy control freaks. They should not be places where the weak can be exploited by the strong. They should be places that foster the growth and dignity of each individual, black or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor.
And once we seek to right a recognized wrong, we need to see to it that the pendulum does not swing too far in the other direction either. Change comes easier through rational and reasonable means than it does when a whole mob stones -- literally and figuratively.
Don't mess with my rights. I won't mess with yours. As long as I don't infringe on you or others, nobody has the right to infringe on me.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Thanks For The Fun
I woke up from one of my afternoon naps, realizing I had had a good time at Family Dollar today. This, after chatting with the Almighty the other day about the problems involved with finding one where I want to go.
Shopping has become anathema to me. Just about the time grocery stores became singles trolling stations, my "pettist" (my own word invention) of pet peeves, I also ran out of money for anything much but groceries. I'd almost rather have a root canal than stop for a couple of items.
I had to go to the library today to make some copies. My printer, not satisfied that it had been notifying me for the last two years that it is not communicating with my computer, has now developed a paper jam using invisible paper. I don't know what its problem is. First, it doesn't get along with the hardware and now it doesn't want to do anything for the operator either.
So, to the library I must go -- with a total of 94 cents change and a slew of papers to copy. I finally whittled down the slew to required items only and left the place with 14 cents.
My micromanager, the Almighty, seemed to be pushing for a quick stop at Family Dollar instead of a long trip to Aldi, so I acquiesced. Or, was it just my subconscious that wanted the easy route? I loaded up on a twelve pack of cola, eggs, a gallon a milk and a frozen pizza. Then I stood in the everlasting long line.
While I was still shopping, I'd passed a man who greeted me in a friendly manner. For a moment, I thought Buck O'Neill -- the sweetest man I ever met -- was back on this earth. But he didn't look a thing like him.
Then the lady in front of me turned out to be a likeable Chatty Cathy. She informed me she told her son she needed to go to the store for a few items and to see if she could find a rich man. Then she gestured toward my purchases.
I said, "Well, yes, I got a few items, but I'm not even looking for a rich man."
Then she cracked me up by saying she'd take the money and forget about the man.
So would I, I thought. So would I. In fact, I often tell the Almighty that he placed me in jobs all my life where I did stacks and stacks of work for chicken feed. Now, I wouldn't think it should hurt if He and the universe repaid me by retroactively sending the cash I should have earned back then. I wouldn't turn down a lot of interest, either.
I guess a way out of poverty would be to search for that woman's rich one, but what would I do with him if I found him? I already have that one baby bird that keeps trying to hop back in the nest and that's more than I can handle.
I guess between bouts of colitis, I could fit in a couple of extra loads of laundry. But what would I do if I had to give up some of my daily naps to clean up after him?
So, no, lady, you can keep your rich man. But thanks for being entertaining just the same.
Shopping has become anathema to me. Just about the time grocery stores became singles trolling stations, my "pettist" (my own word invention) of pet peeves, I also ran out of money for anything much but groceries. I'd almost rather have a root canal than stop for a couple of items.
I had to go to the library today to make some copies. My printer, not satisfied that it had been notifying me for the last two years that it is not communicating with my computer, has now developed a paper jam using invisible paper. I don't know what its problem is. First, it doesn't get along with the hardware and now it doesn't want to do anything for the operator either.
So, to the library I must go -- with a total of 94 cents change and a slew of papers to copy. I finally whittled down the slew to required items only and left the place with 14 cents.
My micromanager, the Almighty, seemed to be pushing for a quick stop at Family Dollar instead of a long trip to Aldi, so I acquiesced. Or, was it just my subconscious that wanted the easy route? I loaded up on a twelve pack of cola, eggs, a gallon a milk and a frozen pizza. Then I stood in the everlasting long line.
While I was still shopping, I'd passed a man who greeted me in a friendly manner. For a moment, I thought Buck O'Neill -- the sweetest man I ever met -- was back on this earth. But he didn't look a thing like him.
Then the lady in front of me turned out to be a likeable Chatty Cathy. She informed me she told her son she needed to go to the store for a few items and to see if she could find a rich man. Then she gestured toward my purchases.
I said, "Well, yes, I got a few items, but I'm not even looking for a rich man."
Then she cracked me up by saying she'd take the money and forget about the man.
So would I, I thought. So would I. In fact, I often tell the Almighty that he placed me in jobs all my life where I did stacks and stacks of work for chicken feed. Now, I wouldn't think it should hurt if He and the universe repaid me by retroactively sending the cash I should have earned back then. I wouldn't turn down a lot of interest, either.
I guess a way out of poverty would be to search for that woman's rich one, but what would I do with him if I found him? I already have that one baby bird that keeps trying to hop back in the nest and that's more than I can handle.
I guess between bouts of colitis, I could fit in a couple of extra loads of laundry. But what would I do if I had to give up some of my daily naps to clean up after him?
So, no, lady, you can keep your rich man. But thanks for being entertaining just the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)