In 2004-2005, I authored, was approved in the peer-review process, and published a paper in the International Journal of Learning, I was supposed to present the paper at an international conference in Granada, Spain. The college where I was employed as a professor, did not require publishing in order to maintain tenure, as what is done at the university level with the “publish or perish” attitude, so I was going above and beyond the call of duty. Due to this situation, the college, with its rules about not funding trips outside the USA, had every right NOT to fund my trip to Granada.
Listening to a provost at my college explain how, to succeed, we sometimes need to go around the hurdles, when it becomes difficult to go over them (likened to a track race with hurdles to jump). Therefore, I checked into possibilities for grant money and discovered that the Bush administration and the Republicans at that time, like the stupidity of the Helms-Burton Act (Helms, the racist of North Carolina), would not fund trips to Spain because, as was mentioned at the time, “Spain is socialist.”
This educator has never been a socialist nor believes it is a correct answer to fulfill our lives. However, I don’t reject Bernie Sanders and others, as stupid lain-brained Republicans like the Trumpicans do, “because he is socialist.” In those years of 2004-2005, I was a Republican who supported a man for president named Howard Dean, MD. Dean was a fellow Vermonter with Bernie Sanders, but he was a Democrat. I had hoped Dean would win the presidency in 2004 and worked on campaigns supporting Dr. Dean. When it came to issues of importance to America, I was inspired by Dr. Dean when he said, we need to “re-frame issues” to represent what is best for the American people. It was at that point that I rejected discussions based on the political spectrum of conservative, liberal, red, blue, socialist, and the like.
With no reference to Dr. Dean’s position on the topic of healthcare, I did re-frame the issue of healthcare from this crap about socialism to one which revolves around capitalism. I found that this talk about universal healthcare as being “socialist” was merely the talk of propaganda emanating from big corporate business interests. The ones which also got a leg up to communist-style centrally planned economics from supply-side economics which denies the demand-side a role in the economy. The type of crap which, much to the dislike of President Obama, put in place a stupid lainbrained thing shoved down the throats of hard-working Americans, called Citizens United. This came from a bunch of lain-brained people who called themselves, “justices.” Justice? Give me a break. It has caused money to go into politics at extremely high rates, destroying the role of WE THE PEOPLE in the process. PACs from big business have flourished while Americans cannot get paid a decent living wage. To fill this void, socialism does become more attractive, does it not?
With this being said, I need to reiterate that I still believe a regulated capitalist democracy is the best choice for America. This position means I find it very interesting to “re-frame” the issues which bring many loopy lain-brained Americans into the loop of challenging universal healthcare while they shoot themselves in the foot for accomplishing anything in the future which would be beneficial for the working people of America, while giving many benefits to the lazy supply-side lovers of money which I call fat cats (note: this term was coined by American newspapers of the late 19th Century to describe the “captains of industry” who maintained a love of money first and really plugged the ideas that materialism is better than human beings). To reiterate.
I am one who follows the notions of Republican Teddy Roosevelt in regulating capitalism. TR broke with the Republicans in 1912 and formed a third-party movement which defeated the Republicans in the 1912 presidential election. Trumpicans and the tea party jackasses of the Republican Party live in complete fear of that happening again, so they push down the throats of Republicans like me (and many others) the notion of autocratic control as defined by these lovers of money. This is very similar to the group which followed Ohio jackass, Howard Taft, in 1912. Notice, with a descendant of Taft still alive and was governor in Ohio during the Bush years, Ohio went for Trump in 2020. Wonder why?
During that 2004-2005 time period when I was still a Republican, as I mentioned, there were many Republicans who spoke out about how the notion of anti-free markets and anti-deregulation was wrong. These people promoted a better notion about business and economics, which shot holes in the notions about “love of money” being so much more important. These people used evidence, much of it historical, of deregulation being bad for America.
These people, with good references, cited an 18th-century philosopher and theologian named Adam Smith. Smith wrote a publication called Wealth of Nations, not one with notions invented by the status quo autocratic dictatorial aristocrats which one might title, “wealth of individuals.” Smith also wrote, Theories of Moral Sentiment. As a Christian theologian, Smith was convinced that the true model of Jesus Christ, as defined in the Gospels, was not one for a “love of money.”
Smith was the one from whom the aristocracy took his issues against feudal economic practices. Such practices amount to nothing more than supply-side economics of the Medieval times. Smith was against this in defining capitalism, but the fat cats of that era decided to twist Smith’s ideas around so as to benefit their love of money attitude and continue the status quo of the style of Medieval economics to benefit the fat cats. They falsely identified the Industrial Revolution as being such a great product of capitalism that they even fooled Karl Marx into believing capitalism is bad. These industrialist lovers of money and their industrial revolution convinced everyone they were good and the Southern plantation owners of an agrarian society, were bad, bad, bad because they had imported slaves to do the work without pay. These industrial revolutionists thought they were doing such a great thing with sweat shops and paying very low wages to workers in which, as with the feudal economics of Medieval times (when the landowners took nearly 100% of what the farmers produced), they thought they were doing a good thing. In the process, they supported the abolitionist movement from their high-ranking perches in New York City, and proclaimed the enemy to be something “different” in the plantation owners paying nothing to their workers. After all, the northern ones brought in white indentured servants to do their work in the early 19th Century and then released them to their freedom after seven years, so as to go out and find below-living wage salaries in sweatshops in urban areas or go into the frontier to build a future there.
Fat cats are actually what the Dixie plantation owners were. The ones who wanted to maintain the status quo of enslavement of Africans. After all, the plantations were just like the aristocratic agrarian system of the Medieval era, except, with a new frontier in America, there were no people around to do the labour, so the Arabs and Dutch sold them people like cattle. The penal colony of Georgia put criminals in charge of the colony and this, too, helped to put the viciousness into the practices. Criminals, like Trump, are often vicious people.
The stupidity of the Aetna commercial with the song, “I want to make lots of money,” teaches Americans this stupid attitude about a love of money and this is disgusting for a society, community, and civilization to live outside savagery and barbarism in a civil manner with coexistence rather than lawyer-inspired pot shots at one another.
What does all of this have to do with American healthcare? This pretty much describes the false attitudes of the wealthy fat cat pigs in promoting, using a wealthy Australian immigrant (Australia, now there was ANOTHER penal colony of Britain) to blast America with propaganda which supports the wealthy fat cats, not the common folks of America. Thus, we continue to be inundated with s**t news about how universal healthcare does not work, ignoring the evidence that, HEY… it DOES work. These pigs never allow word to get around that we need to examine healthcare under the microscope of capitalism and stop the bulls**t about socialism which puts fear in the hearts of so many Americans who remain ignorant and refuse to humble themselves, open their minds and LEARN from others.
Let us examine this “private healthcare” which stupid lainbrained Trump spoke about during the 2020 election. There was a day in the America in which I was born and raised, in which healthcare consisted of doctors making house calls. The healthcare in this system was one of reactionary, not proactive so as to be prepared for bad health. We never called upon a doctor unless we were sick. Otherwise, there were no attempts to be proactive and prescribe medicines to fight to protect us.
In my life, I recall having a country doctor who, due to being in a wheelchair (perhaps due to the same illness which inflicted FDR, polio), did not make house calls. This doctor would prescribe penicillin if, as a kid, I had an infection. There was no pharmacy in town, so this doctor dispensed the meds from his office, putting the tablets in an envelope.
As this doctor and other local country doctors died, the world around us was changing. The doctor’s son went into the specialty of optometry. His father had been an overall doctor which included optometry. I got my first pair of eyeglasses from the father when I was in the second grade. I continued to see his son, the optometrist, in the years following the death of his father.
In a manner of speaking, the son was following the path the world was taking at that time. He specialized in healthcare. The world was changing in the sense that doctors were also finding more money available, a love of money, by specializing rather than being a primary care physician. This meant the little rural town where I was raised no longer had a doctor available, as the three doctors in the town all died off. The community formed a committee to find a doctor and faced the difficult task of confronting a changing American healthcare system where all the doctors were specialists, not primary care physicians or “general practitioners.” It was a difficult task, but the committee did find a doctor.
Then, Nixon and Haldeman developed this big centralized health insurance underwriter. Wow! How wonderful. Centralized privatized healthcare on the mode of centralized communist healthcare in the Soviet Union! How wonderful for America, as it was dealing with a huge number of specialists and no general practitioners.
Into the healthcare picture came proactive medicine and HMOs, PPOs, and the like, so as to bolster the centralized private health insurance.
But wait! Did this centralized system provide health insurance for those without jobs? NAH! Did it provide decent cost health insurance for those who were self-employed in small business? NOPE! It did not. For years, Americans had called for universal healthcare, but it always got shot down in favor of the wealthy fat cats who use lies and propaganda to represent such a system as being bad and evil because it is “socialism.” Yet, here was Nixon establishing a centralized healthcare insurance system which really resembles, in many ways, what communist systems have. What Nixon, who was NOT a white racist (and evidence can prove otherwise in the fights Jesse Helms, white racist of North Carolina, gave Nixon), but the centralized “private” healthcare helps to promote white supremacy because large numbers of colored people are the ones left out of the job markets and don’t have health insurance. No wonder a black man came up with a plan for capitalist competition in an insurance “marketplace.”
George W. Bush Republicans worked to destroy Medicare with privatization efforts which impact the non-wealthy senior citizens like me an millions of others. George W. Bush Republicans blocked my above and beyond standards of publishing an academic paper, in denying me the ability to attend a conference in Europe in order to present my academic paper which got published in the International Journal of Learning. Must be jealousy on the part of George and Jebbie, right? LOL!!! No. It was their freaking paranoia about socialism. Damn perverted freaks. Perhaps they need to be in freak shows like those of the past which featured those of us who are of one sex and lack the ability to grow a full beard or of another sex where they are considered freaks and called “the bearded woman.” Shall I go on about how my community was considered freaks at one time and put on display at circuses, like Christians in a Roman gladiator arena.
Back to capitalism and universal healthcare. If one wants to look at this issue as “the right of all individuals to have healthcare,” I believe this takes the issue too far afloat from what is really needed in the discussion. Yes, at this point, the “right to have healthcare for all” and we can look at this as an issue of socialism. No problem with looking at it in this manner. But I am a supporter of true capitalism in the model of TR and his regulated capitalism. In this regard, I re-frame the issue, as Dr. Howard would say. Again. I have no idea whether Dr. Dean approves of what I say here, except I AM quoting him about the idea of “ref-framing an issue.” I want to make this extremely clear to my readers.
True capitalism is about having small businesses, not a concentration in centralize supply-side economics by the wicked fat cats with the vengeance of a Ray Kroc and the love of money. What we have in this healthcare system is now one which is totally different from the doctor I experienced as a kid. He DID NOT have a love of money, as did so many others in private healthcare of that day as they made house calls. It was NOT a private system for the benefit of wealthy fat cats. It was a private system affordable for all, even if there was not as much of a proactive effort. From a capitalist view, it’s not so much a “right” to have healthcare for all, but a matter of looking at healthcare in the confines of supply and demand. The biggest problems of capitalist economics, in this regard, are regarding infinite demand: food, housing, healthcare. Even consideration of owning an automobile is not an infinite demand side because we do have a choice and can utilize the choices. I understand. Might be possible, but let me examine this issue further.
The fat cat pigs who refuse to adequately fund and manage public transit are part of the lain-brained idiocracy which figures cars are less expensive for society. To which I say, bulls**t on you if you think this way, Mr Palm Beach fat pig Dinnerstein who proposed, in Florida, defunding public bus systems and give each person enough money to purchase a car, without considering the added expenses, which the bastard Republican does not want to do, of maintaining road infrastructure and the yearly costs of inspection, registration of vehicles, renewing auto licenses, and AUTO INSURANCE which is so damn high in Florida that it is ridiculous. Pig Dinnerstein never thought about these other things, as he suggested defunding public transportation and giving enough money to each individual to purchase an automobile. I have no respect for such a fat pig.
In a regulated capitalist environment, we need to recognize and differentiate between supply and demand. The fat cat pig Dinnerstein made a proposal which would help an industry (auto) to sell more cars. Who the hell is he to favor one industry in a capitalist market? Maybe we need to favor industries which build more new train engines and trains or buses, PLUS fast trains and monorails and find out these things can meet the DEMAND side of the market at a lower price? Create competition and you lower the prices. But we don’t wish to spend less for automobiles or the big oil coming from fat cat monarchs in Saudi Arabia whose family is responsible (with Dixie allies) for the destruction of the World Trade Center, do we? I would advocate that, by approaching transportation from a wider regulated capitalist perspective, we could, as a SOCIETY, save money. OMG! There I am, using the word “society” and then I become associated with “socialism,” right? Socialism and regulated capitalism can go hand in hand, if considered that way in a DEMOCRACY in which THE PEOPLE SPEAK. Alas, with Citizens United, we don’t have such a democracy, do we, as we watch democratic government sabotaged and destroyed by lawyers and business people with a love of money to benefit only THEMSELVES.
Food is an infinite demand in a supply and demand market. Walmart television sales should NOT be based on infinite demand, but lovers of money with their freaking lousy commercials make it out to be, “you need this,” not “want” this. Open credit cards help these commercials in imparting these false notions about materialism.
In effect, we do handle the commodity of food quite well in our capitalist economic system. Lately, I am told that more people are trying to grow their own food. Marvelous! In big city areas such as the Bronx, we learn about “community gardens” and teaching people to grow their own foods. “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Kudos to these efforts at capitalist competition and choices.
One thing, though, which was pointed out in a documentary about the community garden approach is consideration that food in supermarkets and food stores is far too expensive for many people to purchase. The community garden concept helps these people avoid reliance on the vengeful fast food magnate’s visions, the late Ray Kroc (and others). Supersize Me was a movie which addressed this issue.
Beyond that movie, though, are the documentaries about diabetics in America (i.e., Blood Sugar Rising). The information demonstrates how fast food used among poor people has given us a rise in the number of people with type II diabetes. It also identifies the “cheap” ways of making processed foods by the food industry is also responsible for the rise in diabetes. Add to this the big factory corn farms of Iowa, a friend to Trumpicans, is responsible for pushing down America’s throats, without people realizing it, something called high fructose corn syrup which is designed to sell more corn (love of money) because it is created to cause a craving for sugars.
The net result of all of this is that the new meds for type II diabetes, advertised like hell (Ozempic, Rybelsus, etc.), cost too much for the unemployed and senior citizens stuck with privatized Medicare created by Republicans. NEVER does the documentary tell its audience who caused this to happen, but boy will the Trumpicans be vengeful in falsely blaming Democrats for everything and then pointing to socialism as the false reason for being paranoid about healthcare for all. Screw those Republican fat cats who use this method. Only the wealthy and only those employed are able to afford these drugs, that is, if the employer provides a health insurance benefit. If not, then consumer and employee be damned, as a diabetic might get their legs chopped off, like a Saudi Arabian pig of a monarch would do to its own citizens in cutting off their heads.
The demand for healthcare is CREATED by big business fat cats, but these lousy screwballs of idiocracy don’t want us to have healthcare for all. Trump calls this “private healthcare,” but he has no idea about what he is talking about, just tows the line of the wealthy fat cat white supremacist bastards. I repeat. These bastards CREATE the demand side of the market, but wishes to do nothing to stem its own creations.
This is just like creating jobs for prison guards by privatizing the system so that, in order to make a profit, these bastards push to DELIBERATELY fill jail cells. The ones hit the hardest are black folks, so as, in Florida, to remove these folks from voting rolls for life, due to MINOR offenses.
Another similar example is the “flipping of houses” for the sake of a few people who can then CREATE high priced housing and cause homelessness because so many on the demand side of the market cannot afford such high prices.
These examples are of capitalist considerations for NEEDS, not wants, of the people. At least Walmart and other retail outlets might create a false NEED, but people with some brains and wisdom know enough and are able to differentiate NEED from WANT and stop the bulls**t of over-using credit cards, made easy by the fat cat changes in a regulatory banking industry which was sabotaged by Neil Bush, in the name of destroying FDR who created the regulations. Destruction of a federal savings and loan system, created by FDR’s administration, is a perverted idea which needs to be upended.
Along with business people and accountants, lawyers are also criminals in maintaining private healthcare. Why? The largest group of people in Congress are lawyers, especially with a false justice system which created the Citizens United Decision (OH MY! Justices are lawyers, too!). When there was a glut of lawyers and not enough jobs for lawyers, what did the ABA sh**theads do? THEY CREATED JOBS with ambulance-chasing methods so as to make tons of money from personal injury in auto accidents. They are probably after me for saying this, too, as these jackasses work to protect their jobs and the LOADS of money they make so as to purchase commercials to encourage Americans to pit one against the other. Why would such lawyers NOT want universal healthcare? Because universal healthcare would eliminate the need for personal injury lawsuits and the despicable absurd costs of Workman’s Comp. When there was a LAWYER who was governor and I was once living in New York, no one worked to protect educator jobs, did they? Instead, they put a freeze on academic hiring and FORCED me to depart from the land I love, in order to find a job and sustain my life. I was FORCED to move to a state with a higher cost of housing and a lower salary where, in order to financially support my family, I was FORCED to sell my musical instrument which I had learned to perform on in a quality way. No one created jobs for me to have a job which I had always wanted to achieve since in elementary school. So what did I do? Find ways of chasing down students and creating a job? No. I found employment elsewhere until I could find a job, in spite of the fact there was a glut of teachers on the market at that time. Lawyers use the methods of Machiavelli and “the end is achieved by any means,” no matter how unethical or immoral it is. That might work for prostitutes, but it does not have to be applied to lawyers. But then, maybe lawyers have the mind of prostitutes? What a shameful thing.
Universal healthcare can be established, similar to the thoughts of Barack Obama and the ACA, to actually utilize CREATION of small health insurance companies because competition drives down the prices. Big insurance does not like this idea because then the fat cats at the top would lose some of the hordes of money from bonuses and so forth and actually have to give a damn about the consumer on the demand side. Without this, these bastard fat cats could invoke high costs with “pre-existing conditions,” for the purpose of driving up their lousy salaries higher than 100% more from their predecessors of the 1970s. That’s all they care about. They use capitalism as an excuse for why they do it, but they don’t understand TRUE capitalism. They understand it as Karl Marx falsely interpreted it in the 19th Century and they love doing it this way because it is “Machiavelli” style.
The media, even a program on the network Trump hates called MSNBC, speaks with those who promote universal healthcare and treat it from the perspective of the fat cats of industry, rather than doing as a media did in the 19th Century in putting down the fat cats and getting to the truth of the matter. “How is this going to be paid for?” That is the question a stupid media person asks of an Elizabeth Warren. To such a media person I say: “it’s the economics of TRUE regulated capitalism, stupid.”
Here are ways to pay for this (plus many more):
By getting rid of the extremely high costs of lawyers and their love of money with personal injury lawsuits and Workman’s Comp, you stupid media person.
By getting rid of the high costs of insurance, stupid media person.
By utilizing the investments made by senior citizens, over many years of LONG TERM investments, to help pay for LOWER COSTS resulting from the cost cutting measures.
By getting rid of the commercials of big pharma (and money loving lawyers).
By invoking measures to increase R&D for big pharma (and other industries).
By utilizing created bonds (victory bonds, anyone?) which are the only way the American Diabetes Association (and other groups) can use for contributions that must be utilized effectively.
By ridding the notion that Medicare and Social Security can be freely used for ANYTHING in the budget and such funds should ONLY be tailored ONLY for use in areas where it is designed to be used.
There are many more reasons, but one has to look at this in a problem-solving perspective, not the paranoid perspective of wealthy white fat cats with their false hatred of socialism.
Tioga Herald 
Three-Penny Op-ed: Socialism, Ambiguity, and Short-sighted Two-sided Contrasts
Everything is presented as black and white. We, the citizens of the USA, rarely get presented with more detail about a subject. If we did, though, too many of these younger generations reject learning and removing the blinders to soak up the details. Thus, the media folks and others can make statements based only on THEIR interpretation and never taking into account considerations for black, white, gray, or other tones or colors of the rainbow. After all, the rainbow naturally occurs when rain and sunlight simultaneously appear before our eyes.
I like Joe Scarborough and have learned a great deal from him, since I first read his article in a business magazine, published in 2005. Even Joe Scarborough, though mentions “free enterprise” and a black and white contrast between that and socialism. I would like to suggest that is not the case.
A Cuban whose family was forced to flee Cuba when Fidel Castro’s troops confiscated her family’s property helped me learn these differences. There is socialist autocracy as dictated by Fidel Castro and there is supply-side economic centrally planned autocracy as dictated by Battista, masquerading as capitalism and “free enterprise.” When this Cuban person visited a socialist democracy where the people are the happiest on earth, Denmark, she commented about how their mobile phone system far surpassed that in America. No wonder the people of Denmark, time after time, have been rated the “happiest on earth.”
The people of Denmark have socialist-capitalist democracy, not autocracy. They also have free enterprise, too. Yet, the American herd mentality, generated by the media in the USA, just use the word, “socialism” to describe Denmark and other Scandinavian nations. Mr. Scarborough, there does not need to be a differentiation between socialism and “free enterprise” capitalism.
In 2005, Mr. Scarborough wrote about the need for regulation. This COULD mean regulating the capitalist markets with an infinite demand or supply. Few supply side industries are infinite. One would think oil is infinite when listening to those who control the status quo in oil, from Texas to the Koch brothers to Saudi Arabia (whose royal family was responsible for 9/11 and for cutting off the heads of their citizens who disobey the autocratic monarchs), and many others. The net result is that we pretend oil is an infinite supply, when it’s not. Big oil works to block the R&D efforts and businesses which can provide more capitalist competition and help do what capitalism is designed to do: competition can help keep prices lower. Supply-side idiots controlling and regulating the markets. In criticism, I say that Mr. Scarborough appears to follow the American supply-side fat cat herd mentality when putting forth the “norm” of there being a black and white contrast between socialism and free enterprise. I just mentioned something which pretends to be free enterprise and it is not, so it regulates its own market and works to destroy a third-party regulator, the government. There was an American family with two presidents who side with Saudi Arabia and the oil monopolies, with one saying, “what is good for business is good for America.” Wrong. Balance is good for America.
The Scandinavian nations prove that socialism can coexist with capitalism and democracy. The Scandinavian nations are more racially homogeneous than the USA, so they don’t have to consider only two sides of the equation with “black and white.” America has to go beyond just two sides of the equation because it is not racially homogeneous. The reason why Americans are against socialism are the same reasons and the common thread which runs through so many issues in America: systemic racism. And I am not being ambiguous here because I refuse to accept those, whether black or gay (Lindsay Graham) who are “Uncle Toms” and do just what the “massa says.” This is the reason why so many white people wish to “make America great again” by going back to the days when white supremacy reigned in America. To these jackass idiots, this makes America great, not human equality as it appears in socialist notions, Social Security, Medicare, ACA, freedom to carry guns (for white folks to use the guns against African-Americans, Latino/a, indigenous folks, as in the past). This is the background of the NRA and the false ideas about the 2nd Amendment. False because it was how the 2nd Amendment was applied for many years when the “nation was great” (according to the MAGA group of the idiocracy).
This would mean that socialism is too much of an “equalizing” force.” Therefore, it is rejected by preaching ambiguous notions about what socialism is. It also means that only white people should be allowed to carry guns and kill by “standing the white-skinned people’s ground” as developed by the NRA (and Jeb Bush of Florida). America needs to BECOME great by getting over these ambiguities and simple “black and white notions.”
This is all said with all due respect to Joe Scarborough. I also say, with due respect, that Bernie Sanders and “socialism” is not, in many respects, the socialism of Scandinavian socialist-capitalist democracies. For instance. According to information I have read, out of Sweden and other Scandinavian nations, there are no government-instituted minimum wages. Why not? My impression is that we are describing a situation in which these nations recognize the role of balance in capitalism. Just as supply and demand in industries helps create a competitive environment in order to provide better prices and for being able to obtain products and services with more “bang for the buck” (value at a better cost), a lack of minimum wage will help maintain this. But. What are these nations doing to train its people so that industries in the future can better serve the demand side of the markets? Are they using privatized education and hospitals in order to accomplish the goals to solve problems? I really doubt it. It is another style of regulating what is done, but doing the regulation responsibly.
Are these nations perfect and more perfect than America? Not likely. There is no perfection. But they might be more reasonable and rational. One could say, “well they don’t have very many black people there.” OK. That might be true, when contrasting with America. But what is that worth? You mean to say, Americans are not able to learn to coexist in a nation where we do have multi-colored people? Bull. I don’t believe it.
I invoke, once again (and again and again and again and again) Frank Sinatra: “we can have fun in fixing an imperfect nation.” Frank Sinatra had a black friend in his “rat pack” who experienced systemic racism in this nation. From white Army troops in World War II pissing on Sammy Davis, Jr., to being denied the same entrances to the same hotels where he and Sinatra were performing, there was a problem in America and that problem was NOT what made America great. No wonder Sinatra described America as “imperfect.” Sinatra was not willing to give up solving the problems of the land he called, “home.”
If people feel they don’t want to be contentious with others, so they just shut their mouths, out of fear of retribution and willingly accept lawyers who pit Americans against Americans with personal injury lawsuits and workman’s comp (rather than equalized healthcare for all), what a shameful, shameful, shameful bunch of Americans. I feel sorry for such people in their scummy ideas against anger and contentiousness when people say, “I am mad as hell and I ain’t going to take it anymore.” Anger and contentiousness against inequality in America, in any form, means we stand up for what is the correct thing for America to do to combat systemic racism (and homophobia, too).
Also to be mentioned is the idea of unions. When either side of unions is irrational and unreasonable, they destroy the balance which should be achieved. The ones with the whips had enough control to knock down the unions which went too far in America. They developed NAFTA and shipped jobs overseas. The irrationality of such bastards on the management side felt forced into a corner by irrational unions. Perhaps that is the case. In the process, these management bastards have increased their salaries and bonuses exponentially, as they still continue to work to destroy unions, in a vengeful attitude which then puts the union people in a corner. These working people think a Trump will solve their problems. Think again, you idiots. His cronies are the ones who wish to continue to replace workers with robots, you idiots, so go vote for idiot Trump and his followers, but be careful what you wish for because you might get something you don’t like or enjoy. As a member of a union, I can say that we faced this irrational attitude with an administration which refused to acknowledge our rationality while attempting to work out compromises at the negotiating table. I suppose I can say I understand why such Republicans acted in the manner they did, due to the lack of balance in unions and their delight at destruction of good things.
One more thing. Regulated capitalism might have elements of socialism, as what I have described here, but only when there needs to be regulation on both sides of the supply and demand considerations (on both sides of union-management negotiating table) and the goal is balance. Lacking this kind of balance and pushing the one-sided aspect of “free enterprise” and we end up getting rid of the “referee” in government (third party). This can be likened to letting Roman gladiators go in an arena and killing people like Christians. Supply-side economics with centrally planned economics from top-down of monopoly-style big corporations is not capitalism because, like the gladiators in an arena, it destroys and “kills” the opposition.
This can also be likened to a what-if scenario. What if an NFL team played a high school football team? What if there were no referees and all the rules were established by the NFL team, including the possibility of destroying human beings in the process? What if such a situation existed? If you would love to see this, then go to h-e-double hockey sticks because you are a savage barbarian trying to invoke your will upon a civilized nation.
My Cuban colleague I mentioned who came from Cuba at an early age in her life, also served on a Civility Committee which recognized coexistence and attempted to teach our students such concepts. Not barbarism. Civility. Coexistence. In America, the imperfect nation that it is, but being able to have fun in fixing it.
I would have fun in creating a democracy NOT based on a two-party system, as well, but based on something similar to the parliamentary system in Britain which went against King George and removed some of the taxes he imposed on the colonists. Bet Americans don’t know about this little aspect. But a parliamentary system night have two parties in control, but there are other parties to which the party which is in control has to make alliances with the parties with smaller numbers in order to name a prime minister. That prime minister has to maintain that coalition and partisanship is shot in the foot in the process. I do not believe the upper house of the parliament has any stupid freaking filibuster rules, either, which decimates the ability for compromise. Go to h-e-double-hockey sticks, Mancin.
With all due respect to those who continue to invoke a two-sided contrast in any form, it’s the resulting ambiguity and lack of compromise in actions (not values), stupid.
Category:
Commentary, Economics, Regulated Capitalism, Commerce, New Comments, Op-ed
Tagged with: