Tuesday, July 13, 2010 – What ties all our articles together today
by Steven M. Finger
As always, this is not done to till much later. If you’ve come here now – thanks – please check back. Actually, I’m working on it right now.
Yesterday was an exercise in calling out what was being defended as right but, surely, was wrong from a principled point of view… as much of the leanings had to do with personal, discriminatory bias.
Here are another few issues, also patently counter to our best interests as a society, but more contrived for other’s interests that are not founded in prejudice.
We’ve a look at the consequence of the higher earners’ tax contribution [1]- smaller in percentage than the large percentage of population. It’s a route taken not because the rich don’t want others to be rich, as much as they just want to stay rich. And I’m going to suppose that will hold true (as a general rule) whether the ‘rich’ is an immigrant, a woman, an elderly person, or a Gay one. (All of whom were mentioned in yesterday’s article, and, who, by the way, could all be an all-in-one.) And, just for good measure, I’ll add that it probably holds true with all colors.
But, per the article, leaving the poor without resources to share among themselves – the infrastructure of a society: public works and highways , social services and all – will, eventually, erode the base on which personal fortunes were and being built. To put it another way, the fairy tale ended when the goose that laid the golden egg, was consumed as well.
Once one particular phrase of the next article [2] is read, it’s like seeing the man in the booth – there’s no going back, an all-powerful wizard he’s not. Take charge or you’re just not going home, Dorothy.
Oddest opening to an article to an article on gerrymandering? Well, it’s a goofy sounding word, anyway. But here’s the eye opener:
“…the democratic process is subverted. In this system, politicians select voters rather than voters electing politicians.”
Seems as if there is an opening for change – rather than asking the same good folk to re-district or ‘go back to the way it was’, perhaps we the public will have a chance to draw the boundaries of fair representation.
Congrats in that the author of this next article [3] did what he could to make every detail clear, and foot-noted from whence each illumination came. Certainly apropos for an article that is about the loss of intellectualism – not just individually, but as a society as a whole. He just forgot to figure in the attention deficit disorder that has inflicted us also; so, into the 10 pages of discourse take a peek at the two links I’m providing (they are at the bottom of both this and the article). ([4], [5]) They are a quick trot out to the ‘news’ – just to feed your need to switch, and they buttress his case.
Now, go see it all for yourself.
[1] – http://losangelesfreepress.com/are-low-taxes-exacerbating-the-recession/
[2] – http://losangelesfreepress.com/the-people-should-be-able-to-gerrymander-not-just-the-politicians/
[3] – http://losangelesfreepress.com/the-disappearing-intellectual-in-the-age-of-economic-darwinism/
[4] – http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0711/kyl-you-offset-tax-cuts/
[5] – http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024674.php
Key words of this discussion: Society change, changing society, culture and Society, taxes, recession, WRSTGD, gerrymandering, government and politics, re-districting, education, intellectualism, community
