jakit

The Glimmer I See

Today is Julian's sixth birthday.

One of the benefits of my job is that it provides me with ample free time during the day. Consequently, I was able to attend, with Erika, the birth celebration at his Waldorf School.

It was a wonderful experience. As the teacher sung her way through the morning, the kids engaged in imaginary play, stimulated only by colored sheets and various pieces of wood. The birthday ceremony was rather spiritual and the kids, throughout, all behaved surprisingly well.

All in all, as I sat there observing, I concluded that there could be no more peaceful, inspiring place to spend a morning than a child's classroom.

This conclusion to be violently shattered fifteen minutes later when, upon sitting down to write, I learned of the mass-killing at a Connecticut grammar school.

Naturally, we as a society will go through the usual process of trying to understand what happened. We will assign blame, here or there, and propose various corrections for the problem. Nevertheless, another mass-killing will happen again; sooner, rather than later. It always does.

Which begs the question of whether or not there is any hope. Or are we, as a society, just too sick?

Blaming guns is always a popular option. In my opinion, this is also the most specious. Obviously, if guns were not readily available, then a mass killer would not be able to achieve the same level of carnage that he could today. Guns up the tally much higher than knives or poison possibly could. Yet, even with the smaller body counts, our society would still be just as sick.

Unless, of course, one believes that mass killings are a reflection of some inherent flaw with the perpetrator and not a reflection on society. Perhaps, one could argue, the killer has a chemical imbalance that we might fix with medicine. Or, maybe, his upbringing was deficient. If so, through the allocation of more money to end poverty or improve schooling, we could prevent such heinous crimes from happening again.

What all of these proposals have in common, is that they are modern solutions to modern problems. And, in so being, they are all dialectical in nature. They attempt to find the one point of conflict (guns, chemical imbalance, poverty) that, if resolved, will end the problem.

As a society, we do this all the time. We do it with abortion, gay marriage, taxes, climate change, and so on. Always, the issue is whittled down until the exact point at which two sides conflict is found. Then, the two sides are encouraged to battle it out, with the notion that the stronger (more correct) side will eventually win and that everyone will benefit for it.

It's Darwinism applied to social issues. Societal evolution through natural selection.

Yet, as is apparent today, we are clearly not evolving.

This is because all of these proposals conveniently ignore the reality that murder is a fundamentally immoral act and that, therefore, it is primarily a moral problem.

Unfortunately, modern civilization doesn't deal very well with issues of morality. It is too unscientific a topic to be properly appreciated today. It cannot be dialectically broken down.

The problem doesn't reside with one side or the other. Instead, the problem resides in our entire method of dealing with problems. The problem is the whole dialectical notion that through conflict we create progress.

This dialectical notion underlies every single aspect of modern civilization, from free speech to capitalism, from democracy to terchnological innovation.

It has created this modern world that we currently live in; giving us all of the good, as well as all of the bad. Today, the bad is especially relevant.

As painful as it is to accept, if the problem lies with the very nature of our culture- the underlying values of our civilization. 

Not too long ago, before the modern era, people did not think along these dialectical lines. Instead of striving for growth, the idea was to search for balance. Instead of competition, cooperation was endorsed. Instead of emphasizing conflict, effort was made to create harmony.

Progress was not the ultimate goal, but peace.

To take abortion, for instance, instead of arguing ad infinitum over when life begins or whose rights come first- the fetus or the mother- we, as a society, could be seeking out the points in which we all agree. Since virtually no one thinks that abortion is the best-case scenario, we could start by emphasizing, and celebrating, that shared value.

Through actions such as this, however small, we create harmony in society. More harmony creates more love; and love, of course, creates moral people.

These are tiny, deliberate steps. I can't help but think, however, that they are the only light in the darkness.

 

My Eternal Romance

I always imagined that we would return and do it again.

Not the entire thing again, of course- we wouldn't re-do the ceremony. No, I just imagined that we would all reconvene, in five or ten years, on the grass expanse over-looking Lake Lugano and throw another party.

And why not? The summer of 2012 had been the most magical time of my life. Three months spent wandering around Europe, exploring big cities and old towns while occasionally mixing in the wedding of a friend, only to, eventually, wind our way down to the foot of the Swiss Alps- where the mountains turn Italian- in order to gather with loved ones and throw a wedding of our own.

As should be evidenced by my Latin-named children, a long flirtatious relationship with the Catholic Church and a career spent in the pizza business, getting married in a place of Italian culture was a dream come true. The whole experience turned out so fantasically romantic that I never wanted it to end.

As a result, beginning with the moment that we set foot back on American soil, I struggled. Though very happily married, everyday life, here in Oakland, was just not romantic enough. I knew, of course- and as my Protestant culture constantly reminded me- that everyday life was not supposed to be eternally romantic. Yet, deep down, I sensed that I now knew otherwise; I had tasted something sweet in Lugano.

It felt as if the universe had played a cruel trick.

Over time, Lugano began to take on the character of a dream from which I've just awoken; one that I can't bear to part with so I linger on in bed, half awake, knowing that the moment in which I rise will be the instant in which it all begins to slowly fade away into nothingness. In an attempt to stave this off, I began to, more and more, look at the idea of a ten-year reunion as the way to keep a grip on the dream.

Fate, alas, would not have it be so. With two little children, our time, as well as our financial state, had become quite restricted. Likewise, it had become restricted for most of the friends and family who attended the wedding; many of whom now have little children of their own; the participation of these folks being, obviously, neccessary for a reunion.

Ten years ago, however, none of this seemed as if it would ever matter. I expected, after all, to be financially successful by now and, with such success, I would be able to simply transcend the universal laws of time and money and transport all of my friends and family to the top of Monte Bre. Such success, of course, never arrived and the incontrovertible design of the universe carried on, untranscended.

Consequently, as the date of our tenth anniversary approached, I came to envision a somewhat curtailed version of a reunion. Our Swiss friends, who also married that summer, were apparently thinking along much the same lines as they made us a most gracious offer. Even with such generosity, unfortunately, Lugano, and the romantic dream that it embodied, still remained out of reach.

Or was it out of reach? Because, as I looked back, I came to the conclusion that the first event must have originally appeared out of reach, as well. Which caused me to wonder; was Lugano slightly beyond my grasp? Or had the length of my reach shortened?

Surely, I told myself, if I had desired it strongly enough, I could have made some form of a reunion occur. Though I knew better- though I knew that you cannot buy dreams or purchase passion- I began to feel that if only I had been more successful, Lugano would never have been so out of reach.

Then I turned to my side- such beauty, such wisdom, such grace- and it struck me; I was successful. Though the financial success which had once seemed so within my reach had never materialized, when it came to the things that mattered most, I'd done quite well. In fact, for myself, I couldn't have done any better.

Which was, at the end of the day, the purpose of it all. The purpose of the Lugano romance was to bring two souls together in order to form one union; the purpose which, when taken to its meaningful conclusion, reveals itself through our two wonderful little children; who, God-willing, will create little ones of their own; and on, and on, and on, for eternity.

Eternal romance.

The thing for which I had been grasping was always firmly within my grip. Lugano, and all that it embodied, no longer resided in the outside world of my experience, but within me; within us.

And the universe seemed right again.

Contemplations in the Tub

Julian was relaxing in the bathtub the other day when I walked up and asked him to get out. I needed to take a shower before work and I was running late.

His head leaning against the back, his body floating out in front of him, his mind deep in thought, he asked me who was stronger, Chewbacca or the Hulk.

I told him the Hulk, of course, because Chewbacca was merely a member of an anthropomorphic species which a possesed physical strength that was superior to humans, whereas the Hulk was a bondafide super-hero.

This conversation went on for awhile, over the course of which I frequently interjected that he needed to get out of the tub- I was going to be late for work. Eventually, I focused solely on this getting-out-of-the-tub thing and, after that failed to work, I began to get upset.

I realized that I had to get stern with him. I had to show him who was boss. I couldn't let this insubordination go unchecked.

I ordered him to abandon the tub and informed him that I was about to get angry.

He asked me what I would do if he didn't. Was I going to poop on his head?

I burst into laughter.

How could I not?

I guess this is why I'll never be good at the whole parenting-thing.

One Reason Why Small Is Beautiful

This quote captures the inherent problem with centralization (corporation, empire, efficiency.)

It’s one of the shibboleths of modern thought that industrial systems create wealth, but as Alf Hornborg points out usefully in The Power of the Machine, their main function is actually to concentrate wealth; the wealth that would have gone to a large number of small proprietors and skilled craftspeople in a nonindustrial society goes instead to the very small minority with the money and political connections to build and run factories, control access to raw materials and energy resources, and the like.

The entire article is brilliant.

The "Control" in Birth Control

I can't imagine anyone on the planet who's more despicable than Rush Limbaugh.

His insulting of the young woman who testified before a mock congress was both crude and childish. All the negativity that is now hitting him in response is both appropriate and deserved.

Yet, somewhere, underneath that pile of whale blubber that he calls a body, Rush has a point.

I wanted to see the testimony myself before I formed an opinion, so I tracked down the video and watched it.

As I did, I felt slightly bewildered. It was as if the whole presentation was intended to be a satire, like a Saturday Night Live skit. The Georgetown University student seemed to be suggesting that paying her way through law school while, at the same time, having to provide for her own birth control, was so financially onerous that someone else should be required to cover her expenses.

Thirty years ago, this idea would have been the plot for a teen sex comedy.

Today, however, it's congressional testimony and it illustrates exactly what is wrong with the liberal mindset; the obsessive dependence upon the group to solve the problems of the individual.

Yes, there are times when the group is needed to attend to the needs of the individual. But the size of the group required will inevitably be smaller than that of the United States Federal Government (or one of the various global corporations.) Almost always, something along the lines of the family or the community will suffice.

Furthermore, most things in life don't necessitate a group at all, and should, therefore, be handled by the individual. Birth control, if anything, falls into this category.

Every woman's birth control is well within her own means to provide, no matter how poor she might be. If the pill is too expensive, there are always condoms. If, for some reason, she is engaging in such an enormous amount of intercourse that even the cost of condoms is prohibitive, then she can abstain.

The problem with abstinence, of course, is that people like to have sex.

Which is great. It is, naturally, everyone's right to have sex as they see fit. But it is a decision a person makes for their own benefit. And if a woman decides that she wants to have sex without the possible  outcome of pregnancy, then it is her (and her partner's) responsibility to provide the appropriate birth control.

It is not the government's responsibility and it is especially not the responsibility of a religious institution that finds birth control immoral.

One has to wonder, if a healthcare plan that provided birth control was so important to Sandra Fluke, then  why did she choose to attend a Catholic university. I venture to guess that she wasn't concerned with such things at the time of enrollment. She was probably thinking about which school would best advance her career.

Now, Rush Limbaugh is no self-reliant individual either. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Limbaugh is an advocate of war and corruption and in order to have respect for your own individual humanity you also need to have respect for the humanity of others.

As Ayn Rand once said, a leash is a rope with a noose at both ends.

Ultimately, as we develop a society of individuals who are dependent upon the group, we also develop a society of individuals who are too easily manipulated by the group. As any college student knows, you can take your parents money for tuition, but that means they're going to want to influence your choice of major.

In the case of our American empire, it is an easy trade-off for the government and corporate leaders to provide birth control in exchange for permission to invade another oil-rich country. Most people, I'm afraid, don't see that connection. But it is real and it is profound.

Therefore, if Sandra Fluke's real concern is to ensure that women are free to live their lives as they see fit, or, for that matter, that all people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, then she will encourage everyone to depend only upon themselves and their neighbors, because true freedom can only come through self-reliance.

The Contraception Industry

There is an aspect that I have yet to hear discussed in the contraception debate. It is the financial aspect. Specifically, the flow of the money.

We should not forget that there is a contraception industry. Like all industries today, they have powerful lobbyists. As a result, when insurance companies are required to provide contraception to their customers, the industry benefits.

Each time a birth control pill is sold through government mandate, some kleptocrat on a yacht pours himself another glass of champagne. Then, when the poor women gets cervix cancer, he pulls out the caviar.

A classic win-win situation.

On the other hand, if people are required to take care of their own contraception needs, they might choose not to turn to the contraception industry. They might choose, instead, to take care of their birth control in a natural, self-sufficient way. After all, humans have been planning their families for the last 50,000 years without the help of modern medicine.

When a women chooses to follow, for instance, her natural cycle, no one makes money, wealth is not accumulated, power is not concentrated.

Most importantly, control is diffused. And that's what this contraception debate is ultimately about; control.

The empire seeks, by definition, to expand its control, always. Hence the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Catholic Church, an enormously influential, but decidedly non-fascist, institution, exists largely outside of the Federal Government's control.

This move was intended to correct that.

I Love the Mason Jar

Essential for the Minimalist...

Wine

Flowers

 

Art Supplies

 

Homemade Sauerkraut

 

Plants

 

Dried Foods

Peace Given to the World

The times, they are not-a-changing:

It is no use trying to escape their arrogance by submission or good behaviour. They have pillaged the world: when the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy, if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of freedom. They make a desert and call it peace.

- Calgacus (British chieftan, speaking to his army before battle with Rome in AD 83)

The Kids - This Is Rock 'n' Roll

The older I get, the more I love punk rock.

Go figure.

As an added bonus, since the original movement spawned so many freakin' bands, I'm still constantly discovering new songs. For instance, I'd never heard of The Kids before. They came out of Belgium, where they released this brilliant little gem.

	The Kids - This Is Rock 'n Roll .mp3
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

That, my friends, is how it's done.

Democracy of Dunces

Actual words spoken by an actual person:

I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.
- Newt Gingrich

How the hell can there be a secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists? The very fact that these words can be uttered by a legitimate Presidential candidate shows just how uneducated the American people really are.

Which would be fine, except that we choose our leaders via democracy. Since we don't appear to be on the verge of handing the reigns over to philosopher kings, it appears that we're stuck with this dilemma.

I'm tempted to write a paragraph showing just how nonsensical Gingrich's statement is, but to even address it pulls me unwittingly into the farce. Which I guess I've already done by writing this blog entry.

Damn you, Fox News. Damn you!

Crossing Messages

I just watched a news video of an Occupy protest that took over a Bank of America in San Francisco. Before the video began, I had to watch an ad for Chase bank.

Where the hell are we right now?

When There Aren't Enough Criminals

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that our society is doomed."

 - Ayn Rand

For Which We Stand

Back in 1980, the average ratio in the U.S. between the CEO and the lowest paid worker of a company was 42:1.

By the year 2000, it had become 531:1.

Whoa.

Let me repeat that, so that you don't have to move your eyes up and read it again.

531:1.

Yes.

At 42:1, our ratio was still higher than the 10:1 and 11:1 ratios that currently exist in the wealthy, industrialized nations of Japan and Germany. But, at least, it was within reason. Today, our ratio dwarfs even the second place country on the list; Brazil at 57:1.

It is hard to argue in favor of this type of disparity.

Unless, of course, you think that CEO's in America today are that much more talented than every other CEO, past or present.

They're not, of course. Germany and Japan have corporations that are at least as successful as ours, as should be obvious to anyone who buys cars or televisions.

Or, I suppose, one could argue that America is an example of a free market and that this type of inequality is the reflection of a free market in action. Except, how do we know that? How do we know that Japan and Germany aren't better examples of the natural reactions of a free market and our system is, instead, reflective of a rigged and corrupted system.

Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter.

The goal should not be a free market or an efficient market or anything to do with the market. The goal should be a moral civilization and the market should simply be a device to obtain that. The enormous gaps between the rich and the poor that we see today are closer to pre-revolutionary France than they are to the ideal of the Republic for which we all stand.

So, the question becomes; how does a person who benefits from such gross inequality (or a person who doesn't yet, but aspires to) argue their case?

Quite simply, they don't.

Instead, they do what all people who have no legitimate argument do; they engage in one of the many logical fallacies. We can see all of this in the attacks against the Occupy Movement.

The corrupt and the corruptible, for instance, use guilt by association. A small minority of protestors behave badly and that is then used to discredit the entire movement.

Or, they use the straw man. They argue against something that is related, like Socialism, but ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.

By far, though, the most common logical fallacy currently being employed is to attack the character of the protestors themsevles. The infamous argumentum ad hominem.

Since the beginning, the occupiers have been labeled by their foes as bums, lazy, anti-American, looking for hand-outs, homeless rubble, trust-fund Marxists, even a "minority" (as if having an unpopular opinion was somehow a negative.)

Even the argument that the occupiers don't have a clear message is an ad hominem attack; an attempt to portray the protestors as an aimless, shiftless group.

The media help make this happen. Being almost entirely owned by large corporations, nearly all news agencies depict the Occupation Movement in a negative light. This is not immediately obvious because they will talk objectively about the protest but then they always manage to find the scummiest guy to interview or photograph for the front page of the paper.

In my own experience, as I decided to join the Occupation Movement for the day of the general strike, I, myself, recieved a direct dose of the ad hominem. Initially, I was presented with all the usual negative descriptions of those whom I would dare to join. When I refused to back down, it became my own character that was attacked.

I am certain that this type of dynamic is occurring nationwide. The message is clear to all those who might be on the fence about the movement; if you join their side, we will label you as we label them.

Which gives me even more respect for those camped down at Frank Ogawa Plaza and Liberty Square and Constitution Square. As the weather changes and winter comes, those brave patriots will need to tolerate not only the wet and the cold, but they will also have to endure the verbal attacks of their fellow countrymen.

I hope that, in doing so, they can take strength in the words from a poster that I saw down at the Plaza last Wednesday.

First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win.
 - Mohandas Gandhi

The Sleeping Giant

Message to the powers-that-be:

You do not want to mess with Oakland.

I don't mean this in the gangster-rap, we're hard, hyphy kind of way. I simply mean that you better take us seriously.

No one criticizes Oakland more than me. We're a city that constantly under-achieves. Any chance we get, we shoot ourselves in the foot. It's always about potential, never achievement.

Nevertheless, there is still an enormous amount of potential here. Potential to rebel.

Oakland is the home of the Black Panthers. This is the town where the Hells Angels became the famous outlaw biker gang. The Raiders are the bad-boys of professional football, constantly penalized by the NFL but refusing to change their ways.

Our neighbor, Berkeley, is where the freedom of speech movement began. We basically create only three styles of music; punk, metal and hardcore rap. We invented a new language based upon slang.

Clint Eastwood is one of our native sons. Our favorite athlete is famous for stealing things.

Basically, we love rebels.

What this all means is that every kid raised in Oakland is taught from a very early age to challenge authority. This attitude pervades every aspect of our culture. It is in our blood to stand-up and fight the power. It is both a curse and a blessing, but it is there.

Just as Los Angeles is consumed with the entertainment industry, New York is a city where you can go rags-to-riches, Portland thinks green, Boston is Irish, Salt Lake City is Mormon, Philadelphia is rude (c'mon, they booed Santa Claus) and Dallas makes everything bigger, Oakland is a city of rebellion.

If there is any place in America where the occupy protests will transcend to the next level, it is most assuredly the sunny side of the Bay.

Not all Oaklanders will agree with the protestors. But when they see the heavy-hand of the police cracking down, certain genes in their DNA will be activated. They will be called to duty and they will hit the streets.

The sleeping giant will have woken.

Not All of Us Want to Be Rich

I take offense at the barage of insults being hurled in Herman Cain's direction. It's high-time such prejudice was erased from our society. I, for one, would be proud to see the first President to come from the pizza community.

Except that I think Mr. Cain is rather dense.

His statement that the Wall Street protestors should blame themselves if they're not rich is, for lack of a better term, retarded.

First of all, the Occupy Wall Street people aren't protesting because they're not rich. They're protesting because they believe that too many people don't have access to the basic necessities. They blame this on a failure of democracy.

Second, they're not protesting because they want hand-outs. They're protesting because they merely want the opportunity to provide for themselves and, unfortunatley, the Capitalist system isn't the free-market fair-competition that it's advertised as.

Lastly, and most importantly, not everyone even wants to be rich.

Many people find that the excess labor required in pursuing extreme wealth is not worth the sacrifice in lifestyle, such as the loss of time spent with family or friends.

Beware the barrenness of a busy life.
- Socrates

Other people might choose not to go for the big money because they feel that most of the work that brings one riches, such as working on Wall Street, is not the type of work that contributes beneficially to society. They would rather do something more righteous, but less profitable, like teaching or nursing.

A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity.
 - Gautama Siddharta (the Buddha)

Still, other folks might feel that being rich is inherently immoral, no matter how one comes about their wealth. They feel that to have too much while others have too little is morally wrong. These people believe that we should all live simply so that others may simply live.

What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul.
 - Jesus Christ

Unfortunately, when a rich person assumes that everyone else wants to be wealthy like them, they see themselves as the winners of a universal competition. This justifies, in their eyes, both their monopolizing of common resources and their undue political influence.

Again, however, this is all predicated on the incorrect assumption that everyone wants to be rich.

Considering that the people who wilfully choose to reject conspicuous consumption also, by definition, are the ones most likely to exhibit the four Cardinal Virtues, such as temperance and justice, it is sad that they are not also the ones who preside over our society.

Instead, our political leaders are those who believe, like Herman Cain, that great wealth makes great people.

We Are the Other 53%

What was it that triggered the Wall Street Protests?

Was it the bailout of the banks?

Many people point to that event as the one grievance that all the protestors share, but I don't think it is what actually sent folks out into the streets. After all, the bailout happened over three years ago. Why would it take so long?

I believe that, instead, the actual trigger of the protests was the failure of the Obama presidency.

Obama was elected with a clear mandate. He achieved a landslide victory and the people who voted for him expected him to do certain things. Among these were:

• End the Iraq War
• Close Guantanamo
• Use government money to build a new infrastructure
• Create universal healthcare
• Regulate the power of Wall Street

He advocated each one of these ideas in his election campaign. It could not be clearer that this is what the public wanted when they elected him.

Yet, when he attempted, for instance, to create a universal health care system, there was an enormous uproar. Certain loud voices argued that universal health care was not what the public wanted and that Obama, therefore, was going against democracy.

These voices didn't just come from the 1%. They were only able to gain influence with support from the masses. In the end, these voices, however irrational, won out. For whatever reason, Obama caved-in to them.

Now the public feels that the democratic system has failed. They elected a President to do specific things and he has not done them.

When democracy fails, people take to the streets. Nearly hopeless, they feel that protesting is the only way that their voices can be heard.

A riot is the language of the unheard.
 - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Wall Street protestors do not represent the 99%, as they so often claim, because many of the 99% are willing to support the corporate and financial interests that have gained an unfair influence over our government. It is better to see the protestors as representing the 53%.

That's the percentage of people who voted for Obama.

Handwork

Something that most of us are missing in our modern existence:

A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his mind is a craftsman; but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist.

- St. Thomas Aquinas

#occupygolfcourses

One complaint that I often hear about the Wall Street protestors is that they don’t have a specific message; there is no unifying theme or demand.

The theme, though, is right there in the name; occupy. They're occupying space.

Specifically, the space that they're occupying is an urban park in downtown Manhattan. The point is that it's space that does not belong to them but, they feel, it should belong to them. The space is metaphorical, of course. They don't really feel that this ugly park should be theirs. They feel that Wall Street, or, more importantly, the power that Wall Street possesses, should be theirs. Should be ours.

Which is absolutely true. We're a democracy, after all.

Contrary to the way the occupation is portrayed by the corporate media, this is not an attempt at Socialism or Communism or Marxism. This is an attempt to end corruption. The inevitable corruption that happens when too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few people.

Power, however, is inexorably attached to wealth. He who has the wealth has the power. So, in order to fix the problem, there will need to be a solution that keeps too much wealth from accruing in the hands of too few people.

Those that will argue against such measures will insist that the people who have wealth have gained it through their own hard work, creativity and contribution to society.

If only.

That someone should reap the rewards of their labor is a moral truism. But those rewards should be limited to the actual output of their labor or, at least, an equitable trade. Where things go awry is when one acquires not the products of labor, but the means to produce the labor in the first place.

Let's remember just exactly what wealth consists of. It is not merely the money that businessmen gain from their work. According to Wikipedia, wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions. Since material possessions must be made out of natural resources, it is safe to say that all wealth comes from resources and resources are finite.

So, he who controls the resources controls the wealth and, therefore, holds the power.

You see, my friends, you begin to ask the questions, 'Who owns the oil?' You begin to ask the question, 'Who owns the iron ore?' You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?
 - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The land is here for everyone. Not for everyone to share, like a national park, but for everyone to use; to own a piece of. Yet very few people today actually own the land that they live on.

Therefore, it is time that the people started taking back their common property. It is time that the people started taking back the nation's natural resources.

To occupy an ugly urban park, though symbolically strong, is weak in practical terms. The best move would be to occupy usable land. And the best usable land to occupy first are the golf courses.

It would be both symbolic and practical.

The protestors who occupy these golf courses should not simply sit around and bang drums on the fairway, they should actually use the land. Bring some sheep and cows and graze them. Grow some vegetables. Plant a fruit tree.

There seem to be but three ways for a nation to acquire wealth. The first is by war... This is robbery. The second by commerce, which is generally cheating. The third by agriculture, the only honest way, wherein man receives a real increase of the seed thrown into the ground, in a kind of continual miracle, wrought by the hand of God in his favour, as a reward for his innocent life and his virtuous industry.
 - Benjamin Franklin

These country clubs take up important centrally-located real estate. And for what? So a few rich men can play a game?

When the price of food is on the rise, when it's harder for Americans to feed their families, when the food put out by agribusiness makes people sick, when transportation of the food damages the environment, when people are out of not only work, but meaningful work, then what better use for this land than to allow people to produce their own food.

After all, how can you pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don't have any boots?

No handouts. No charity. No Socialism.

Just returning to the people their God-given right to take care of themselves.

The Beginning...

Message for Protestors on Wall St.

Spring Priorities

It's Saturday night and I'm sitting in my leather chair with a glass of wine getting prepped for the upcoming Catos Roto League draft.

My laptop is, appropriately, on my lap and my brand new fantasy baseball book is sitting next to me, on the end table. Not a magazine, mind you. A book. A $25 book.

I'm busy entering projections, structuring lists, crafting strategy. That's me being happy.

Then, I spill my wine.

Five seconds later, I'm in the kitchen and I realize that I'm frantically trying to wipe Two-Buck Chuck from the pages of my fantasy baseball book. Never mind the end table, the wood floor, the sisal rug or the leather chair.

When danger struck, I, apparently, attended to what was most important to me.

I can't wait for the draft.