Canada and the United States share many cultural values and practices but perhaps no one element of those cultures has influenced the whole like the car. The ability to easily travel long distances quickly comfortably and economically has lead to a mobility of people, goods and ideas as never before in history. This has allowed such great nations to expand rapidly and create great wealth as well, but at what cost?
For as much as europeans and many asians also love their cars, no where has the car culture dominated like it has in North America. For many in Europe and most other places in the world, a private vehicle is little more than a dream due to the high costs of the vehicles themselves and the costs to operate and maintain them.
If the majority of the world's population cannot afford to pay the cost of a car I have to ask, what has been the true cost of the automobile for those of us who are able to afford one or more? What has been the cost of our auto obsession to American society?
Most places in the world travel is by animal or some form of mass transit. Passenger bus and rail services dominate in most countries but for North America. As a result, most Americans, with the small exception of air travelers, travel alone to their destinations increasing their isolation from one another. In most of the world the majority of people either still live where they were born and raised. Neighbours know each other and have done so for generations. The mobility afforded to Americans by the automobile has dispersed families and neighbours so much in the last century that I don't think many people have the sense of community that their parents and grandparents had.
What would our country look like and what would we look like if we too had to rely on affordable mass transit because we could no longer afford to have private vehicles. Would we have a stronger sense of community? Would we be less independent as individuals and more interdependent on each other to survive? I don't know but it is a question worth asking. Again, what has been the true cost of having an automobile culture?
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Free Market Myth
Much ado is made among conservative circles about the free market being the panacea for all our ills. The concept of an unlimited or at least a very little regulated free market has been an historical disaster for all but the very wealthy. Free markets have been with us since the beginning of human history and until markets were regulated we never had a middle class. There was extreme wealth or extreme poverty. The wealthy had the best of everything including healthcare while the poor barely had enough to eat.
Under conservative free market philosophy, the market will self correct for any anomalies such as market bubbles and recessions. The great depression and this last "great recession" are examples of the failure of that philosophy. A truly unrestrained free market may sound great but its weakness are found in human nature itself. The excesses of the few who in their greed take unfair advantage of others will destroy the whole for all. The market as an "organism" lacks one crucial quality to ultimately be truly "free". The free market and its corporate constituents lack any kind of conscience, social or moral.
Only a government which is truly for and of the people can exercise the conscience of the people and that government must impose the conscience of the people upon that free market in order to prevent chaos in the society in which that market operates.
Healthcare is a second area in which the social conscience of the people must be in ultimate control. Like the greater free market, individual corporations such as insurance companies have no inherent conscience. As such, practices such as denying coverage when some one gets sick and pre-existing condition denials have become rampant. Only the moral and social conscience of people through their government can restrain these corporate practices and abuses. Some in the extreme may call this socialism but so be it.
Americans claim to live is a society of laws but only when it is convenient for them. Only when it is to their advantage and doesn't interfere with their individually perceived sense of right and wrong and not the moral values of the nation as a whole are those laws respected. Neither an individual nor a corporation has the right to pick and choose which laws to obey. To allow otherwise would again lead to total chaos and the breakdown of the very society those laws are intended to protect.
The term "free market" should be replaced with "fair market" and all that a fair philosophy implies. Only when the moral and social conscience of the people is allowed to guide the market can it be truly free and fair. Only then can true prosperity for all the members of a society be realized.
Under conservative free market philosophy, the market will self correct for any anomalies such as market bubbles and recessions. The great depression and this last "great recession" are examples of the failure of that philosophy. A truly unrestrained free market may sound great but its weakness are found in human nature itself. The excesses of the few who in their greed take unfair advantage of others will destroy the whole for all. The market as an "organism" lacks one crucial quality to ultimately be truly "free". The free market and its corporate constituents lack any kind of conscience, social or moral.
Only a government which is truly for and of the people can exercise the conscience of the people and that government must impose the conscience of the people upon that free market in order to prevent chaos in the society in which that market operates.
Healthcare is a second area in which the social conscience of the people must be in ultimate control. Like the greater free market, individual corporations such as insurance companies have no inherent conscience. As such, practices such as denying coverage when some one gets sick and pre-existing condition denials have become rampant. Only the moral and social conscience of people through their government can restrain these corporate practices and abuses. Some in the extreme may call this socialism but so be it.
Americans claim to live is a society of laws but only when it is convenient for them. Only when it is to their advantage and doesn't interfere with their individually perceived sense of right and wrong and not the moral values of the nation as a whole are those laws respected. Neither an individual nor a corporation has the right to pick and choose which laws to obey. To allow otherwise would again lead to total chaos and the breakdown of the very society those laws are intended to protect.
The term "free market" should be replaced with "fair market" and all that a fair philosophy implies. Only when the moral and social conscience of the people is allowed to guide the market can it be truly free and fair. Only then can true prosperity for all the members of a society be realized.
To Tax or not to Tax?
Recent days have seen much debate about taxation and tax rates specifically. Should the wealthy pay more as they have the means to do so? I think they should pay according to their means but that is a side issue distracting the people from more important questions they should be asking. Americans never seem to ask one important question that could give them a better perspective on their own situation.
The question not asked is how do we compare to the rest of the world? Wikipedia has a good article comparing world taxation rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
According to the charts in the article, Americans have some of the lowest personal tax rates in the industrialized world. We should be grateful for this instead of complaining about how high our taxes are. Like wise for our energy costs! Granted, our corporate taxes are on the higher end of the scale but isn't that the cost for having such low personal tax rates?
If we really want lower taxes we need to examine where our tax money is really spent and ask some hard questions about our priorities and ambitions. Do we really need dozens of military bases in foreign countries around the world? No other country has this. How can we ask other countries to become self sufficient if we don't allow them to stand on their own? NATO obligations for the mutual defense of its neighbours I understand. Korea, Japan, and the Philippines etc. are not members of NATO. Bases on Pacific or Indian Ocean island that are US territories I also can understand, but they are not foreign soil. How many billions do we spend on bases and personnel stationed in foreign countries where we have no combat roles or responsibilities? Could not these billions be better spent improving the lives and conditions of the American people?
Why is it that the countries with higher personal tax rates seem to be to a large extent, stronger and more stable economically. For one example, Canada. Taxes are higher, no one goes bankrupt and loses their home due to medical expenses. Fuel taxes and therefore prices are higher but the infrastructure in better condition. Banks are more highly regulated but they still make billions in profit, none have ever failed, foreclosures have not risen significantly and property prices never tanked. Mortgages can not be bought and sold on a whim or securitized and put an entire financial system at risk.
Sensible tax rates and regulations may inconvenience big businesses and wealthy individuals but they also can provide a structure and stability to a society that seems to be in chaos due to excessive tax cutting and deregulation. American roads, bridges and other infrastructure components are falling apart. Millions are without affordable healthcare. Healthcare costs are out of control. Government deficits have no end in sight and there is no real plan to resolve any of these situations.
We already have some of the lowest personal tax rates and energy costs in the industrialized world but at what cost? We want the world but we don't seem to be willing to pay for it. Taxes will eventually have to go up or we will have to learn to scale back our lifestyles and ambitions. We need to really prioritize and be grateful for what we have rather than complaining about what we don't have.
The question not asked is how do we compare to the rest of the world? Wikipedia has a good article comparing world taxation rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
According to the charts in the article, Americans have some of the lowest personal tax rates in the industrialized world. We should be grateful for this instead of complaining about how high our taxes are. Like wise for our energy costs! Granted, our corporate taxes are on the higher end of the scale but isn't that the cost for having such low personal tax rates?
If we really want lower taxes we need to examine where our tax money is really spent and ask some hard questions about our priorities and ambitions. Do we really need dozens of military bases in foreign countries around the world? No other country has this. How can we ask other countries to become self sufficient if we don't allow them to stand on their own? NATO obligations for the mutual defense of its neighbours I understand. Korea, Japan, and the Philippines etc. are not members of NATO. Bases on Pacific or Indian Ocean island that are US territories I also can understand, but they are not foreign soil. How many billions do we spend on bases and personnel stationed in foreign countries where we have no combat roles or responsibilities? Could not these billions be better spent improving the lives and conditions of the American people?
Why is it that the countries with higher personal tax rates seem to be to a large extent, stronger and more stable economically. For one example, Canada. Taxes are higher, no one goes bankrupt and loses their home due to medical expenses. Fuel taxes and therefore prices are higher but the infrastructure in better condition. Banks are more highly regulated but they still make billions in profit, none have ever failed, foreclosures have not risen significantly and property prices never tanked. Mortgages can not be bought and sold on a whim or securitized and put an entire financial system at risk.
Sensible tax rates and regulations may inconvenience big businesses and wealthy individuals but they also can provide a structure and stability to a society that seems to be in chaos due to excessive tax cutting and deregulation. American roads, bridges and other infrastructure components are falling apart. Millions are without affordable healthcare. Healthcare costs are out of control. Government deficits have no end in sight and there is no real plan to resolve any of these situations.
We already have some of the lowest personal tax rates and energy costs in the industrialized world but at what cost? We want the world but we don't seem to be willing to pay for it. Taxes will eventually have to go up or we will have to learn to scale back our lifestyles and ambitions. We need to really prioritize and be grateful for what we have rather than complaining about what we don't have.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Infrastructure Disaster
The past week has been one to remember for disasters due to the crumbling state of the infrastructure of this country. The natural gas explosion and fire in San Bruno, CA and the wind and fires in Detroit are the two most recent major examples.
The San Bruno fires have been attributed to a 50 year old natural gas main, the Detroit fires to high winds and falling electrical lines. As an electrician working in the Detroit area, I am well acquainted with the poor condition of Detroit's electrical grid. That the neighborhood electrical lines would break during high winds is no great shock. The pole to pole lines beside my house are in terrible condition. The insulation on the wires is frayed or missing and the lines have numerous splices from previous breaks. Why broken lines are repaired time after time instead of being replaced I don't completely understand. The short term economics are one thing but how many splices can one line have and still maintain structural integrity? Any one who has driven on Michigan roads can ask a similar question. How many times can you patch a patch?
Any good engineer knows that new material is stronger than repaired. New wires can withstand wind storms much more easily than those with multiple splices. What we need from our utilities and governments is a commitment to replace an upgrade our roads, gas and electrical and water lines at a vastly accelerated rate. Infrastructure spending must increase at a substantial rate or our infrastructure will likely collapse around us before it can be replaced with better, more modern and longer lasting materials.
I am aware of the great costs of these endeavors but I for one am willing to pay a bit more to have a secure utility and transportation infrastructure. Are you?
The San Bruno fires have been attributed to a 50 year old natural gas main, the Detroit fires to high winds and falling electrical lines. As an electrician working in the Detroit area, I am well acquainted with the poor condition of Detroit's electrical grid. That the neighborhood electrical lines would break during high winds is no great shock. The pole to pole lines beside my house are in terrible condition. The insulation on the wires is frayed or missing and the lines have numerous splices from previous breaks. Why broken lines are repaired time after time instead of being replaced I don't completely understand. The short term economics are one thing but how many splices can one line have and still maintain structural integrity? Any one who has driven on Michigan roads can ask a similar question. How many times can you patch a patch?
Any good engineer knows that new material is stronger than repaired. New wires can withstand wind storms much more easily than those with multiple splices. What we need from our utilities and governments is a commitment to replace an upgrade our roads, gas and electrical and water lines at a vastly accelerated rate. Infrastructure spending must increase at a substantial rate or our infrastructure will likely collapse around us before it can be replaced with better, more modern and longer lasting materials.
I am aware of the great costs of these endeavors but I for one am willing to pay a bit more to have a secure utility and transportation infrastructure. Are you?
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
An Inconvenient Constitution?
I hear increasing chatter from the extreme right about repealing the 14th amendment. If I read American history correctly, amendments to the constitution have always been used to expand and define individual rights. It concerns me that these same people who supposedly stand for the values of the constitution are the first ones to seek to change that same constitution to restrict individual rights when those rights inconveniently conflict with their philosophical/political bent.
You can't have it both ways. You can't preach a message of freedom to the world and, at the same time, restrict those same freedoms at home. Most countries of the world look to the USA for the best examples of freedom and individual rights. These people and politicians of the far right have accused those on the left of being Fascist. Read your history. Fascists restrict individual rights and are from the conservative right.
To get up and preach freedom to the world while restricting it at home is the ultimate example of hypocrisy. This country once welcomed the poor and destitute but no more! These radicals from the right are nothing but hypocrites who fly in the face of the principles this country was founded on.
You can't have it both ways. You can't preach a message of freedom to the world and, at the same time, restrict those same freedoms at home. Most countries of the world look to the USA for the best examples of freedom and individual rights. These people and politicians of the far right have accused those on the left of being Fascist. Read your history. Fascists restrict individual rights and are from the conservative right.
To get up and preach freedom to the world while restricting it at home is the ultimate example of hypocrisy. This country once welcomed the poor and destitute but no more! These radicals from the right are nothing but hypocrites who fly in the face of the principles this country was founded on.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Justice for the Children
As an immigrant I am especially interested in the ongoing immigration debate. I still feel that the single biggest problem is the backlog in the system due to a lack of congressional funding but another issue came to my attention last week.
A young man in Arizona who has been in the country since seven years of age voluntarily went back to Mexico to try and immigrate legally. He was brought here, as a child, by his mother. He was educated in Arizona and graduated last year with an engineering degree from Arizona State. His wife and child remain in the US legally and he is being denied permission to immigrate. His hardship petition was denied. What does USCIS define as hardship? Is it not a hardship on his family to be separated from their husband and father?
Apart from the hardship argument another question must be asked in cases such as this. Should a child who is brought here illegally by their parents be held responsible for their unlawful presence? Since when are children held responsible for the crimes or sins of their parents? If the child is raised and educated in the US from an early age and becomes an adult who contributes to society and has committed no crimes, why should he or she be forced to return to a country they do not know. They had no choice in coming here and should not be treated as if they did.
Children of illegals who are raised here should be allowed to stay and not be held to the same standards as their parents. This is one issue that must be addressed in any proposed immigration reform.
A young man in Arizona who has been in the country since seven years of age voluntarily went back to Mexico to try and immigrate legally. He was brought here, as a child, by his mother. He was educated in Arizona and graduated last year with an engineering degree from Arizona State. His wife and child remain in the US legally and he is being denied permission to immigrate. His hardship petition was denied. What does USCIS define as hardship? Is it not a hardship on his family to be separated from their husband and father?
Apart from the hardship argument another question must be asked in cases such as this. Should a child who is brought here illegally by their parents be held responsible for their unlawful presence? Since when are children held responsible for the crimes or sins of their parents? If the child is raised and educated in the US from an early age and becomes an adult who contributes to society and has committed no crimes, why should he or she be forced to return to a country they do not know. They had no choice in coming here and should not be treated as if they did.
Children of illegals who are raised here should be allowed to stay and not be held to the same standards as their parents. This is one issue that must be addressed in any proposed immigration reform.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Curious Parallels?
Have you ever noticed how divisive American politics has become? The "Conservative" right accuses the left of being socialist! Most of them don't even really know what the word even means. Is it a coincidence that the extreme right are the big 'C' conservatives and the extreme radical Muslims are also the big 'C' conservatives within their own world? Neither one is accepting of any moderation of their extreme viewpoints, yet both are willing to fight each other at the drop of a hat.
What has happened to the common sense of the American people? Why is a narrow and extreme political philosophy so attractive to so many? People, please use the minds God gave you and think. Educate yourselves and stop believing everything the political extremes are selling. Do your own research and learn. Remember, foot notes and documentation authors use can be used to back up any point of view they wish to present. Using information from only those who you agree with will never present a balanced view, presenting all sides of an argument, allowing the reader to truly make up his or her own mind.
What has happened to the common sense of the American people? Why is a narrow and extreme political philosophy so attractive to so many? People, please use the minds God gave you and think. Educate yourselves and stop believing everything the political extremes are selling. Do your own research and learn. Remember, foot notes and documentation authors use can be used to back up any point of view they wish to present. Using information from only those who you agree with will never present a balanced view, presenting all sides of an argument, allowing the reader to truly make up his or her own mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
