Everyone wants to co-opt the movement. Must be successful if they all want a piece. The problem for they is, it's not about them. It's about moving together to get to a better social concept.
What is wanted is exactly what is happening -- a new dialog that takes the issues of the people seriously.
Think of all the energy produced by minds connecting all over the world.
This could be just what the failing economy needs. The big investors, those we bailed out because we so badly needed their financial services, have not been doing their job, only squeezing what they can from the rest of us doing the actual work. Credit unions and community banks traditionally do business by investing in the actual communities. We can take back our own economic resources for our own small and local businesses, for our own benefits.
what these ideologue neo-cons think will happen when the citizens get desperate is hard to understand.
Canaries in the coal mine, dolphins in the gulf, children in the streets -- the warnings are loud; but we're too caught up in the din to listen.
community centers, where disputes can be aired and peacefully worked out might be a good start
People often say they would do or would want to act or speak out about issues or values that they are afraid would open them to violent reactions from others with greater power or influence or uncontrollable violent tendencies. Could we have more honest interchange, more meaningful expression, better communication, with a service to provide back-up as necessary against bullies or other such adversaries?
What is this intense beef the police have with the protesters? Does it make sense for them to be putting themselves on the line as the enemy?
When it is so hard to get by, why would we torture each other rather than doing the best job we can?
It's lonely and stressful at the top, at the bottom, so stupidly sad -- we could be lifting each other rather than tearing down.
No actual goods, services, technological devices or practical ideas were ever created by "Wall Street". The function of financial markets is not creativity (except in the sense of "creative" financing -- which was the underlying cause of this collapse, not people trying to invest in housing); it is manipulating trade for profit. It is a gaming industry, and ought to be taxed as such.
Back in the halcyon conservative heydays we had these limits on income without social responsibility. Yeah, there were plenty of social issues; but the economics made more sense.
Actually we all get poorer when too much of our resources get held instead of flowing through
In a lot of ways, capitalism is a good idea for a previous episode in economic development. We would best take the lessons provided, and understand that there is no need to be stuck in ideology. Technological advances are providing opportunities impossible to imagine in the day when capitalism was the innovative engine.
Real job creators? Oh, you mean the people who trade our skilled time for societal credit -- whether we hire out to a business or project, or figure out the marketing/accounting on our own.
The thing is private corporations are private enterprises created for their individual purposes. They are not controlled by the "market," but rather, if they are on top of the game, to a large extent control it.
People who say "government" is THE problem don't really understand that government is a social organization, essentially controlled by the market of the electorate. If we have bad government, it is not because government in itself is bad, but because we are not (or have not sufficiently been) doing our due diligence, taking our individual responsibility for the overall outcome.
Those who insist government is THE problem are ignoring the ways in which government is the solution, and the basic responsibilities of citizens.
If the states were well enough to provide the infrastructure and services we really do expect and want, we could leave it to the states individually to take care of business "on the ground". If we are not ready, willing and able, we still need those services and constructions. Perhaps we would do better giving up on the idea of government being the problem and do better at making it a useful solution.
rooftop gardening could be promoted to provide better nutrition options and better control of CO2
there is no need for monolithic ideological dichotomies in actual practice
Since when is sanity a necessity for political rule? Though, yes, it would be an interesting, novel, and possibly quite effective attribute.
One area in which government is spending far too much is for generous compensation to "representatives" for acting like idiots when there are so many people doing so for free.
So-called Communism was Doublespeak for totalitarian aristocracy -- an aristocracy not based on heredity being twisted into a definition of rule by the people. This is not Marxism, nor communism.
We were sold a lie that war improves the economy. It is hard to understand how such a lie could be so convincingly and widely sold.
Chemical treatment for cognitive disorders requires cognitive association to be effective. More direct treatment without chemical side effects would obviously result from cognitive therapies.
People change their behavior all the time, and not necessarily in economically practical ways. Much more of an influence is ambiance, peer pressure, the general impression that this new way is what is in, what one does to fit in.
"Do as Thou Wilt" is all of the law -- natural law. There is no "just" retribution nor reward. The punishment/reward is within us to administer as we will, or as we have been conditioned. In the realm of reality, we do, we create consequences, hopefully we learn.
Learning is a pleasure. There is nothing more exuberantly exciting than those "aha!" moments when it all clicks together. Children are born with growing brains eager to learn. Then we go to schools which mostly stifle us.
Art is a creature evolving with its time. The ideas in the air of any given era are the ideas, the air, that inform the artist. When other historical eras are incorporated into artistic expression, they are reinterpreted through the lens of the artist's time, the paradigm through which experience is framed.
apparently we need some long, hard discussions about exactly what a person is, why we choose the criteria we do, and what it means to be a person
As medical science progresses, it is quite possible that it will not be too far in the future when we have developed out of womb gestational technology. Perhaps it is better that we start thinking about what exactly human rights are, what exactly we want them to be, and at what developmental stage what rights might be most appropriate. What we really need to remember is that rights imply and require responsibilities on the part of the rights holder, and on the part of the rest of the social system. We throw around this concept of rights without due consideration of the true implications.
the complexities of unraveling the most intimate of human relationships is not rationally within the purview of government
No comments:
Post a Comment