Raising Objections Is Not Enough

There's a lot of criticism of callous rich people out there. From well-researched, well-written articles and editorials to scathing memes to trite tweets, all sorts of people in “the other 99%” (along with a few in the 1% who really do care about the rest of us) are pointing out the destructive behavior of the very wealthy and the corporations they run.

The main problem I see with all these creative jabs at the 1% is this: they don't care what we think.

In their world, we are beneath them. We, their employees and customers, serve only to make them wealthy. We work for them to support ourselves and our families, but in their minds we work for them to increase their profits. If we become sick, or are injured, it means profits from drugs and medical care. If we have children, it means profits from all the things we must buy to raise them. If we send them to college so they can hopefully find a career they love, it means more profits for the school and probably the student loan brokers. When we grow old, and our children put us in a care facility, it again means profits.

Very seldom does the real human factor in how they view us come into play. If it did, if they cared, they would reduce their profit margins in order to make things such as health care, homes, food, and a good education both better quality and more affordable for the most number of people.

What matters to them is their wealth and power. They only associate with those like themselves. They are an exclusive segment of society, patting each other on their collective backs for being who they are, achieving what they have achieved and having what they have. Their collective goals in life are wealth and power, and so each of them has plenty of like-minded people around, so they can look at each other and tell each other they are successful people and those who object to their greed and power-mongering and corrupting influence are simply jealous.

We are the little people who serve the 1% because we deserve our station and life and they deserve theirs. Never mind myths about how hard they worked to get there. Many achieved their status merely by being born into it. This is part of the reason why some of them are so elitist: they believe it's a gift from God that they were born wealthy, and with few exceptions the idea that God wants them to use that wealth to benefit all of mankind never enters their minds.

They love the Machiavellian concept that those who are smart and capable enough to rule become rulers over those less capable, by divine mandate, and that those they rule serve those who rule, not the other way around. This is why they have no hesitation in corrupting our elected officials and distorting the system in order to favor themselves. To the 1%, that's the natural order of things.

Even when they engage in philanthropy, most of the time it's for things such as museums or arts programs which will mostly benefit themselves and others wealthy and "cultured" enough to partake of the results of their philanthropy. It's a laughable event when Forbes and Fortune magazine run articles on philanthropy among billionaires, and we read that most of it consists of endowing a college library or donating artwork to a museum, with very little done to relieve the suffering of the needy. But these article commend the donors for their generosity, as though giving a few million dollars out of their billions is a great sacrifice.

There are wealthy people who give to charities such as children's hospitals, scholarships and other programs to help primarily lower and middle class people. Some support environmental organizations which in turn help the entire human race. Sadly, these are in the minority.

Yet, even when they do give, the majority give only 1% to 2% of their income. Sure, to the average person a donation of $1.5 million to a scholarship fund for underprivileged children seems like a lot of money. However, when the donation comes from someone with a net worth of a billion dollars or more, it's a paltry sum. Plus it's tax deductible, so in the end they aren't really out any money. It's a scenario not unlike the story Jesus told about the rich man and the widow. He commended the widow for giving the few pennies she had, not the rich man for giving thousands.

So, if the people in the 1% strata don't care what the 99% think, why am I bringing it up? Because I care what the 99% thinks, but even more importantly, I care about what we do. Just writing articles pointing out the problem isn't enough. I'm not saying we should stop pointing out the issues, but we need to make sure in doing so we also suggest solutions.

In war, a key to victory is disrupting he enemies supply lines. That's why, during World War 2, major bombing missions targeted factories, supply stores and train depots, rather than front line military targets. A strafing run which destroyed a train carrying food or ammunition did as much, if not more, to defeat the enemy than an attack on front line. Front line troops don't fight well if they lack food or ammunition. Even if they have plenty of bullets, lack of the beans will destroy morale: demoralized troops are more likely to surrender or run away from a battle.

I bring up the war analogy because we are engaged in class warfare, whether we believe it or not. Like most wars, it's not intended to destroy a populace so much as control it and so exploit the resources of the populace, including the people themselves. The 1% want to maintain control over us because we are their source of profits. Take us out of the picture and their world comes crashing down as profits disappear, and the sense of power gained through their wealth is lost.

Certainly we can't commit mass suicide just to spite the 1%. We can, however, stop feeding the Beast. We can look for ways to stop adding to the profits of those corporations, and their owners, which are the worst offenders when it comes to the matter of how they treat human beings. We can reward those corporations and wealthy individuals who truly support their workers and try to help mankind.

Some ideas:

• Shop locally instead of big, national chains. The prices may be higher, but not that much higher. Also, you will be making sure the money you spend helps members of your own community more. Most of it stays in the community rather than being funneled up a system that rewards a CEO far more than he or she is actually worth. If you are going to shop at a chain store, choose Costco or Aldi or other smaller chains which offer decent pay and benefits. Buying from locally owned businesses is all about beneficial relationships, as well, and you will find that making friends with the people who actually own the store reaps many benefits the big chain stores don't offer.
• Resist “consumeritis”. Do you really need that 52” TV while the 42” one is still working fine? Do you really need that premium cable package when you really only watch 6 channels? Is the need for a new car genuine, or just a matter that you are bored with the one you have? Are there shoes or clothes sitting in your closet that you haven't worn in over 6 months, season permitting? We are bombarded at many levels with a deluge of ads, articles and other things intended to make us think we can only be happy if we accumulate enough “stuff”. This simply isn't true: there is much research indicating that people who simplify their lifestyles are much happier than those who get caught up in rampant consumerism.
• Buy modestly. If you really do need that new TV, buy from a local dealer, or even a pawn shop. Local dealers are often willing to “horse trade” and negotiate a price below the one on the tag. You can walk out of the store with the TV, knowing that the few dollars extra you spent is helping someone in your town feed his family or save up for his daughter's college education. Pawn shops are great places to buy electronics, cameras, tools and especially jewelry. If you take the time to inspect the item, and do a little negotiating, you can walk out with nearly new items at a fraction of the retail price. To save on clothing, housewares, even furniture, try Goodwill, Salvation Army or local consignment and second hand stores. I bought a $300 coat at Goodwill for $8. It had hardly been worn: it looked brand new.
• A healthy lifestyle means big savings. Buying locally pays off in another way. If you buy as much local produce as you can, you are probably going to eat more healthfully than buying from a chain grocer. Also, taking the time to prepare you own food, using as much fresh produce and “naturally” raised meats as possible, is good for you. Being healthier means less likelihood of illness, which means less money spent on doctor visits and medications. Consider that reducing cancer risk or preventing a heart attack or diabetes, are much less costly than treating them.
• Garden. Growing your own vegetables is healthier, and cheaper, than buying produce at the grocer. It's not that hard, and with creative container gardening, even apartment dwellers can find some savings, even if it's just through growing fresh herbs in a window container. It's also a great way to get you outside and connected with the earth.
• Explore alternatives. As with the above topic of healthy lifestyle, there are a lot of herbs that can be introduced into the diet that can prevent, reduce, or even eliminate, the need for certain pharmaceuticals. For instance, turmeric used regularly in foods can eliminate a lot of inflammation for which people normally take ibuprofen or aspirin. (Always check with your doctor regarding serious conditions. Doctors much prefer diabetes be controlled by diet and exercise, rather than drugs, but will still want to monitor your blood sugar level until it stabilizes enough to be assured drugs are no longer necessary). Coops and bartering are other ways to save money. Need your washer repaired? Maybe you could get it repaired at “no cost” by trading a skill you have, or an unwanted item, with a member of a coop or bartering exchange?
• Reduce waste by learning to recycle/upcycle. The internet has a wealth of free information about how to turn broken or unwanted items into something else that you do want or need. For instance: old tires combined with a few cans of spray paint can become attractive planters or garden barriers, or even delightful toys. We are using old pallets for things such as the platform for a storage shed, fencing and building garden containers.
• Get off the grid as much as possible. Learning to reduce energy use not only saves money but helps preserve the earth. There are plenty of ideas to be found on the internet or in the library. Charge your phone while driving, rather than plugging it into a wall socket at home. Small, self-installed solar power systems are getting cheaper every year. They may not take you completely off grid, but they can reduce the need for utility supplied electricity. Passive systems can heat a home very well if done right. If zoning allows, you can install a wind system that further reduces the need to pay for electricity that usually depends on fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. One idea I plan on doing next winter is to make small space heaters out of flower pots, carriage bolts and washers and a candle. Placed near a computer desk or in a small room, they can provide enough heat, without electricity or gas, to replace a conventional space heater in some cases and help reduce the need for using whole house heat at a certain level.
• Vote for the right candidates. Don't just vote your party of choice based on a couple of issues you prefer. Do some research, think about the greater picture, the impact a candidate's actions will have on all of us, and our children and grandchildren rather than what you believe will give an immediate solution to your personal concerns. Don't be afraid to vote third party. Use your right to vote to send a message to leaders who cater to the wealthy and corporations that you want those who will stand firm in support a government that is truly by the People, of the People and for the People.

Alternate Reality

J.E.B. Stuart was a "Master of the Telecaster". He was the lead guitarist and backing vocalist for a seminal Equestrian Blues group, "The Generals of Jam". He formed the group along with his friend Robert E. Lee (rhythm guitar, lead vocals) due to their combined interest in blues-based rock and horseback riding.  It was a unique and months long path from obscurity to fame and fortune, but the story is not all that uncommon.

Originally the two formed a country duo named simply "Lee and Stuart", with Lee on banjo and Stuart on acoustic guitar.After some moderate success in Lee's hometown of Arlington, VA, they headed to Nashville TN to seek a record contract. However, once there they received little recognition or work during this initial period, despite Lee's excellent banjo technique and enchanting vocals and Stuart's exemplary flat picking skills. Their manager Jefferson "The Prez" Davis, pointed out that male country duos were a dime a dozen in "Music City U.S.A, and that they had no original songs to offer. As a result they were far overshadowed by Flatt and Scruggs, among others, and their manager insisted they should find a gimmick to differentiate themselves from that legendary duo.

Both of them were avid equestrians, skilled riders since childhood. So, after watching a Gene Autry marathon, the pair decided to pursue a radically different approach to their act. They began playing and singing while sitting on horse back. Initially, the gimmick garnered a lot of attention, but soon the novelty wore off as people realized their act consisted of simply doing Flatt and Scruggs covers while on horseback. 

The addition of the horses also limited the available performance venues, as many of the Nashville bars that hired unknown groups had no room for the horses. After the infamous "Road Apple Incident" at the Bluegrass Inn, work in the local bars was impossible to find.

As a result Lee and Stuart were forced to perform almost exclusively at county fairs, equestrian events, mall openings and monster truck rallies. It was at one of the latter events that they met Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, an erstwhile rock drummer who was earning a modicum of fame by warming up truck rally crowds with his unusual act. He would allow trucks to jump over him while he played Charlie Watts covers. He earned the nickname "Stonewall" because he was oblivious to the constant torrent of soda cans and beer bottles that bombarded him during his performances.

 Lee, Stuart and Jackson hit it off immediately. Jackson also had a love of horses, and was skilled at at least sitting on one un-phased. After hours of discussion and several rounds of Corona Gold, Lee and Stuart made the momentous decision to switch from country to blues based rock (which was, in practical terms, the only way they could add a rock drummer to the act). Lee picked up a 1959 Les Paul Gold Top, and Stuart convinced his cousin to loan him his '64 Telecaster. 

They realized the needed a bass player to round out their sound. They found the perfect match in Nate Forrest, an under-appreciated bassist doing time gigging the hotel circuit with a Donnie Osmond tribute band. Lee, Stuart and Jackson immediately recognized that Forrest's talent was wasted in the group he was with. (Unconfirmed reports state that they hired Forrest after he was kicked out of the Osmond tribute band for falling asleep during a performance of "Soldier of Love" at a bar mitzvah.)

With the addition of Nate Forrest on bass, the group went into seclusion for an entire weekend at the Motel 8 near the Nashville airport, in order to tighten their sound as a group and explore future possibilities as an act. Nate was the one who pointed out that it was problematic adapting Flatt and Scruggs songs to their new format. He showed the other three members his collection of original songs, and they were convinced this was the key to future success.

There was one final obstacle to overcome. The use of battery operated Pignose 7-100 amps made playing electric guitar and bass on horseback manageable. On the other hand, finding a horse willing to let Jackson put his extensive drum kit on its back proved problematic. The solution came when Stonewall switched to a much lighter weight electronic drum kit. 

Next was the challenge of coming up with a name. Their initial choice was "Blues on Traveler", from the name of Lee's beloved stallion, but their agent informed them of the potential trademark violation. So too with their second choice, "The Dixie Hicks". They finally settled on the name which would soon become legendary, "The Generals of Jam". 

This name was chosen because three of the four, Lee, Stuart and Jackson, had all applied for West Point, having dreams of becoming Army generals one day. Forrest had no such military aspirations, but after watching an old video of Paul Revere and the Raiders, he liked the idea of dressing up in period military clothing. Fearing another potential trademark issue if they went with a Revolutionary War theme, they chose the uniforms of Civil War generals instead.

They had name. They had original songs.  They had a sound. They had a gimmick. Now all they needed was a gig. Their agent was quickly able to book them at an upcoming monster truck rally in Knoxville, TN.

Their plan was to play a short set of their original material while sitting calmly on horseback, but history, it seems, had other plans. It was during the group's iconic song "Bowling Stone" that a short developed in Stuart's amp. This irritated his horse, which began trotting back and forth in rhythm to his riffs in an attempt to elude the small shocks he was receiving. Lee and Forrest, believing this to be some new aspect of Stuart's performance, began following suit. The audience went wild over their roughly synchronized dressage in time to a blues number. They demanded an encore, but the band was only contracted for the one song, and the show's director had guaranteed "The Human Bomb" his fair time before the main event, so the audience was disappointed.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Fame came quickly as the band developed exciting and unique dressage routines to compliment their songs. Who can forget not only the iconic "Bowling Stone", but also the equally iconic "Imma King Me (Since We're Playing Checkers)". Their dressage routine to the iconic "I Got My Mower Working" is still unmatched by the many copycat groups that have come and gone. Their Grammy winning iconic song, "See, See, a Ryder Truck" featured dressage so remarkable, fans insisted the group be given a place on the U.S. Olympic Team. Finally, there is no telling how many young people were inspired to take up both guitar and horseback riding by Stuart's phenomenal solo turn in the iconic "Disruption" video.

However, fame often takes a toll on the band members, leading to various problems, and "The Generals of Jam" were no exception. Stonewall's refusal to participate in dressage, but simply sit immobile on his horse, frustrated the other members. They relented when they realized that he did have a nickname to live up to, plus the fact that it was much harder to perform dressage with a drum kit slung about the horse. Still, the tension between Jackson and the other members was there, smoldering, fueled in no small part by Stuart's antics and attitude.

When Jackson died tragically when a drunken roadie backed their horse trailer over him, Stuart especially was devastated. He refused to participate in auditions for Stonewall's replacement, instead engaging in increasingly outrageous behavior. Some blame is involvement in the notorious "Knoxville Drag Queen Fiasco" on his difficulty in dealing with his grief.

Jackson was replaced by Bo Pickett on drums, but the group just wasn't the same. Stuart, especially, was less than thrilled by the presence of Pickett.

Stuart's already flamboyant personality, combined with his grief over Jackson's death (and suspected substance abuse) led to him developing something of a prima donna attitude. "It's me they are all really coming to see" he said during an after show interview at an iconic performance in Fredericksville, VA. Stuart also made other remarks, including some about how he was carrying the rest of the band. He signed to do a solo record without first informing the rest of the band, leaving them wondering about his plans for the future. All of this greatly increased tensions within the group.

Lee, always the gentlemanly leader, did his best to smooth things out, but the last straw was when Stuart showed up late for a festival in Gettysburg, PA. Though he arrived in time to play their set, and performed admirably, his reputation with the his mates was irretrievably damaged. 

The Generals of Jam began struggling. They were overdue on their second album, but spent little time in the studio. Forrest's songwriting efforts seemed fruitless. Stuart became increasingly difficult to handle. Pickett added to problems by often failing to play songs correctly during concerts. They managed to put out a single, "There's a Booger in My Chili", but it flopped on the charts, further discouraging the band.

The final nail in the coffin for "The Generals of Jam" came when Stuart was shot and killed during an argument with John Huff in Old Yeller's Tavern, a Disney themed restaurant near Richmond. With the loss of their lead guitarist, the remaining band members lost direction. The group broke up a few months later.

Yet, the legacy of "The Generals of Jam" is not to be forgotten. Though they were only active a scant 4 years, they produced an album filled of iconic songs of their genre. Their full length concert video, "Gimme Halter" stands as one of the all time iconic blues dressage performance videos by any group, ever. Streets and stables are named after the group and individual members. An autographed pile of horse poo sits enshrined at Nashville's Hard Rock Cafe.

 Several tribute groups have sprung up (most notably Seattle's "Nervous Anna") to keep the legacy of one of musics most iconic groups alive into the foreseeable future.

NOTE: Maybe this is the result of binge watching "Sliders" on Netflix in between practicing guitar. 

Rand Paul: The Divinely Mandated President?

Senator Rand Paul is strongly in favor of mountaintop removal mining, saying it "isn't so bad" and the results actually enhance the value of the land, "because now you can build on it".* The impact on the environment is unimportant to him compared to the supposed economic advantages (meaning profits for the coal mining companies that supported his run for the Senate, and will likely put millions toward his run for president).

Known for his honesty, Sen. Paul recently revealed that after many prayerful nights, and consultation with other Republican Christians such as Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Sarah Palin, he has uncovered a message from God in the the Holy Bible that he says proves that all Christians should vote for him for president in 2016.

Rand Paul maintains that verses such as Genesis 22.14 "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided"; Zechariah 14:4 "On that day his feet will stand upon the Mount of Olives...will split apart...for half the mountain will move toward the north and half toward the south."; Revelation 8:8 "...a great mountain of fire was thrown into the sea." and many others are part of a "secret Bible code" revealing that God favors him for his support of mountaintop mining.

"The Bible makes it clear that God likes to destroy mountains as a sign. It is a major sign of the return of the Messiah. I think I am in good standing for my support of mountaintop removal mining" said Sen. Paul.

The committee of Ryan, Boehner and Palin agrees. Sen. Paul chose these three individuals to research and validate his position because, as he put it, "each member of my research committee-Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Sarah Palin-is known not only for their unmatched intellects and reputations for accurate research, but their outstanding displays of Christian values. They approached researching my claim with the same level-headedness and unbiased objectivity as they do any other political issue they face. I wanted them to be completely, brutally honest with me, as I am with my colleagues and with voters"

When questioned about the qualifications of two senators and a former governor to investigate claims of a secret Bible code, Paul responded by saying "They are good Christian people. The First Amendment guarantees they can know as much about the Bible as any Theology professor or church pastor."

Sen. Paul feels this makes voting for him for president in 2016 an open and shut case. "For anyone claiming to be a Bible-believing Christian, the choice is obvious since Scripture makes it plain God favors me as the best candidate for President of the United States. Jews should probably vote for me too, but forget about Muslims".

Tea Party leaders were quick to rally in support of Rand Paul's allegations. "Jesus would have loved to have preached the Sermon on the Mount from a mountaintop leveled by coal mining", said Sarah Palin at a recent Tea Party rally. "His compassion for the people would have led him to say 'Hey, Peter, that mountain over there is flat and shorter than these other ones. It will be easier for everyone to climb and find a seat to watch me preach. It will be easier to pass out food as well.'"

When asked about how Jesus might feel about the environmental impact, such as the destruction of habitat for animals, Palin was quick to respond, "God was always commanding someone to sacrifice an animal on top of a mountain, so in fact Jesus would approve of killing or displacing a few critters in order to improve the lives of people."

What about issues of water supplies being contaminated by coal dust runoff? Palin has an answer for that too: "There's these verses, you know, where Jesus said that we will be able to drink poison and it won't hurt us. No faithful Christian should be afraid of a little coal sludge in their drinking water. Then you gotta consider that whole changing water into wine thing."

Many conservative Christian leaders were ecstatic. "Rand Paul has made telling our congregations how to vote in 2016 much easier. No longer do we have to use metaphors, innuendo or vague statements to tell our sheep who to vote for. Rand Paul has done it for us with no risk to our 5019(c)(3) status", said The Big Old Church That Rocks pastor Hannover DeLucre.

Not to be out done, New Jersey Governor and one time 2016 presidential hopeful John Christie has tried to salvage his chances of running for the highest office in the land by citing Bible verses as well. It hasn't been easy, as the only verse he has come up with yet has been Job 11:16: "You will forget your misery. It will all be gone like water under a bridge".


Remember, it IS April 1st.


* From The Huffington Post August 2010

The War on Our Children, Part 1: Making Mothers Second Class Citizens

It's important to understand that what I am going to discuss is derived from a North American Indigenous world view. More specifically, a Mohawk world view, admittedly subject to the unavoidable influence of the Western society which has colonized the Mohawk along with every other indigenous group on the continent. This means there are going to be some inevitable dissonances between what I speak of as normal and what is accepted as normal by those with the Western, Colonist world view.

Modern American Society's war on our children starts long before they are even born. Various factors have combined to create a status quo in which couples feel compelled to bring children into a family in which both parents are working outside the home. In such couples, career success is often a higher priority than a successful family. For some this is because they have been convinced that to properly raise and provide for children, they must have successful careers in order to provide the “good things” in life.

For middle class and lower income families, the pressure to adopt a “working parents” model is almost insurmountable. For some people, it is the siren's song of material possessions: we are indoctrinated into the idea that our happiness depends on better houses, cars, clothes, appliances etc. For others, the “good life” is out of reach and both parents must work simply to provide basic necessities. In either case, it has become not just normal for both parents to work outside the home, it's developed into something of a sociological imperative.

Many years ago, then First Lady Hilary Clinton raised the ire of many conservative-minded people with a comment about how she could have stayed home and baked cookies, but decided to pursue a career instead. The implication of her words were that women who chose to focus their efforts on raising children and providing a good household for their husbands were somehow inferior to women who pursued a career.

While this may seem like a feminist position, I view it as just the opposite: this attitude of career being superior to raising children is imposed upon women and society by patriarchy. It's stating quite plainly that “man's work” (managing a bank or fighting fires or being a surgeon) is of more intrinsic value than nurturing children. This is not to say I don't think women should have the right to pursue any career they want, and earn equal pay for equal work. Rather, it is pointing out that a patriarchal-influenced set of values has been imposed upon what sort of work a woman does to be considered a success.

The result is that during the most important period of our children's lives, they are handed over to day care workers and schools for 50% or more of their waking hours.

It's ironic that in many wealthy families where the woman has no pressure to pursue a career outside the home, she does stay at home, yet hires a nanny or au pair to care for her own children. As such, the mother becomes an adjunct to her own role as mother/nurturer/comforter/educator. This isn't the case with all wealthy people, of course, but it is considered a normal family situation by those who do engage in this practice out of choice, rather than necessity.

All this is not to say that the situation regarding working mothers is the sole shortcoming of modern family structures. The role of fathers or other male figures in a child's life has also been dramatically altered in the past couple of centuries.

For the first hundred years or so of U.S. history, the majority of families worked farms, crafts shops, small stores or other means of support which allowed the family to remain together the majority of time. Fathers worked within the homestead, or close by. At an early age children became involved in the family trade, as it was expected they would at some point inherit and sustain the family farm or business. As such, children had a great deal more contact with their fathers than is the case for most today. Not only that, but the contact with their fathers was directly involved in teaching and demonstrating to the children skills needed to prosper in life.

As well as having more contact with fathers, and that contact being in a cooperative, instructional context, grandparents often shared the homestead and so were directly involved in the process of raising children. In some cases, aunts and uncles who shared in maintaining the family farm or business also contributed to raising children. The result was that most children had several adults who shared in raising them, and served as a variety of role models for the children to learn from and develop life long skills and habits (both good and bad).

Even when children were sent to schools, the scheduling of classes revolved around tending the farm, or helping to work the shop or store. It was understood that a school education was an adjunct to what the children learned at home, not a replacement or substitute for it. It was also intended to offer opportunities for vocations apart from working the family business. Not all businesses lent themselves to being inherited by more than one child. Also, it was simply a matter of social fairness to facilitate a person choosing to become a doctor or teacher or accountant rather than a farmer or cooper.

In the U.S. the combination of immigration and the Industrial Revolution led to drastic changes in the family structure. For various reasons, people chose to work in factors or related vocations rather than farms or family businesses. Cities grew to the point where eventually the urban population exceeded the non-urban population for the first time in history. To support a growing population that did not provide itself with food and other goods directly, industries were created and expanded. This accelerated the loss of self-sufficiency which contributed directly to the drastic changes in family structure.

Coupled with these natural changes to the socio-economic structure in the U.S. (the shift from rural, agrarian based economy to urban, industrial based economy) was a determined effort by those same industries to create a “Consumerist Society” in which a growing emphasis was placed on materialism as a source of happiness and proof of success. The image of the Ideal American Family came to involve houses, clothes, cars, and other “stuff” that was much more than a family actually needed to flourish in life. As the relationships within the family began to suffer due to less time spent functioning as a family, consumerist goals were set in place to fill the “contentment gap”.

It's difficult enough to maintain an optimal family structure when a father may be forced to spend the majority of his children's waking hours at his job. It becomes even more problematic if the mother, too, is in the same situation. As noted earlier, in a growing number of situations, this is not by choice of the parents, but by necessity. Still, we also need to consider how many working mothers do so not because their families can't have a decent life without the second income, but merely because the mother has been conditioned by society to think that being a stay-at-home mom is somehow failing to find fulfillment as a human being. Both parents need to consider whether their individual career pursuits are going to be worth the potential costs to raising their children (assuming they have thought through the idea that raising children is not for their own fulfillment as parents alone, but more on that in Part 2).

All of which brought us to the place in history where our society treats children as objects of affection, potential consumers and exploitable resources, but rarely as the young human beings they actually are. As a society we have been conditioned to think that it is normal for the average child to have spent a third of his life under the direct supervision and nurture of strangers, non-family members who may or may not share the same spiritual, moral and ethical views as the family. We have even created a situation in which teachers or social workers can use their own subjective views of what constitutes a “stable family environment” to determine if a child is at risk.

By creating a socio-economic structure in which a majority of parents are forced to work outside the home, thus spending less time with their children than they should, we have brought about a mixed blessing. Yes, we have achieved unprecedented economic growth and opportunity. Children who might otherwise have not considered pursuing certain careers do so thanks to experiences in the educational system. Yet the price we pay for these successes is a growth in dysfunctional families as well as adults who have a skewed understanding of parenting as well as values that don't necessarily correlate to raising future generations to be wholly functioning human beings.

Next: War on Our Children, Part 2: Little Grown Ups

Who Pays Wal-Mart's Employees?

Does this make sense to you?

Wal-Mart, McDonald’s and many other corporations readily admit that they don't pay enough and/or offer enough hours for the majority of their employees to get by without public assistance. Capitalistic thinkers say this is just good business practice that helps boost profits.

Depending on an outside entity to pay employees so the company can increase profits isn't Capitalism. It's a form of Socialism some call Corporatism. An aspect of socialism is that a portion of revenue is used by the government to provide benefits for all members of the society. Some use the negative sounding term "redistribution of wealth", implying that rich people have their supposedly hard earned money taken from them by the government and given to undeserving poor people as some sort of free ride.

Right now, here is what we have: Wal-Mart, as an example, posted yearly profits of $17.6 billion. At the same time, Wal-Mart employees collected $2.66 billion in public assistance last year. What that means that American tax payers gave Wal-Mart $2.66 billion towards that $17.6 billion in profits, WITHOUT HAVING ANY MERCHANDISE TO SHOW FOR IT. That's right, everyone who pays taxes is giving FREE MONEY to Wal-Mart, along with McDonald's, and every other corporation which reaps big profits while most of its employees collect assistance.

As I understand it, in Capitalism, the idea is that a company survives and profits based on its own ability to compete in the marketplace. If the government is subsidizing over 15% of Wal-Mart's or McDonald's or Starbucks's profits, how does that qualify as Capitalism? It doesn't. The government giving money to corporations in order for them to operate is Socialism, plain and simple.

Yet the response of many Americans (a response programmed into them by the corporate controlled media and equally corporate controlled Republican party) is to blame the workers. “If they don't like working at Wal-Mart (or fill in the blank) they should just find another job”. This is one of the most inane statements I can think of on this subject.

First it infers that those working at places which underpay aren't trying to find better paying jobs. Or, worse, it carries a mentality that the employees of these places are second rate citizens who deserve the jobs they have due to lack of training or motivation to get better jobs. Consider the millions of people who work at these jobs, such an assumption is statistically unsupportable.

The second inanity of the statement is that it's simply a, selfish, cowardly response to an age old problem. From the moment the first “king” who used force of arms started claiming that all the land belonged to him so everyone who worked it had to give him money, there have been self-serving people who have supported such acts for their own benefit.

The “Gentry” has always benefited from supporting the class system which funnels a disproportionate amount of wealth to the aristocracy. If Wal-Mart, McDonald's et al raised wages, people would have to pay a little more for Levi's, Big Macs and their morning lattes, and “Gentrified” people certainly don't what to have to do that. They work hard for their money (or so they say), apparently harder than the underpaid employees who stock the shelves with Levi's, make the Big Macs and serve the lattes, so they are entitled to lower prices more than the employees are entitled to a decent wage.

The irony is these same people will complain about how high their taxes are and how their tax dollars are being squandered on helping lazy, poor people buy steak with food stamps and get free cell phones. They don't stop to think that their tax dollars are also helping the Walton family buy race horses and multimillion dollar mansions, or McDonald's or Starbucks pay their CEOs over $9200.00 an hour.

So, it doesn't make sense to me that not only do so many corporations depend on the government (meaning the rest of us) to pay their workers with nothing to show for it in return. It also doesn't make sense to me how readily people will come to the defense of the situation. Not that I don't comprehend how and why people do that. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense.

Does it make sense to you?

Thanks to Huffington Post Business Insider  and Daily Kos for information regarding salaries and profits.

The Visitor's Question

The Visitor asked, "Who are the wealthiest of your world?"

The answer was easy. "Mostly bankers and Wall Street broker types" I said. "Many of them have more wealth than tens of thousands of other people combined."

The Visitor nodded appreciatively. "They must do something of priceless value to your people. Are they the best healers? Do they produce the most food? Do they build shelters and make clothing and other items that make life better for all? Are they the protectors who risk their lives for the sake of others? Do they create music or art or literature that brings beauty into everyone's lives? Are they your best educators? On my world, those we reward the most do the most for the rest of us. Yet, no one is nearly as wealthy as you say these people are. Tell me what they do that is so valuable?"

I thought for a moment, then answered, "Well...for the most part they just use other people's money..." The Visitor looked perplexed. "By that I mean they take money and invest it in things that you mention. They might give loans to farmers or builders. They may find people to invest in a business that makes clothing, or medicine, or even in schools. Then they make a profit off of the loan interest or the investment."

The Visitor's eyes lit up in understanding: "Ah...so they donate money to good causes, ones that benefit the People, and in return they receive a modest reward! Excellent!"

I frowned, his naivete regarding our ways both encouraging and discouraging at once.

"Not exactly. They charge a lot of interest on the loans. If it's an investment, they expect the company to do everything possible to reap the highest profits, including paying workers the least amount possible, using the lowest quality materials they can get away with, cutting corners at every turn: profit matters the most. In a lot of cases, the banks and investors actually end up making more money than those they loan money to or invest in."

Now it was the Visitor's turn to frown."So, what you are saying is that those without any genuinely useful Gifts make more from the efforts of those with Gifts that serve the People, simply because these bankers and investors let them use money? Furthermore, that money doesn't even belong to the bankers and investors to begin with?

"Um...yeah, that's one way to put it".

The Visitor made a noise that sounded like a combination of a toilet flushing and an old truck backfiring.

"That makes no sense whatsoever, that those who have nothing of real value to contribute to People, other than convincing someone to let them use their money, make more than your farmers, teachers, healers, builders, tailors, poets, musicians, artists. protectors...they make more than those who actually DO SOMETHING good? They simply profit off of what those with real Gifts do?"

I sheepishly nodded.

"On my world, we have a name for such creatures, but I am too much of a gentlebeing to repeat it to you now. I can only wonder why a People who would let such a system exist call themselves Homo Sapiens (Wise Man).?"

In a flash of scintillating light and a breeze that smelled like ginger, the Visitor was gone.

Economic Recovery According to 3 John 1

In 3 John 1:2, the "Beloved Disciple" writes:

"Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers."

It seems to me these tender words sum up what other parts of the bible say, that our physical prosperity and health are interdependent with our spiritual prosperity and health.

Right now we have millions of people arguing, with good reason, about the economy: what and who broke it, how to fix it, etc. Still in my opinion something important is being overlooked, a spiritual reality many have neglected to include in the debate on the economy. As I see it, what is being overlooked is the "leanness of soul" we have been experiencing as a nation for many years. (Ps. 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul ).

We have prospered greatly as a nation over the centuries, leading the world for decades in nearly all economic, technological and quality of life indicators. Despite a darker side of our growth as a nation (slavery, abuse of Native Americans, colonialism abroad) for the most part the people embraced solid values of compassion, altruism, generosity and benevolence. Somewhere along the way, we lost track of these virtues as being vital to our spiritual, and therefore physical, prosperity and health.

Sadly, this started with the Church, when we began to focus too much on using our resources and our politics to try to make life more comfortable for ourselves instead of reaching out properly to the world. Instead of offering the Light of Christ for people to embrace as a walk of faith, we resorted to using political tactics to try to get people to behave in ways we found acceptable. We forgot that achieving Christ's stated goals for his followers, to nurture and bring up disciples from out off all nations-meaning all cultures, ethnic groups and world views.Instead, we tried to convert them to our own world view as American Christians.

This is something Jesus never intended when he mandated the “Great Commission”. He constantly pointed out that the ways of thinking of the world were at odds with the Great Commandments of loving the Father with all our being, and loving others as we love ourselves. Yet now, if we look at what is being expressed by Conservative, Republican Christians, we see a frightening example of modern Pharasaism.

We have entire political parties, and millions of people who support those parties, preaching that the poor are to blame for their plight and must be forced to find jobs by cutting off benefits. In doing so, we demonstrate the "leanness of soul" through our lack of compassion for the poor, and our stiff-necked unwillingness to obey one of the primary mandates given us as part of spreading the Gospel.

We have allowed our health care system to be reduced to a pure profit-oriented, corporation controlled industry that literally holds the health of the entire nation hostage in order to increase profits. We are commanded to heal the sick, as a gift. Yet, again we speak and act in direct contradiction of Christ when we favor corporatist health care that favors those with the means to pay, and disenfranchises the poor to the point of allowing them to die for lack of adequate care.

We view the earth as an exploitable source of profit, mistakenly thinking Creator God has handed it over to us to use as we want. We think the earth is meant to serve us, when not only the Bible, but common sense makes it clear that we must live in harmony with the earth and understand that, as with all creatures, we serve each other by being integral parts of a global ecosystem that humans have, tragically, thrown far out of balance. We are supposed to be stewards who care for Creator's earth to His glory, not disreputable servants who misuse what is not ours for our own satisfaction.

We resort to violence as a solution for far too many things. We have a military far larger and more powerful than we need. We spend more money on going to war than the next 10 nations combined. How can we reconcile with Jesus expecting us to spread peace to the corners of the earth in His Name. We are told “blessed are the peacemakers” and we toss that aside to favor violence as our way of ensuring we can get what we want from the rest of the world.

We treat our most precious gift, our children, as though they are property that we can use and manipulate to continue the consumerist, violently competitive and destructive System which leads to the behaviors described above. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, we are making our children twice as fit for damnation as we are.

We have even abandoned the honest, humble and critical use of the gift of Intellect. We are blessed with a capacity for critical, abstract thought and reasoning that even the most sophisticated artificial intelligence can barely mimic. The one thing that proves we are created in God's image is our ability to reason, as Homo Sapiens in ways far beyond that of any other creature. Creator says “come let us reason together”, yet we do the opposite, surrendering our God-given ability, right, and privilege to use our reason in favor of letting others tell us how to think, act, speak. What we like, even what we believe, is handed to us in ways that discourage thinking for ourselves. We accept this willingly, because it's easier to let others tell us how to think than to develop our own opinions and world view.

So, we have “leanness of soul”: lack of compassion, lack of humility, we're violent and competitive, we lust for material things, disobedient to the very God we claim to honor, lacking in common sense and sensibility, having become hard-hearted to the point that we think the things we do which are the opposite of Christ's teaching and example are acceptable. Spiritually we are living a delusion of righteousness where none really exists. We twist His Word to prove our self-delusion, and those who don't buy it are dismissed as being lost sinners, enemies of God who are not worth consideration.

Our delusion has reached that point that when those outside our Churches and/or our Nation tell us they see the truth of who we are and are not willing to participate in our delusion, we declare they are saying so simply because they are jealous of what we have. Then we pat ourselves on our collective religious, nationalist backs for being something and someone other nations reject, despise and in some cases pity.

If we want to fix the economy, we need to start with the source of our poverty: our own spiritual lives, both individually and collectively. We do have many people in the various walks of faith who are abundantly rich spiritually. Sadly, they are often rejected by the mainstream. They're called names such as “hippy” or “socialist” or “bleeding heart liberal”, as though actively encouraging people to follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ (or others who have taught love, harmony and respect for all creation) is a bad thing.

Instead of dismissing them we should be electing them to office.

One last thing about “leanness of soul”: it's related directly to living in fear. The reason the Israelites demanded so much from YHWH that he gave it to them, but also allowed the leanness of their souls to come into being, was because they were afraid of not being like other nations. They were afraid they would not get what they truly wanted, that they would be taken advantage of by others. They were afraid that living life as Creator intended them to live wasn't good enough. They were ungrateful for what YHWH had given them.

Therein lies the secret of a prosperous soul (and therefore physical prosperity). It is understanding that spiritual, and physical, prosperity are not a matter of getting what we want. Rather, it's a matter of recognizing that what Creator gives us is always the best thing for us in the long run. It's called “contentment” and “gratefulness”, and we are told that godliness (right living) with contentment is great gain, or true wealth.

When we, as the Church and as a Nation, reacquaint ourselves with lives of contentment and gratefulness, we will find we naturally want to help the poor, heal the sick, make peace, reject greed and consumerism, respect the earth and bring up children who are likewise content and grateful. Until that happens, no politically based solutions will rescue our economy.