Why be angry?

 

 

What angers you?  Whatever it is, why does it anger you?  More importantly, why do you allow it to anger you? 
Anger is a choice, like every other emotion, especially the destructive ones.  You can rise above it, but only by recognizing the root cause: your own choice.  And once you recognize that truth, you can take steps to first minimize it, then eliminate it from your being.

Anger does nothing constructive; it rips apart your essential humanity, and has no effect on that which you are choosing to be angry at.  Why, then, do you indulge it?  For that is what it is, an indulgence, a giving in to the beast nature of your physical form, your animal body. 
 
And your actions, when based on that anger, or any other destructive emotion, affect you not only in the here-and-now, but also in your future.  It has been proven that what you do, for good or ill, comes back to you, often multiplied many times.  This is called Karma, and is a basic Truth of existence.  As Einstein put it, "to every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction."  Or as the Christian Bible, the Islamic Qu'ran, the Hindu Vedas, and the Jewish Torah say, "as you sow, so shall you reap."

On the Karmic level, your actions and attitudes and emotional state affect only you. They have no effect on the karma of anyone else.  So why bother with anger or any other destructive emotion?  You're only hurting yourself, and will have to face the situation over and over again, until you learn the lesson it brings.

On the other hand, the constructive actions, attitudes and emotions, will bring rewards in the same measure that the destructive ones bring troubles.  That is the Law, the Cosmic Principle.

My Teacher, Dr. David M. Berry, often quotes a verse from that Bible: "Behold, I set before you this day, Good and Evil: Choose ye."  I would say that you have before you Constructive and Destructive behaviors and attitudes: Make your choice, but know that whatever you choose, it will come back to you.  Multiplied.

Namaste!

© 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Grover Norquist and the New Feudalism

"If it was true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs."  ~~  Nick Hanauer, super-rich Seattle entrepreneur.

Grover Norquist, popular among neoconservative "Tea Party" Republicans, once again raised the ugly specter of George H. W. Bush, he of the "Read my lips: no new taxes" meme.  He has been wont to do this for several yeas now, and needs to be addressed as the buffoon he is.

This jackal probably knows the history of taxation in this country as far as the fact that we had the strongest economy combined with the lowest levels of unemployment when we had a 70% tax rate on high end capital gains.  High end, of course, being the massive amounts of money made by those who were already very wealthy. 

That high tax rate not only did nothing to hurt those people and corporations which were subject to it, but they also kept increasing their bottom line.

Furthermore, that economic strength, combined with American ingenuity and dedication to a strong work ethic, is the very thing that enabled the development of a strong middle class.  And that strong middle class was the fuel for maintaining a strong economy.

The Glass-Steagal Act, passed in 1933 during the Great Depression, in part kept commercial banks from getting involved in risky venture capital endeavors.
 
http://bizfinance.about.com/od/smallbusinessissues/a/Glass-Steagall-Act.htm

When that act was rescinded, such endeavors began in earnest as investment banks merged with commercial banks.  It picked up steam as time went on and the corporate demand for deregulation took hold and began to hold sway, culminating first in what we so lovingly refer to as "Reaganomics", the theory known as "trickle down economics".
 
That theory led to lowering the tax rates on corporations and the wealthy, as well as a concerted effort to further deregulate as much as possible in support of increasing the incomes of the wealthy and the profits of the corporate world. This led directly to the "Great Recession" of 2008, otherwise known as the Bush Economic Crash.

Now comes Grover Norquist and the pro-corporate, no-tax-increase cabal of extreme right-wingers currently in control of the Republican Party.  They clearly are aware of the history stated above, yet they insist that taxes on the wealthy and corporations be pared down even further.  It is enough to make one wonder if perhaps they WANT the United States to fail, so that corporations can take over completely. 

If that is the case, then they must be stopped at the ballot box in no uncertain terms.  Failing that, we are heading for a new feudalism in which the wealthy do, indeed, control everything because they own everything and everyone.  It's already started.  The only question now is, can we stop it?
 

Obama won again. It's over. What next?

The election is over.  President Barack Obama has won a second term, much to the consternation of the political and religious right.  And in some circles, his win is being called a landslide.

At what point does a win become a landslide? Slightly more than 2/3? And even if this could be considered as such, it is only an ELECTORAL COLLEGE one. We must remember that the popular vote was very close from a perspective of percentage: only three million votes out of more than a hundred million.  No landslide there either.

Yet when George W. Bush took the White House with the same popular margin and a much lower electoral margin, the Republicans called  that a landslide.  So from that perspective, we might call Obamas' win a rout.  Of course, the Republicans will deny this, telling us in so many words that we can't use the same criteria they did.

What the popular vote margin really means is that there are still almost half of the voting country that refuses to understand that we CANNOT go backwards if we are to return to our leadership position in the modern world. We cannot turn our backs on math and science as the extreme right would have us do. Nor can we turn our backs on the social progress we've made in our laws.

It's a basic truth of existence that we can't stand still; all of life is either progressive or regressive, and the regressive dies out and becomes extinct. Therefore, for our survival as a nation and as a power in this world, we MUST go forward; we MUST progress.  We cannot afford to go backward as a society.  That way lies the chaos of loss and anarchy.

"Government does not create jobs!" Really, Willard?

"Government does not create jobs! Government does not create jobs!" ~~  Willard Mitt Romney at the second 2012 Presidential debate.

When Governor Romney made this claim, he was clearly about to lose his composure.  Of course, it was already weakened due to President Obama's calling him out on several statements Romney had made during the debate.  But I have to wonder if he failed American History when he was in high school, since it's clear that he really believes that government doesn't create jobs.

Clearly he's forgotten about the causes of the Great Depression, as had the previous three Republican Presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.  If they'd remembered, they would never had pushed the "trickle down" theory of economics.  Or maybe they were just so beholden to their corporate masters sponsors that they didn't care.  And Romney wants to double down on Bush's policies, in spite of the fact, as Obama pointed out, that those policies are what caused the financial collapse in the first place.

Yet that's just the recent background filler.  Let's go back to the Depression.  When Franklin Roosevelt won the Presidency, he had a plan to get the economy back up and running.  That plan included putting people back to work who had lost their jobs.  And part of that strategy was for the government to be the employer of last resort.  There was the Public Works Project, as an example of this.  Government creating jobs.  And as part of the overall strategy, it worked very well.

But that's not the only example of government creating jobs.  There are a whole slew of government agencies, staffed by civil servants to fill the positions created by those agencies.  Guess what?  Government creating jobs. 
 
Post office jobs.  Park ranger jobs.  Police officers, firemen and women, teachers, administrators, judges, and military personnel.  The list goes on and on.  So Gov. Romney's claim doesn't hold water at all. 

But wait, there's more!  The governor said in that secretly filmed dinner that he doesn't care about 47% of the people because they're NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY!  So maybe he thinks that those government-created jobs don't exist, because for him, the little people who hold those jobs don't exist.

So the question now for our consideration is this:  Can we, the voters, in good conscience, knowing the facts and hearing the lies, actually vote for this man, Willard Mitt Romney, to be the President of these United States?
 
My answer is a resounding "NO!"

© 2012 Donald C. Rice Jr.

Why I will vote for Barrack Hussein Obama

 

People have different reasons (or excuses) for their political choices. In this Presidential election, there are a number of factors why so many still cling to the far right notion of government.
The largest of these, I think, is the racial issue, although the vast majority on the right will deny this.

Next up, are the people who have always voted one way and always will, regardless of facts and truth.

Following that are those that believed every word out of Obama's mouth 4 years ago, and are disappointed that he hasn't fulfilled every last campaign promise he made then. They generally refuse to give credit to the almost total obstructionism of the Congressional Republicans, or the fact that they were joined in that obstruction by what we so lovingly refer to as "blue dog Democrats".

And last, there are those who begrudge Obama's efforts at compromise. They think that he should have gotten down to business with them after the first six months to a year, rather than continuing to try to find a middle ground.

Personally, I tend to agree with that last group, but not to the extent that many do.  I refuse to abandon Obama for a couple reasons.
 
First, even though he has made his mistakes, how many of us haven't?  After all, he's only human, and I think he's shown that he does learn from those mistakes.

Second, I think he's on the right track on most issues, and he has the intelligence to find ways to follow through, with or without cooperation from the right.

Third, he has shown, time and time again, that there is a better way to engage in politics than to constantly be attacking this, that and the other.  He has, time and again, taken the high road, the civil and civilized path to his goals.  He had consistently refused to wallow in the muck and mire of the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.

And finally, there is the issue of his "foreign-sounding" name.  Having travelled a good part of the world, visiting several countries and engaging in discussion on a variety of topics with people from countries I haven't been to,  I have no fear of the different, the "other than me".  I've come to know that, as the song says, "We all know ... that people are the same wherever you go."  (Thank you, Sir Paul McCartney!)

On the other hand, I've come to see the near-total idiocy of the right which culminated in the Romney/Ryan ticket.  Neither of these "gentlemen" have any sense of what is needed to get this country back on it's feet.  They downplay or ignore the successes of the Obama administration.  And they flat-out lie about so many things it's become something of a comedy of errors.  And that's not even counting the inumerable flipflops of the Republicans' chosen standard-bearer.

So, even though Barack Hussein Obama isn't perfect, he is, in fact and in truth, the best candidate for the job.  And that is why I will vote to re-elect this black man ...

No.  That is why I will vote to re-elect this MAN that so many are afraid of to another term in the office of the President of these United States of America.

Namaste',
Donald Charles Rice Jr.

Why We Need Higher Taxes On The Wealthy And Corporations

Top Tax Rates Match Closely With

Lowest Unemployment Rates

 

Compare the top tax rate in the first chart for any given year with the unemployment rate in the second chart for that year. This is rough, still a work in progress, but this information needs to be diseminated. This is PROOF that our economy was at it's stongest when we had high top tax rates.

 

Then throw in the statistics on income disparity between the labor class and the wealthy through the years, in the last chart. 

 

Taken together, these three charts show a clear path to ending this recession: Return to the higher marginal tax rates of the pre-Reagan years.  But that's only a beginning.  More must be done.  People must be put back to work in jobs that pay living wages.  People need incomes that are big enough to not only pay for their necessary living expenses, i.e., food, shelter, clothing, and health care, but also allow them money to spend on non-essentials.  You know, things like going out to dinner and a show, or buying gifts for the husband/wife and kids.  Why?  Because these things, taken as a whole, are the fuel that run a robust economy. 

 

Not more tax cuts for the rich.  They don't need them.  They still had plenty of income back with those higher tax rates. 

 

Not deregulating industry.  Regulation is needed to protect our environment and our health and safety.  More is needed, clearly, to keep greedy multinationals and their wealthy CEO's/CFO's and stockholders from shipping more of those jobs overseas in order to enhance their own incomes.

 

 And for sure, not outsourcing (off-shoring) our labor!  That last item has done more damage to the economy than any other single thing.

 

 

 

 

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent) Source: http://stats.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

 

	%Annual
1948	3.8
1949	5.9
1950	5.3
1951	3.3
1952	3.0
1953	2.9
1954	5.5
1955	4.4
1956	4.1
1957	4.3
1958	6.8
1959	5.5
1960	5.5
1961	6.7
1962	5.5
1963	5.7
1964	5.2
1965	4.5
1966	3.8
1967	3.8
1968	3.6
1969	3.5
1970	4.9
1971	5.9
1972	5.6
1973	4.9
1974	5.6
1975	8.5
1976	7.7
1977	7.1
1978	6.1
1979	5.8
1980	7.1
1981	7.6
1982	9.7
1983	9.6
1984	7.5
1985	7.2
1986	7.0
1987	6.2
1988	5.5
1989	5.3
1990	5.6
1991	6.8
1992	7.5
1993	6.9
1994	6.1
1995	5.6
1996	5.4
1997	4.9
1998	4.5
1999	4.2
2000	4.0
2001	4.7
2002	5.8
2003	6.0
2004	5.5
2005	5.1
2006	4.6
2007	4.6
2008	5.8
2009	9.3
2010	9.6
2011	8.9

 

 

 

 

 

The Possibilities of Mia Love

Let's talk a bit about Mia Love.  Yes, THAT Mia Love, the lovely New York-born daughter of Haitian immigrants now currently running for Congress from the State of Utah.  The same Mia Love who gave such an incredibly naive speech at the Republican National Convention.

Much of her speech made sense; at least the parts where she talked
about how her parents came from Haiti and built a life without
government assistance, pulling themselves up, as Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas would say, "by their own bootstraps".  Never mind that Thomas benefited from the very same government programs, such as affirmative action, that he more-or-less regularly excoriates. 

Of course, Ms. Long didn't offer any evidence beyond her word, but
that's neither here nor there at this stage of the game.  The fact
of the matter is that she is apparently the only one of her generation in her family born and raised in these United States.  As such, she doesn't have a personal historical background as do the many black people living here descended from the slaves set free (on paper at least) by Abraham Lincolns' Emancipation Proclamation a hundred and fifty years ago.

She has no inherent or inbred comprehension of why the rules,
regulations and laws put into effect after the supposed end of legal
slavery are still necessary today.  And thus she, too, has jumped on
the Republican bandwagon of less regulation and rolling back the
very rules, regulations and laws that allow her to openly speak and
act as she does.  Remember, the Constitution originally counted
"negroes" as 3/5ths of a person under the control of their "owners"
and therefore ineligible to vote or to benefit from most of the
other benefits of the new nation.

However, if she should win her seat, it still opens a door to
the future.  Consider this.  She may be considered the "top token
negro" in the Republican Party at the present time, displacing such
luminaries as Colin Powell for example.  But it's clear that she was
given her spot at the convention as a means of detracting from the
clear racism endemic to the Republican Party as a whole, which is
evident from the tone of that party ever since Barack Obama won the election, and even before, while he was still running.

Yet and still, it opens the door, just a tiny bit, for more black
Americans to come out as Republicans, to be suckered into
supporting policies that don't benefit them or any other working
American but only those in the highest income brackets.  And by
opening that door even a fraction of an inch, if a sufficient number
of black Americans decide to join her, and bring with them their own historical perspective having been raised up in this country for
many generations and endured what has gone on regarding them since before its' founding, then the Republican Party will be forced to change. 

It will be changed, returning to a more moderate platform similar to what it embraced before the Nixon era.  Why and how?  Simply because it would be unable to keep the gains it makes in terms of minority membership if the far-right radical bigots maintain their
stranglehold on the party.  And that being so, those radicals will
be forever consigned to the fringes from whence they came.
I'm not suggesting th at this will happen in this upcoming election,
or even in the next Presidential election four years from now.  But
it will happen nonetheless, because if it doesn't, then the Republican Party will sooner or later be consigned to the dustbin of history.